CRTC - Soon to be obsolete

[White Doors]

Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.

Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.

This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place.

Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them.

Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba.

----

And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts?

??? Are you saying that replying somehow damages the threads? I suppose not replying will make for a great discussion. You can always put me on your "ignore" list.

In fact, the govenment created legislated monopolies, so you are darn wrong. Creating monopolies and then deregulating and letting them do whatever is best for them is not good for the consumer. It is the govenment's business to ensure that there is enough competition first and then to deregulate second. All the new changes do is remove regulations that were placed to ensure that newcomers to the industry are not shut out by the industry giants. This is why the industry giants fought and lobbied so hard to overturn these regulations. They don't want to share the industry with anyone else - they want to stifle competition before it even begins.

Sorry, i didn't see where Rogers was shut out of the phone market. Lawst I checked they were doing very well. Why shoudl Roger's be unfettered with local phone service and Bell and Telus not? Again you're lack of knowledge on this subject is startling especially for someone that is taking such an adversarial approach to it. One would expect you to have at least done your homework.

[Charles Anthony]

WhiteDoors, please trim your reply to contain less quotations.

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

[White Doors]

Understood. Thx for the clarification.

I want to add to my previous comment that deregulation does not equal competition. There can be a lot of regulation in competitive industries (like the food industry) and no regulation in industries with no or very little competition (like the OS industry). But many incorrectly equate deregulation and competition and then push deregulation under the pretext that it will result in competition. In this particular case, he devil is in the details as usual. When you look at the details, it becomes clear that the changes may benfit some consumers in the short term. Over the long term though, the changes will reduce competition and the consumer will be the loser. Big players don't benefit from more competition in their industry and they sure don't lobby and push for more competition.

But it is these same 'details' that it is apprent you did not look at AT ALL.

Bell and Telus were pushing to be able to compete with the cable companies on fair grounds. The days of Stentor are gone. You don't need a phone line to have a phone anymore. You don't even need a landline anymore. This deregulation is reflecting that new reality. The Cable companies have a very large head start as they have more bandwidth into your home. It will take alot of $$$ for the Telco's to catch up.

[White Doors]

WhiteDoors, please trim your reply to contain less quotations.

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Aye

[Saturn]

Well, in rural Canada you'll get an almost immediate increase in prices so that your provider can charge below cost in urban areas to undercut the competition. In effect, you'll be subsidizing the good deals city dwellers will get. Sorry.

Again, you are simply wrong. Telco's remain regulated in rural markets where there are less then 3 providers. Does your partisan clap-trap always end up getting your foot in your mouth?

Are you always so obnoxious? Once that number of 3 is reached (2 for business accounts), deregulation kicks in and remains even when the 2 newcomers are pushed out or leave voluntarily. Besides 2 or 3 suppliers does not amount to much competition anyway.

[August1991]

WhiteDoors and Saturn, I refuse to participate in a thread destroyed by your inability to edit. Please stop copying endless replies to replies only to add a one sentence rejoinder.

[Saturn]

WhiteDoors and Saturn, I refuse to participate in a thread destroyed by your inability to edit. Please stop copying endless replies to replies only to add a one sentence rejoinder.

Or you've run out of ideas on how to argue that anti-competitive measures are good for the consumer.

[Remiel]

*sigh*

My question never was answered...

[August1991]

How would you translate this into a similar decision on the CRTCs other concerns, because I imagine you were thinking about what this meant for those too?

What would the equivalent decision be in television for instance, of continuing to regulate markets with too little competition, in your mind?

The CRTC is to rule today on the Canadian content provisions (30%) for radio music. I would not be surprised to see Bernier overturn that ruling too.

Technology has far overtaken the usefulness of the CRTC to play any useful role in Canadian society - as if it ever did that.

The idea that the CRTC can shut down radio stations, or that it requires playlists, verifies programme content and has arcane rules for determining a "Canadian" song is beyond absurd in the 21st century.

Telco's remain regulated in rural markets where there are less then 3 providers. Does your partisan clap-trap always end up getting your foot in your mouth?

Are you always so obnoxious? Once that number of 3 is reached (2 for business accounts), deregulation kicks in and remains even when the 2 newcomers are pushed out or leave voluntarily. Besides 2 or 3 suppliers does not amount to much competition anyway.

Have you ever heard of a contestable market?

Frankly, I think the VOIP crowd have a mariginally better claim to maintaining CRTC regulations than rural users. Rural users get to buy cheap houses and can breathe fresh air. If you don't like the high cost of telephone service, move to a city. And why should city people subsidize the long stretches of wire for your connections?

