Let’s Talk TV discussion forum comments

Canadians shared their views on the future of Canada’s television system. The discussion forum was open October 24 to November 22, 2013.

Discussion Topics

Programming: What do you think about what’s on television?

View comments

in general I think programming may be a little better then 5 or 10 years ago but over all its crap I get more enjoyment from watching specialty channels with reality TV than from the major networks. The problem is this, 30 to 40 years ago we had 30 to 40 channels of diverse programming, today we have hundreds of channels but 2/3rds is affiliate shared programming during prime time, the solution is to stop the media giants from affiliate sharing including news & morning shows, this will not only bring back quality & diversity to programming it will support local TV stations.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:08 R Foster

Most of the content on television is 100% crap. I don't care about channels in Madarin, Spanish, etc. I want to watch English language TV programs, and only pay for English language programming. I understand we need to support 2 official languages, and as a native speaker of both, I have no problem subsidizing the french channels.
I take great offence though, that I have to subsidize other languages that I have no interest in. Let these viewers pay the full cost of these programs. I can not wait for a-la-carte pricing.
As for the future of television, it is clearly IPTV. The only good provider seems to be Netflix. I don't want to watch the same old crap, I want to decide what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, and don't want to be tied down to an expensive 399 cable box that is soon to be obsolete.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:46 AnneNonymous

Totally agree. The current broadcasting models have been rendered obsolete with the internet.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:51 Manny

I have a very LARGE problem subsidizing French language programs. You want to know how best to subsidize something? BUY IT! You want to subsidize French programming, then randomly order a French TV or movie. Don't force the rest of us to do it.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 18:10 Tebowski

Out of all the channels in the basic cable package, I watch two: the news and the weather channels. I have never watched the rest of the 30 or so channels. I believe the only "Canadian" content we should be forced to pay for is news and weather. Entertainment programs, television series, movies, etc should attract audiences on their own merits, without tax payer subsidies. The situation right now is so ridicilous that every time I see a crappy movie or show on TV I look (and almost always find) the "Canada Tax Credit for Film and Television" logo in the credits. By cutting subsidies, the competition will force a dramatic improvement in the quality of Canadian programming with saving to the tax payers. A win-win situation for all concerned.
At this point I am extremely close to cancelling my cable package and simply using Netflix (and over the air local news/weather channels). It's time to drag television in Canada into the 21st century and allow consumers the choice of what they want to watch (and pay for). I also subscribe to specialty packages, but again, out of the entire package I would pick 1-2 channels at the most. The rest are junk. Overall, I would say with over 100 channels in my cable package, I watch less than five. Television is losing relevancy very quickly.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:04 Anthony S.

Totally agree. The radio frequency currently used by TV and radio should be used for long range wireless LAN. This shift has already started with the AM spectrum.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 21:00 Manny

It's crap, we should be able to choose what channels we want to watch, all I care about is sports anyways and I should not have to pay for channels I never watch just because I want sports. For people that work hard for their money, they should have the choice in what channels they pay for. let's make a change please!!!

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:06 Dman

It is time to do away with the "genre protection policy", both for Canadian and non-Canadian services. It is an out-dated policy which may have served some purpose when it was put in place in the infancy of Canadian specialty services when they launched 30 years ago.
Why are non-Canadian third languages channels automatically approved fo carriage n Canada? Yet when requests for English language non-Canadian services to be added to the "List of non-Canadian services authorized for distribution" are submitted, they are almost always denied. One example of this is USA Network. When Shaw applied for its carriage in Canada, it was denied because the Commission felt that it would complete with Mystery TV.
It is time to finally allow more non-Canadian (ie. U.S.) channels into Canada. The Canadian specialty channel market is strong and mature enough to withstand the competition. Let market forces, not artificial regulations come into play.
Please allow non-Canadian digital subchannels to be carried in Canada. I am watching them already for free off-air.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:48 dpayne

Totally agree. We Canadians do not need goverment protection.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 21:01 Manny

I don't understand why I cannot choose the channels I want to watch ! Yes I live in French Canada but I wont only American TV ! I have to paid enormous amount of money to get each channel I want. And I still don't understand why we get to have reduce americain channel like HBO Canada or BBC Canada ... I want the real BBC Amercia and HBO ! We should be able to paid only for what we actually watch ! And for the love of god stay away from Netflix ! At least there I can watch what I want for a decent price !!!

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:57 sora

The Canadian broadcast industry would not exist if it did not take US/Foriegn programming and relabel it. They sell ads, but what value is it to us, the average Canadian? Zero, I completely agree with you.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 18:36 Skiddy

I enjoy the diversity of channels available from my satellite provider even though my family watches only about 20 channels of the few hundred available in my subscription. Those that we watch fall into the following categories (comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, variety). Watching a full-length movie once or twice a week is enough.
I prefer watching informative and well-written programs. I lean more toward Canadian programming, but will watch non-Canadian programs if they are well done.
Being unilingual, I only watch English programs. I therefore do not really care about the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity.
Unfortunately, I think that future programming will have more and more movies in order to compete with Netflix and Apple TV. This seems to be a generational thing, as young people seem more interested in being entertained rather than being informed.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:24 Dennis_C