In the case of VOIP, they will complain that it is tough to get into the market. Well, it's tough to get into any market. There will always be some business interest who wants market regulation or a government subsidy.

Bernier took the right decision although technology forced his hand.

[Charles Anthony]

The idea that the CRTC can shut down radio stations, or that it requires playlists, verifies programme content and has arcane rules for determining a "Canadian" song is beyond absurd in the 21st century.

The CRTC is even more absurd given that The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council exists and it is non-governmental. What more does the consumer really need?

The playlists are the height of hypocrisy. The only "artists" who benefit are the super-Canadian pop stars who have already made it big internationally -- the type of artists who never needed CanCon rules anyway.

On the other end of the market, the small-time Canadian artists do not get commercial airplay because they are not safe bets. The internet and college radio becomes their only available media -- two formats that provide more than 30% CanCon by their very nature.

[Saturn]

In the case of VOIP, they will complain that it is tough to get into the market. Well, it's tough to get into any market. There will always be some business interest who wants market regulation or a government subsidy.

Bernier took the right decision although technology forced his hand.

Technology forced his hand to put the brakes on competition? Interesting point (and completely absurd btw).

[August1991]

Technology forced his hand to put the brakes on competition? Interesting point (and completely absurd btw).

Brakes on competition? A market is not like a sports match and it does not need a referee. The CRTC is no referee. It was/is a conniving busy body. Bernier overruled the CRTC and started the process of extricating it from the market.

Andrew Coyne had a good piece in which he pointed out that, excepting an NDP press release, no one has come to the defence of the CRTC.

[jdobbin]

The CRTC is even more absurd given that The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council exists and it is non-governmental. What more does the consumer really need?

The playlists are the height of hypocrisy. The only "artists" who benefit are the super-Canadian pop stars who have already made it big internationally -- the type of artists who never needed CanCon rules anyway.

On the other end of the market, the small-time Canadian artists do not get commercial airplay because they are not safe bets. The internet and college radio becomes their only available media -- two formats that provide more than 30% CanCon by their very nature.

It's time to end the protection for all radio, television, satellite and media companies and publishing in Canada.

No one in Canada wants Canadian ownership or content.

[Remiel]

*I* want Canadian ownership and content, and I hardly think I must be completely alone in that out of thirty-three and some odd million Canadians. I don't quite get why you are so adamant on that point, jdobbin. Besides, aren't you arguing for your own extinction? If no one wants Canadian content, then, by extension, no one wants you, a Canadian screenwriter, correct?

[Ricki Bobbi]

*I* want Canadian ownership and content, and I hardly think I must be completely alone in that out of thirty-three and some odd million Canadians. I don't quite get why you are so adamant on that point, jdobbin. Besides, aren't you arguing for your own extinction? If no one wants Canadian content, then, by extension, no one wants you, a Canadian screenwriter, correct?

There are Canadians who work as screenwriters in jurisdictions that don't have Cancon laws. Aren't there?

[Remiel]

Not exactly their natural habitat though, is it? Think of Canadian television and radio as one of those shrinking marshlands. A few animals adapt and survive the destruction of their home, but the majority of them die off. Now, imagine you are one of the creatures who might be able to adapt, but might not. And you are advocating the destruction of your marsh home...

[Charles Anthony]

*I* want Canadian ownership and content,

You can have all of the Canadian ownership and content you want -- just buy it. Go put up the money to operate the broadcast yourself.

I don't quite get why you are so adamant on that point, jdobbin. Besides, aren't you arguing for your own extinction?

I do not understand why you should have the right to tell people they must buy Canadian entertainment?

Try to extrapolate that logic to other things we enjoy, like coffee. If everybody had to consume/sell a minimum quota of Canadian grown coffee, where in the world would we be??

Why should the entertainment industry get special protection?

If no one wants Canadian content, then, by extension, no one wants you, a Canadian screenwriter, correct?

Why SHOULD somebody want a Canadian screenwriter?

[jdobbin]

*I* want Canadian ownership and content, and I hardly think I must be completely alone in that out of thirty-three and some odd million Canadians. I don't quite get why you are so adamant on that point, jdobbin. Besides, aren't you arguing for your own extinction? If no one wants Canadian content, then, by extension, no one wants you, a Canadian screenwriter, correct?

I am certainly up for a debate on the subject. Let's look at things step by step:

Canadian ownership has not helped push Canadian content on radio and television. Canadian owners have shown they are not interested in playing Canadian artists. My question is: why protect Canadian owners from being bought by U.S. or other international interests? The answer is no reason. Canadian content can still be legislated on stations that American companies own in Canada if that is what Canadians desire.

Next: Is Canadian consistently what Canadians watch and does it make money? The answer is no.

1. Criminal Minds (CTV)

2. House (Global)

3. CSI New York (CTV)

4. CSI Miami (CTV)

5. CSI (CTV)

6. The Amazing Race (CTV)

7. Law and Order SVU (CTV)

8. Survivor (Global)

9. ER (CTV)

10. Prison Break (Global)

November 27-Dec 3, National, 2+, Average Minute Audience

© BBM NMR

Canada is the only English speaking nation not interested in watching its own produced TV in consistent week to week numbers. In fact, many Canadians have opted out of the system altogether by getting gray market satellites.

Next, can television and film in Canada be made without financial assistance? The answer is no: Even TV programs that can make the top 10 have to rely on money from provinces and the federal government.

Now, combine this with a cable and satellite industry in Canada that is very profitable and prevents competition from the U.S. and still doesn't look to promote Canadian content that isn't legislated on them and I say: open the whole can of worms up. Let the world in. Approve whatever station that broadcasts into Canada. Approve all services, all stations.

I am open to the question of the CBC but it should have no commercials and be funded differently that it is now. It should have no sports that it pays big money for. Private stations can do that. It should have no news service. Private stations can do that too. It should be all about Canadian content.

Now, the telecoms. Canada has one of the most expensive wire services in the world. I say let everyone and anyone into the market. Drive the price down. The new delivery for TV is cell phones. 15 minute programming is being developed now. Canada is behind the times.

Is there room for Canadian content in all this? You better believe it. Content, especially new content. will always be in demand. Does the government have a role in producing it? They could if Canadians accept it and want it. The point is that the government can't force it. The Canadian content guidelines today are not giving new artists the time of day. Stars that were established early on with the guidelines still rule the roost today. The good thing is that there are far more college stations out playing local content. There are far more community stations. There are far more digital stations. And there is the Internet.

Canada should not be trying to keep the world out. They should be trying to bring the world in for as broad an experience and inexpensive an inexperience. We have a nation of pirates right now. Let the world in and they will pursue these pirates who steal their signals. Other Canadians are paying for Canadian content while others steal and say they do it because Canada's law makes them do it. Don't give them that excuse, I say.

Lastly, is there room for a Canadian screenwriter? Yes. My first script was sold to Paramount studios for the UPN network via two Canadian producers. Another of my scripts was optioned by one of Quebec's most prominent productions company.

The biggest thing that limits Canadian television and movies is cost of production. It costs $500,000 for a half hour of TV in comedy. It costs $1 to $2 million for a production for a drama series.

It costs CTV $50,000 to $100,000 for an episode of CSI. No Canadian production can compete against that.

Essentially, U.S. programs can be dumped in Canada below cost because they have made their production costs with licensing fees in the U.S. It looks rather gloomy when you look at this way. And Canadian network simulcast so that they take over the U.S. signal and broadcast at the same time as the U.S. It equals even more money.

Canadian legislation forces Canadian content on the networks. But when do they put it on? They put it on where it won't compete with U.S. programming. It's insane!

The system as it is set up is not helping Canadian artists and producers. Legislation is not helping convince corporate Canada. It is time to open everything up while at the same time making local artists and producers a wanted commodity. Help produce their albums, help get local production made, help pay for Canadian tours, help develop scripts.

[Charles Anthony]

I am open to the question of the CBC but it should have no commercials and be funded differently that it is now. It should have no sports that it pays big money for. Private stations can do that. It should have no news service. Private stations can do that too. It should be all about Canadian content.

So, the CBC should only broadcast what Canadians do NOT want. Is that it?

Lastly, is there room for a Canadian screenwriter? Yes. My first script was sold to Paramount studios for the UPN network via two Canadian producers. Another of my scripts was optioned by one of Quebec's most prominent productions company.

Wait a minute. Canadian content has nothing to do with it.

If you wrote a bad script, do you think anybody would buy it?

It costs CTV $50,000 to $100,000 for an episode of CSI. No Canadian production can compete against that.

No Canadian banana or coffee farmer can compete with the rest of the world either. Should we legislate support for greenhouses in Canada?

Essentially, U.S. programs can be dumped in Canada below cost because they have made their production costs with licensing fees in the U.S. It looks rather gloomy when you look at this way.

It looks good to me. We get cheap programming.

On a global sense, you could say it looks gloomy for the Americans: they produce horribly predictable pre-formatted movies.

Help produce their albums, help get local production made, help pay for Canadian tours, help develop scripts.

Your wish seems to have been granted:

CRTC wants more cash for artists from radio broadcasters

The CRTC decided not to raise Canadian content requirements on commercial radio stations to 40 per cent, a move that was opposed by broadcasters in their submissions to the regulator.