First, I would like to commend the CRTC in engaging Canadians to solicit honest and sincere feedback about the current state of Canadian television. While there are many areas that I feel require discussion, I will focus my comments to the question of whether or not Canadian television fairly reflects the "Canadian Mosaic" that we so proudly wear as a badge of honour to the rest of the international community.
I was born, raised, and educated in this country and proudly say my citizenship whenever afforded the opportunity, some might say ad nauseum. Having said that, as a visible minority I feel I am often confronted with the reality that while I am proud to be Canadian, I'm not certain my country sees me as a Canadian in kind. This uneasiness is only reaffirmed when viewing any of the major Canadian networks. While visible minorities can be found contributing in every industry and facet of Canadian society, Canadian television is apparently reticent to reflect this fact in its programming. To provide context for my perspective, I will use the CBC as an example of this blatant lack of cultural diversity in Canadian programming, despite initiatives and policies to the contrary.
While the CBC proudly advertises its "Commitment to Talent and Diversity", the reality is that visible minorities are woefully underrepresented and the roles or opportunities they do get are predominately minor or supporting. To highlight this assertion, below is a breakdown of a sample of CBC's current shows (excluding shows that are produced abroad and purchased) categorized as either reality or drama, and the visible minority representation for that program (all information was taken from the CBC website):
Reality Television

  • The Fifth Estate - 4 main hosts (zero visible minorities)
  • Marketplace - 2 main hosts (zero visible minorities)
  • Dragon's Den - one main host, four "dragons" (zero visible minorities)
  • Battle of the Blades - one main host, four judges (zero visible minorities), "the cast" ( two out of 16 are visible minorities, one of which is American)

From this sample, the grand total for visible minority representation is: 2 minorities out of 32 possible positions,one of which is not Canadian. Out of the entire reality television line-up I was only able to identify ONE visible minority host and that is the venerable David Suziki. I should note that I am by no means advocating that individuals should be given opportunities solely based on the colour of their skin, but the aforementioned numbers are pitiful for a culturally mosaic country.


  • Heartland - 10 cast members (1 visible minority, not lead)
  • Cracked - 5 main cast members (3 visible minorities. Which on the surface this looks great, but of course none of the 3 is the protagonist or love interest, they are, as is the case with all Canadian television, the "support" role, either providing comic relief, the "faithful sidekick" or fitting into a racially stereotypical role (i.e. asian with martial arts prowess.))
  • Republic of Doyle - 6 cast members (zero visible minorities)
  • Murdoch Mysteries - 5 cast members (zero visible minorities. I love these period piece shows because it is a nostalgic trip down memory lane, of course only if you're Caucasian. For the rest of us, this was a period of discrimination and exclusion. In the context of Canadian television it is an automatic exclusion of visible minority actors from any shows set in these time periods, unless the role is one of subservience.

From this sample, the grand total for visible minority representation is: 4 visible minority actors, out of a possible 26 roles. When looking at all of CBC's dramatic programming, there is ONE visible minority in a dramatic lead position and much like the reality television domain, the one minority, Adam Beach, is an international celebrity. Are visible minorities only going to be afforded opportunities if they have a resume that is as impressive as the likes of Adam Beach and David Suziki? If this is the case, then it is an extremely unfair standard that only exacerbates the current situation of underrepresentation.
In spite of this overwhelming evidence, the following is a statement from Kim Clark, CBC's Director of Inclusion and Diversity:
"At CBC, it is understood that in order to be relevant and meaningful to all Canadians, we need to ensure that we are reflecting all the richness and diversity this country has to offer. Whether it’s in the shows we produce, the stories we tell, the people who work with us, or the personal connections we make in communities across the country - this is our goal. As your public broadcaster, inclusion and diversity are important ingredients to a culture and environment that drives innovative, creative and engaging programming - key to the CBC and to Canadians."
Kim, with all due respect, surely you jest. Where is this diversity you speak of? Is it possible that as a Caucasian you do not fully appreciate what "meaningful" means to visible minorites? It means being accurately represented and not considered "window dressing" to fulfill a corporate mission or mandate that purports to be committed to diversity and inclusion. It means being the protaganist, with a storyline that is interesting, sometimes with romance. It means being seen as a hero, sexy, and intelligent, not always being relegated to the "faithful sidekick" role. It means being given opportunities that are "race neutral", and by that I mean roles that are about a human being whose skin colour is irrelevant to the role or story being told. it means being the host of interesting shows that are considered CBC priorities, and have the full support of the network. Kim's statement is unfortunately indicative of the "lip service" paid to diversity without tangible efforts being made.
I chose the CBC as my test subject because as a publically funded national broadcastor they not only have a moral duty, but an obligation to ensure their programming is reflective of ALL Canadians and I think I have been able to demonstrate that this is glaringly not the case. Having said that, none of the other broadcasters are any better, and arguably they are worse --which is truly inconceivable based on the CBC's abysmal record.
In closing, I vividly remember growing up and having a feeling of disappointment that none of my favourite superheros, "cool" characters, or action figures I played with resembled me. Despite my burning desire to be Hans solo, Luke Skywalker or Batman, I just physically didn't look like them and it saddened me because it was an early wakeup call to the reality of skin colour and how you are defined in society by this insignificant biological feature. The next generation of young visible minority Canadians need to see strong characters and hosts on television that resemble themselves, to cultivate their dreams and present limitless possibilities for them to aspire to. Unfortunately, Canadian television currently only reinforces the marginalized feeling many visible minorities feel, and without drastic change this current state of affairs will continue for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 13:48 Diversity

Comment has been removed due to a breach of the CRTC's User Submission Guidelines.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:49 Justin Treuadeau's gitch

It is obvious that you didn't actually take the time to read what I wrote. For example, you say "So you want to (sic) represented by the color of your skin? Are you an idiot?" Well, I actually clearly stated, "I should note that I am by no means advocating that individuals should be given opportunities solely based on the colour of their skin, but the aforementioned numbers are pitiful for a culturally mosaic country". Explain to me why it is people like yourself always seem to feel that everyone who is in the position they are got there solely based on talent. Numbers don't lie my friend, can you explain why there is only ONE host that is a person of colour on the CBC? ONE central character on a drama? I guess you just believe that it just mysteriously happened that way. What's interesting is that people of your ilk automatically assume that if someone of colour actually does get an opportunity it's because of some quota or intervention and not just that it was based on merit.
I won't even get into your ridiculous argument about how asians started martial arts and therefore they should get those roles, but name ONE, yes not making it hard for you, ONE role that you know of in Canadian television history that had/has an Asian person in a lead dramatic role, just one. You can't. So are you telling me that in our history there hasn't been ONE capable person of Asian descent to play a lead in one of the presumably thousands of shows we have produced? Or do you honestly just believe that there have always just been more qualified "pasty whites" as you put it.
I do agree with you on the point, "...we should not be putting people on the screen simply because of (sic) there skin color no matter how pasty whie or dark it is..." The point being that unfortunately looking through the history of Canadian television past and present the numbers show that skin colour does play a part in this process. From the beginning of casting the process will call for "White male, or female, aged, etc." so you are naive if you believe this has no bearing on access to opportunities.
You say that, "...you are a pathetic human being and you do not represent (sic) candian s or canadian values at all...go back to where you came from then and cry about it there." Again you either didn't read what or choose to ignore that I clearly stated I was born, raised and educated in this country, so where is it you propose I go back to? That comment alone is so intrinsically racist that I find it amusing you have the audacity to talk about Canadian values which you evidentally do not possess. This forum is to express ideas not spew vitriol at others that you may not agree with. I can always accept constructive criticism and meaningful debate but your personal attacks and vulgarity really wasn't necessary.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:59 Diversity

I understand there was a time and place to try and protect Canadian content, but as the delivery method has changed for television programming, so must the rules and regulations of the CRTC. Instead of paying American TV stations a premium to provide their programming on Canadian channels, why not charge them a premium to broadcast to Canadian customers? If not, why not open up free enterprise for television providers? Many people already stream online from various websites instead of subscribing to the television channels. If the American channels were made available and offered at cheaperrates it would encourage subscription and drive up revenue.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 13:50 beranik

When I moved back to Canada from the United States just over a year ago one of the first things I did was to sign up for my cable television. One of the channels I ordered was FX so I could continue to watch one of my favourite shows, Sons of Anarchy. Thank god the order taker on the phone was honest because he told me that the FX offered was the Canadian version and that the show in question, on the Canadian version was 2 seasons behind it's American counterpart.
I was FORCED to pay for another "tier" of programming to the tune of $15 per month extra (on top of the basic and the next level up) in order to watch the American FX station and the current season of my show. Needless to say that once the season ended I cancelled my service and started to research alternatives.
A year later, the alternative to being raped by cable and satellite companies is to pay for only an unlimited high speed internet connection and the $8 a month on top of that for Netflix streaming. I access my internet and Netflix via a proxy server located in the United States so I can access American (and Canadian) content and choose what I want to see when I want to see it.
The majority of quality programming (and even the crappy content) is available online for no charge. Why should I pay the outrageous fees being charged today for less than what I'm getting now?

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 14:39 MouseWrangler

My biggest pet peeve is how cable companies (and satellite providers) place a Canadian feed on top of a US channel. I live in Montreal and the feed that gets replaced is usually a Toronto based channel. Also, often, the show duration don't match the US channel. Not a big deal when watching live TV, but really aggrevating when watching on a PVR and missing the last minute of your favourite show. CRTC/Cable/Satellite companies, it's time to let me watch the feed that I choose.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 15:33 LucLastNameWitheld

Will never happe. CRTC works for the broadcasters, not the average Canadian. Sim sub lets CTV/Global/CBC buy the Canadian rights to a US show, resell ads in Canada and the Cable company is bound by CRTC policy to sub the Canadian station in the US slot. This adds cost to the cable company, they take all the complaints. Further, there is not consequence - penalty, if a Canadian network requests that a cable company sub their signal for a US station when the programming is completely different. Is there a benefit to Canadians? - No. Is there a benefit to broadcasters? - Yes.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 18:49 Skiddy

Canadian television is only represents Eastern Canada. Everytime I turn on the CBC (which isn't often), the shows are set in Toronto or the maritimes. Murdoch Mysteries, Republic of Doyle, Mercer Report, 22 minutes, Mr.D, Cracked, Ron James ect... We havn't had a show about the westcoast since the Beachcombers. Honestly I don't care if there is a mandate to make shows about my region, it just pisses me off that the CRTC mandates Canadian content but doesn't give a crap about the west.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 15:41 CampbellRiver