Instead, Canadian content levels will remain at 35 per cent.

However, radio listeners will soon be hearing more Canadian concert music, blues and jazz, as the minimum Canadian content for these styles of music has been raised.

The CRTC plans to set a minimum of 25 per cent Canadian content for concert music and 20 per cent for jazz and blues.

It will also ask radio stations to make specific proposals to play music by emerging artists when they apply to renew their licences.

CBC.ca

Get ready for more and more Band Wars in your area -- with the kids of the station manager winning the fixed results!

[jdobbin]

So, the CBC should only broadcast what Canadians do NOT want. Is that it?

Wait a minute. Canadian content has nothing to do with it.

If you wrote a bad script, do you think anybody would buy it?

No Canadian banana or coffee farmer can compete with the rest of the world either. Should we legislate support for greenhouses in Canada?

It looks good to me. We get cheap programming.

On a global sense, you could say it looks gloomy for the Americans: they produce horribly predictable pre-formatted movies.

You wish seems to have been granted:

Get ready for more and more Band Wars in your area -- with the kids of the station manager winning the fixed results!

Actually, I said the CBC should be eliminated altogether in prior posts. If it is to exist at all, it should be commercial free like CBC Radio. Please read what I've said more closely.

No one buys bad scripts period. In Canada, no one buys Canadian scripts unless backed by government. I have to market my scripts mostly to the United States.

I didn't say Canada should legislate for any Canadian culture. I just pointed out that is the only reason there is anything Canadian on now.

It is cheap and horrible to you but Canadians love it and want to see it.

The CRTC is not how Canadian content should be regulated. I have pointed that out.

I've said if Canada wants any Canadian content, it will have to be supported by government. There is no market in Canada for Canadian content that pays for itself (without government support). I don't believe Canadians want local content in Canada. They have made their choice in the tens of thousands by getting gray market satellites.

[Remiel]

Dumping, eh?

I smell a cash cow! Tariffs and protectionism all around! Yay!

Now, that would be something. Instead of funding Canadian productions with government money, let's charge a tax on showing foreign productions, and use that instead.

Muahahahahaha, hahahahaha, hahahahahahahahaha!

I'll try to think of something a little more serious when I get back from town.

[jdobbin]

Dumping, eh?

I smell a cash cow! Tariffs and protectionism all around! Yay!

Now, that would be something. Instead of funding Canadian productions with government money, let's charge a tax on showing foreign productions, and use that instead.

Muahahahahaha, hahahahaha, hahahahahahahahaha!

I'll try to think of something a little more serious when I get back from town.

Some people claim what the U.S. does is dump programs below cost of production.

The idea of making networks, cable and satellite companies pay into a fund to distribute the money to program producers has been discussed as well. In exchange for that, they could carry whatever programs they wanted and perhaps face a commercial free CBC that doesn't compete in sports and news.

It is one of many different proposals. One thing for certain: the changes in technology means Canada can't think about what worked in the past. They have to make the next jump. If there is an honest debate about how things are structured and what content Canadians want, perhaps something can come of the discussion.

[rbacon]

Get rid of the CRTC, adult men and women should make their own choices as to what we want to hear, see on tv and read.....Let those leftwing idealist's who love the CBC etc, fund it themselves with direct user pay fees......Only Communists regulate free speech and free press like in Canada.....The taxpayers in this country are overburdened...Cut programs and cut taxes.....

[jdobbin]

Get rid of the CRTC, adult men and women should make their own choices as to what we want to hear, see on tv and read.....Let those leftwing idealist's who love the CBC etc, fund it themselves with direct user pay fees......Only Communists regulate free speech and free press like in Canada.....The taxpayers in this country are overburdened...Cut programs and cut taxes.....

Do you even know what communist is? I have a hard time believing that you really are serious. How old are you?

[Canuck E Stan]

It is cheap and horrible to you but Canadians love it and want to see it.

There is no market in Canada for Canadian content that pays for itself (without government support). I don't believe Canadians want local content in Canada.

Don't quite understand what you're saying here,

but I do know that the only thing that sells on CBC to Canadians is the sports stuff(Hockey) and that is going to end when the NHL begins broadcasting all their games on TSN. Along with hockey,TSN is going to take away CFL football from the CBC as well.

With a $billion a year pumped into the CBC,it's not cheap,but it is horrible.

What I hate the most is the mockumentaries that are constantly being shown over and over like they are factual pieces of history(Trudeau,Douglas,Leveque,War Measures Act) but are "dramatized" to "appeal" to audiences.