True - you have to watch a US show like Grimm to see something filmed in BC.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 18:42 Skiddy

In fairness, CBC's short-lived series Intelligence, which in my opinion was one of the best Canadian produced dramas we've had, was set in Vancouver. Similarly, the very long running DaVinci's Inquest (and follow-on DaVinci's City Hall) was also set in Vancouver. Meanwhile two of our more successful comedy series, Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie, were set in the West.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 11:04 eo_nomine

I was a huge fan of Da Vinci's Inquest, which was set in Vancouver and ran for years: and I agree that it's high time for a new show to be set here. But other recent shows set in Western Canada have included award-winning shows my family loves: Heartland (Alberta), Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie and Jake and the Kid (Saskatchewan), and Less Than Kind (Winnipeg). A TV show is a hard, complicated, expensive thing that needs good writing, direction, producing, acting, and marketing to find its audience, and there have been many more Western-based shows over the years that haven't made it for one reason or another. We don't have the potential economic returns to make literally hundreds of failed pilots every year as in the USA. But if Western Canadians like us support shows like these, CampbellRiver, then there will be more of them. It's as simple as that.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 16:35 Leanna Brodie

I currently subscribe to MTS TV and my basic ultimate cable package is $41.50 I also pay $50.50 for other programmes. I receive HD programming as well as SD channels. Lets be honest the top watched TV programmes during prime time TV 7pm to 10 pm are US produced programmes with no Canadian content. Even on the Canadian networks except CBC the vast majority of programmes are US produced shows.
In my opinion I should be able to purchase whatever programmes MTS decide to make available to me as a subscriber. I also dont agree with having to subscribe to the SD version of a channel that is available in HD. Even if the programme is in SD I will still watch it on the HD channel assigned to it. With technology today I can if I wish legally or illegally receive programmes from a multitude of sites over the internet. Many viewers subscribe to a DNS service which allows them to watch these shows. Viewers who subscribe to Netflix Canada use a DNS service so they can watch the US and UK versions of Netflix.
If cable or satellite providers wish to keep their subscriber base then they need to rethink of the types of programmes, bundles and prices as more are cutting the cable cord.
Several cable companies offer a skinny basic cable package and then allow subscribers to pick a bundle of programmes of their choice and not what the cable company assigns to a bundle.
As for Canadian content if Canadian producers produce shows to compete with the big US or UK programmes then viewers will watch. Far to often Canadian produced series lack in originality but get aired due to Canadian content provisions.
I want the choice to watch what I want not what the CRTC or Canadian channels think I should watch.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 16:15 sas007

It is time that the providers (cable, satellite, telcos)recognize that HD is becoming the new norm, with all flatscreen televisions capable of broadcasting in that format. Aside fromour beingcompelled to buy an expensive decoder, it is time that consumers not be required to purchaseboth versions (SD, HD) of the same channel. Moreover,when available,providers should be offering the HD verision of each SD channel they currently provide.
This denial of HD services is especiallynotable for all national, public channels. The most egregious example of thisis out here in Shawland, where the dominant cable (and satellite) provider (Shaw) will not broadcast the High Definition version of CBC News Network. Shaw is the dominant provider in BC and Alberta, to a large extent, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and in NW Ontario and Hamilton. Shaw is the only provider not offering the High Definition version of CBC News Network - a travesty of censorship, where corporate opinion trumps public service. The CRTC should be compelling Shaw to carry CBC News Network in its high definition format. Moreover, while the lack of CBC NN HD is my particular beef, isn't Shaw also required to carry the high definition version of CBC French, which it doesnot?

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 17:28 WestCoaster

TV isn't what it once was. There was a great dumbing down in the 90's. Very little educational or documentary programming. Reality TV I hate with a passion. Sickening garbage. As for Canadian programming, yes I'm always aware of which shows are Canadian. We make some decent TV in recent years. It's US TV that's gone way downhill as UK/AUS/NZ TV also is still of an acceptable calibre. My favourites? I like science fiction (Star Trek) and I also watch some educational/documentaries. Sports such as formula 1 and soccer. As for diversity I think TV is doing a great job. The strides made from the old days are tremendous. Local TV/Community isn't my cup of tea. I do support it though, I'm sure it's valuable to others. Future of TV? I fear that the proliferation of HDTV may get out of hand and attempts will be made to make my old (90's and older) TVs unusable. I do not like HDTV. I hope the CRTC will work to protect those of us who aren't rabid new tech geeks.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 19:13 mxb2001

I don't know where to start.....
The CRTC needs to stop allowing CanEHdian networks (CTV, CIty, Global...) to air US programming between 8-11p; I know they define "primetime" ootside of those hours (as well), but us Canucks cannot turn a network on, withoot seeing a US show. Our networks have some great programming (such as Continuum), but the main networks fail to see its potential and air it on a premium network... I boycotted BigBroCan simply because it was aired on Slice. C’mon Global, it’s the summertime You really think cruddy US summer shows can do better than your show? (then why bother producing it)
And hey, while I'm beefing here, stop allowing CanEHdian networks to put their signal over top of the US network... This only continues the inability for CanEHdian networks to air quality programming, as they are just making money off syndication.... If CTV had a show worth watching, don't you think I'd tune to that network? No. I watch NBC to see Law & Order: SVU, and I’m tired of viewing the first 20 seconds of City's Modern Family feed....
Let’s separate the packages people... I don't watch the Food Network; I'm tired of getting it just so I can watch Bravo... Grrr. I understand the concept of National Carriage (do we really need so many national news networks though????), and I do support it, but packages MUST stop. I shouldn’t be paying towards networks I don't wish to support!!
HDTV signals should not be optional. It’s a digital signal. Shows are filmed in HD, yet for some reason, Cogeco refuses to give me MUCH in HD (yet, they have it on some locale’s signals).
For the amount of money we pay monthly, I’m getting increasingly fed up, and I’m having a harder and harder time convincing myself that Cable is even worth it
That’s it for now. But I’m just getting started. I’m happy that the CRTC is finally taking a customer-first approach to the airwaves it’s responsible for, and the people it’s TRULY responsible to.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:25 skottydawg

Local news is the the life blood of local stations. Other than local news, the content of stations within a given network are virtually identical. Unfortunately, the networks are not putting the resources like into the past into true journalism, but are instead doing more and more fluff stories, public service annoncements disguised as news, and presenting press releases as news. if this continues, viewers will be lost and the viability of local news will come into question.
Other than local news, I view dramas, comedies, and the the occasional reality show. At any given time, I watch 2 to 4 series on a regular basis. Of these, the only non-US programming that I regularly watch is Dragon's Den. If Canadian networks want me to watch their Canadian programs, they need to show something worth watching. I see no value is seeing a US reality show that happens to have included Canadian contestants and possibly Canadian hosts and judges.
I don't have high hopes for Canadian television programming to improve.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:49 canadians

Topic that was overlooked in this forum: "Politics: what role should the Federal Government play in Canadian telecommunications?"
My answer: I think that the CRTC and other publicly-funded agencies should stop intervening in Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications. The only role I would accept is the control of the radio frequency spectrum.
Any and all control over broadcast contents should be terminated. Existing laws about libel and hate speech are sufficient to stop the worse offenders. We the listeners will take care of the rest via call-in shows, blogs and other means of peaceful criticism.
All public funding of telecommunication channels and program producers should be terminated. The savings should be redirected to reduce the deficit and the debt.
In answer to those who will surely accuse me of destroying Canada's culture, this: there is no body in the Western world equivalent in power and reach to the CRTC. UK' Ofcom, France's ARCEP, Germany's BNA and USA's FCC play a very limited role which is similar to the role I describe above. As far as I can tell, the culture industry of these countries is doing just fine and so will Canada's.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:49 Manny

End the CRTC.
And take the CBC with you.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 21:35 Kate

There's not enough hard-core sex on TV!
Every second - $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography source:http://www.grabstats.com/statmain.aspx?StatID=120
Even the parents who will think it's rude of me to mention it have watched it. Yet in Canada it's soft core or it's gotta be expensive. Grow Up!
Why wouldn't the CRTC want to profit off of something so in demand. THAT can pay for all the artsy crap you wanna charge an arm and a leg for.

What works on TV? Look at the ratings!

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 23:03 smvoxx

The television programs which are most important to my family include children's programming, comedy, sci-fi, and only a very small handful of reality TV (eg: mythbusters, Canada's worst driver). News would be nice, except Canada has crap for decent news channels - Americans don't have it much better either. We love watching movies.

We have watched a lot of television and movies which are Canadian. In fact, one of my favorite movie series (Cube) is made in Canada. We just seem to gravitate to them, but we usually don't find out until we are watching the movie and recognize settings or actors, or read the end-credits. We wouldn't actively seek Canadian content, but the fact that we seem to encounter it a lot is nice. A film or TV series being Canadian isn't a deciding factor for us, it is always the content - who is in it, what the stories are about, etc.

Local television programming should be in my city of Ottawa, and not-to-distant outlying areas. Most Ottawa stuff is unappealing, so it doesn't matter to me. Ottawa is a very boring city, which is why I prefer to turn on the TV and watch something about someplace else, or even better, I resort to playing video games to forget about the stench the politicians create.

I don't think anything is missing, except I'd love to see more movies shot in Canda's low-income neighborhoods, to highlight how many of our fellow Canadians live, and perhaps try to bring some economic aid to them.

I think TV is going to suck more than it does now. We will still have highly vertically integrated players oligopolizing television, and we'll still be stuck with either Rogers, or Bell, two companies I absolutely hate to deal with. I'm already cutting back on the amount of TV I actually watch, instead opting to work on the internet, or play video games. Netflix plays a big role in our lives, because we consume only that which we want, not what some network thinks we want.

One of the things which must change though, is how tv is served... being forced to buy package bundles of channels we don't want, in order to watch the 5 or 10 we do want is stupid. Why would I want to watch the other 700+ channels? What do they offer that is compelling? Not sports. Not politics. Not infomercials. Not 15 music channels of genres I hate. We are being forced to overpay a lot, in order to watch a little. Does that make sense?

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 00:26 Tristan Young

Its time for the CRTC to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. Let the market decide what it wants through demand. If a cable subscriber doesn't want 20 channels of CBC affiliates, or 20 french language channels the payer should not be forced to pay for or have them included in their package. The irony of what the CRTC does, and by extention CBC, is that they can be bypassed by access to Netflex. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if the bureaucrats refuse to accept this reality and adapt they can look forward to the dust bin of history. If the CRTC wants to survive, they need to restrict their activities to licencing, and leave the selection to the market. To be clear, all subsidies to production of content, all of it including forcing providers to carry channels should be terminated immediately....especially CBC. A billion a year has better uses than keeping a network afloat.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 07:32 Joseph

It really doesnt matter what we say here the CRTC is in control and they will do what they want
They say there has to be so-much Canadian content on TV... thats fine
I am paying for both American and Canadian channels.... and i have the right to choose which network i would like to view that content on
Why am i being charged for American channels but i cannot watch American content when i choose to do so .. why not have all canadian channels if thats the case
i think its time for the CRTC to wake up !

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 09:06 Tigger2015

The concept of "forced" Canadian content is the reason Canadian produced shows are by and large, inferior - a subsidized product shoved upon us by elitist bureaucrats wth the premise it will make us feel better about ourselves with no regard to viewership is a failed project, especially this day in age. I do NOT need, nor want your "reflective" programming. It is demeaning. What is important to consumers is to watch what WE CHOOSE regardless of where its is produced and via the platform or media of OUR CHOICE. I find if offensive, that thanks to the CRTC it is illegal for me to purchase a DISH or DIRECT TV system in the U.S. and bring it into Canada, so I don't have to watch U.S. shows like Justified or Sons of Anacrchy that are 2-4 years behind.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 09:57 hcamper

I have to take issue with hcamper that Canadian TV show are inferior. Just watch Murdoch Mysteries as one example out of many well made, well acted shows that do not treat us as idiots.
US shows are all aimed at the lowest common denominator with the assumption that their audience is stupid. We need quality shows not pap.
i should add that I have no axe to grind and that my only connection with the TV business is that I once more than 35 years ago had a boyfriend worked for the CBC.

I also must comment on the so-called reality shows that fill the airwaves these days. They certainly assume that we are all idiots.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:24 brumas

The only way that I would subscribe to cable would be under a system that I can choose my own channels and pay for only the ones I want. The CRTC will not pick winners and loosers and it will not pick channels for me. I have looked at the basic cable bundles and out of 40-50 channels, only about 5 would interest me and that doesn't include CTV and CBC.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:25 sicrowe

At the end of the day the crtc and it's memebers should be unemployed but they won't voluntarily abolish themselves to the private sector where they would have to actually work for a living,so we are stuck with more gov beaurocrats sucking away my tax dollars along with the long outdated CBC and it's affiliats.
It is my opinion that t..v. should not be regulated in so far as wich channlels we must pay forr and witch ones we don't they should all be on a pay as you go/use basis and that is including the cbc and it's affiliats . 1.1.billion dollars a year for absolutle left wing propaganda with it's news reporting to such culturally deep show's as little mosk on the prairie? Wait what? yeah i know the canada i knew when i grew up was nothing like little mosk on the prairie , it was a different show perhaps a different time but i loved and i watched little house on the prairie that best represented life.IN CANADA.ON THE PRAIRIES. not some multi cultic junk show that mocks our proud christian heritage as a country. i have never been so embarrassed as a canadian of my fellow canadians who think it's ok to re write our history...we have always worked with chinese people and indians to build this country ...but where and when did a mosk represent canada or it's values?
Basically offer everything ,pay for what you want as an individual,and your t.v. station,show will sink or swim on it's own merit. that is truly candian ..but i bet you didn't know that though did you ..yes at one point canada was proud to be a christian country ,and conservative....but aprently not anymore...it's ashame becasue that is what brought so many people here in the firstp lace was opportunity to thrive and build a better life for yourself. but now the gov just has to stick it's nose in every aspect of our lives. private the cbc , or nationalize everysingle station in this country you choose!! i choose to pricvatize the cbc let that left wing arm of gov sink or swim on it's own!!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:33 Justin Treuadeau's gitch

I believe the choices for TV have never been so great and new chaneels seem to be added all the time. However, the way the choices are packaged is costing Canadians way too much. I just reveiwed my Cogeco package and out of the 112 channels I have to pay for I only watch or am interested in 30. The cost of this is over $100.00 dollars per month. If I truly had a choice I could probably cut this in half. As a matter of fact, after reviewing my plan and costs I think I am going to make some cuts. I may even get rid of cable all togteher and just go with Netflix and up my downloading capicity.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:46 2capers

Cogeco is the crappiest of them all quite frankly. They should get out of the cable business if you ask me.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 19:11 JF Bérubé

This is whole forum must be similar to the one the government buggy whip regulator was having when the horseless carrige came out. What am I saying they are still having it, since a government bureaucracy never goes away. I am a little board I think I will check out what is on Netflix.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:50 Geoffer

END the crtc and take the cbc with you...2.0.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:57 Justin Treuadeau's gitch

If we are so interested in Canadian content and we punt the cbc 1.1.billion dollars a year only to have david Suzuki tell us we are all 10th level maggots...and have George snuffolufogus preening himself live on national t.v. why don't we even try to make it interesting to watch by picking up some great show's that are in cnaanda with candians in them l;ike ice road truckers,ice pilots,candian pickers,yukon gold,ect ect instead the self bloviating left wing hacks sit there and try to direct candians opinions by filtering and tweeking the news to fit the cbc's left wing agenda..do you think cnadians are that stupid that we don't see you doing this? all we need to do is go to sun news network and compare stories and there is literally whle segment's of news left on the cutting room floor by the cbc so they can twistthe narrative of the news to fit just truedeaus re election campaign or to bash harper ...I wouldl iek to see 1...just 1 fucking news article just 1 that shows harper in a positive light by the cbc....thats' all I ask show me 1 news article that is positive for the conservative minded person. the shit spewing from the cbc talking heads and directors is pathetic! end the cbc and the crtc!! NOW!!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:03 Justin Treuadeau's gitch

The bundle packages should be scrapped although I am sure the CRTC can do nothing about that. The technology is available at a reasonable cost to be able to select what we wish to view without having to purchase channels we will never watch. It is nothing but a money grab by cable providers. Broadcasters and cable providers are not interested in the consumer. They are only interested in the advertisers. Having to sit through several commercials and repeats in order to catch a few snippets of a program is very frustrating and time consuming. I am paying for the service yet I am forced to watch advertising if I want to watch a program. I do not have that kind of time to waste and I do not want to pay for advertising in this way (because we all know we pay anyway).
Much of the programing isn't worth viewing with a few exceptions. We consumers need to say enough and scrap cable and tv as it is presently structured. It is more a forum for airing ads that the consumer pays for through ridiculous cable fees. It is reaching the point where I will be pulling the plug on tv. The amount of time I have to waste to watch a program or even watch the news is nuts! Nothing but advertising, advertising, advertising. Enough already.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:20 Abigail

Q: "What television programs are most important to you? Why?"
A: It's none of your business.

Q: "Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian?"
A: I don't care.

Q: "Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian?"
A: No

Q: "What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?"
A: It's none of your business.

Q: "Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? How important is reflection to you?"
A: I do not see how this question is relevant to me or anyone else.

Q: "What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?"
A: If the CRTC still exists in 5 years, I'm sure the programming will look quite similar to what we see as the Commission is a statist, monolithic, controlling entity hell-bent on controlling consumers rather than allowing them to think for themselves. In this scenario, if there are any changes, they will likely be because the CRTC would insert itself into the world of internet programming, to everyone's chagrin.
If the CRTC is rightly abolished, the programming would be much more suited to my tastes as I will be able to decide for myself what I want to watch on TV.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:30 Rob Huck

Very well stated.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 12:56 hcamper

I cut off my satellite dish about 7 years ago due to a. having to subscibe to channels I did not want and b. the content was mostly puerile, and the news channels were shallow with too much ideological slant. In my opinion the CBC should be defunded, it is no longer a thoughtful, nor interesting source of current news but has become infected by urban academic trivia. As news magazines have disappeared so will television as the 'net' will take its place. Content selection on the net is in the hands of the user/viewer and if he wishes participation. The spectrum of content on the 'net' is almost limitless and will only increase. Regards David Stern

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 12:46 David J. Stern

I'm tired of paying for channels that I never watch - if I wanted to watch the Golf Channel I would have purchased it. Even with the minimal cable package from my community based cable provider I'm stuck with about 10 channels that I just skip over - ENOUGH!!! Why do I have OWN, but can't get SUN News unless I buy more cable packages of stations that I don't want to watch.
I'm moving more and more to Netflix simply because it is cheap and provides a wide range of programs offerings.
Many nights I don't even bother watching TV - it is all crap reality shows (including the Canadian versions of US and UK shows which are even worse than the originals).
And now special attention to CBC - given the amount of taxpayer money that they get, their programming is awful. 22 minutes is still being shown??? - that stopped being funny about 15 years ago! Now I see that they are claiming that Murdoch Mysteries is the top rated Canadian murder mystery show on Canadian TV - really? It is the ONLY Canadian murder mystery show on a Canadian TV channel and they just took it over from one of the private broadcasters- that is NO accomplishment!
CBC seems to think that they can dream up shows out of the Toronto headquarters that 'represent' communities outside of Toronto - guess what? They can't!
And I'm tired of seeing the same program on the local channel and then again on the 24 hour news channel - how often are the same programs rebroadcast on all of CBC channels but are claimed as original programming hours? Value for the money handed off to CBC by taxpayers - hardly any value. Time to cut them loose and let them fend for themselves.
Overall the days of pretending that broadcasters - both public or private - can influcence our Canadian identies is gone (I question if it ever was). And there is no way that the CRTC can even predicit what will be the next wave of technology that supports people finding the programs that they enjoy watching.
In conlcusion:
1. More choice without having to pay for channels that I DO NOT WANT
2. Cut CBC loose from the taxpayer - after 60plus years it is time they stood on their own; they are not presenting a Canadian picture of anything - they are presenting a picture of Canada through the lens of Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 14:59 Maureen1955

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Children's, drama, documentary, movies, comedy specials, anything really, except for what's on regular tv. It seems I can find everything I want on Netflix, Youtube, and my locally owned movie rental place.

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Yes, it's important to me, especially for children's programming. I can usually tell if something is Canadian, although there are so many co-productions that sometimes I can mistake an essentially American show for a Canadian one. When TVO broadcast over the air, it was the only channel we watched. It no longer broadcasts over the air (analog or digital) and is only available in my community in a cable package (which we don't have), and I really miss it. It was the only channel I watched when I did have cable.

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Local/city news is important, but I would seek that out online before looking for it on tv. I don't want to wait for the news to come on. It also takes forever for the tv news to spin out a story. I don't have an hour to watch the news. And I want to view it when it's convenient for me. Community access tv is not important to me.

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?

Canadian programming is generally awful and unwatchable. It doesn't reflect Canada as I experience it. It seems to reflect what programmers think I should see Canada as. It also seems to just be copying American trends and "Canadianifying" them.

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I don't see programmed television lasting that long. I cannot fathom why anyone pays for cable anymore.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 15:11 CLD

Get rid of the CRTC and all Red Star Propaganda on the the CBC Planet. The CRTC and CBC lack normal intelligence and seemed stunned all the time no matter what issue is being discussed in news and around the world.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 15:40 Mike989

Hi everyone,
Sarah from the Rogers Social Media team here.
Rogers fully supports changes to the current TV model.
We're also listening to your suggestions here, so keep them coming!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 17:05 Rogers Sarah

Rogers is part of the problem.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 15:55 ProudCanadian

Hi Proud Canadian,
What makes you say that?

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 11:18 Rogers Sarah

Because you buy up "content", then hoard it. Once you own the "content" you only want to show it using your own distribution channels.
And you seem to be proud of this hoarding: Available only through Rogers!

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 13:52 AdBuster

Oh Sarah :( You seem so sad. You come around to various forums and post things like Rogers supports this or Rogers supports that.. You jsut don't come across as sincere. I am sure you mean well. But those of us who deal with Rogers know what the company is about.
It is nice that they hire naive young people for their Social Media Team t tell us how much Rogers agrees with us. But what Rogers should really do instead is to implement the things you say they support. Actions speak louder than words.
Good luck Sarah. I really mean that.

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 23:16 jaxon60

I'd like to converse with the CRTC:
1) What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
My preferences for content are alot less meaningful than my preferences for delivery of that content. My increasing frustration with TV reached a turning point this year and I finally did what I have been wanting to do for a long time. I cancelled my broadcast TV (Satellite). Children's programming, comedy, drama... who cares? All can be obtained through Netflix and that is all that matters. And if it can't then I can live without it. I detest broadcast TV because it forces me to watch COMMERCIALS and every year the COMMERCIALS take up more and more of each segment of TV. It's commercial inflation and soon 50% or more of each segment will be bloody commercials.
2) Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Oh WOW! Canadian content? NOTHING could be LESS IMPORTANT TO ME! You want to enforce "Canadian content" by forcing TV channels to broadcast more of it? I'll bypass those TV channels altogether. You think you can go after Netflix for not having enough Canadian Content? I'll VPN my internet feed directly to the US. Let me be clear: I don't give a darn about Canadian content and I think that this notion that you can control content is so outdated. People will get the content that they want according to the content, not its source.
3) What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Zero. It is of no importance. Why: I get it all the information I need from the Internet. This has no bearing on my disgust with TV. For example, I click on a little link for my city under news.google.ca and I get local news. Nobody does anything interesting locally anyway. And if they did, they would automatically appear on the Internet feeds I view anyway.
4) Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
Answer: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahhahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAhahahahahahaha... Nobody cares my friend... nobody cares.
5) What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
The CRTC will probably not exist anymore. All TV will be delivered on demand, available by content, with absolutely no governance of where content comes from. And I won't get that idiotic message about so and so having the distribution rights to this program in Canada... oh excuse me... VPN ON.. US IP address... 0.3 seconds later... my video plays. The Canadian government has no place in the bedrooms of Canadians... well you have even less of a place in my livingroom watching TV with me!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 18:07 Tebowski

One of the problems we have with television is that we live in a land of plenty - as in we don't want plenty of it!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 21:15 Trillian

I pay Shaw Direct $69.35 a month for the 5 channels I watch - $832.20 a year, $166.44 per channel. This is value? Shaw’s prices have increased 22.7% since 2009 as it extorts incessantly higher fees to bring me ever more useless channels. Shaw just doesn’t get that it’s about quality, choice and value, not about quantity. I’m simply paying 22.7% more for exactly the same thing.
I never watch any channels in the bloated mandatory carriage package that Shaw forces me to buy first, and to get the 5 channels I want, I’m forced to buy three separate specialty packages because of the way Shaw bundles its programming. This is customer choice?
That’s like going to a grocery store for bread and being told you can’t buy bread until you buy a huge mandatory package of fruit and fish first and oh, by the way, you can’t buy bread alone anyway – it’s only available as part of a big box of potatoes and onions. Your $2.50 loaf of bread just became $50 of waste. Now how long would that grocery store stay in business?
I watch BBC World News, CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg and CNBC. Shaw doesn’t carry Fox Business or Al Jazeera English for some unfathomable reason, or I would watch seven channels instead of five.
I want to choose and pay for only the channels I want! That’s the way any normal business operates and it’s just common sense.
If I could get a faster, more reliable internet connection, then I’d watch my chosen channels through their web sites and send Shaw Direct to the dustbin of overpriced, inefficient, customer-unfriendly, irrational fossils forever.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 00:56 Elisabeth

Update - yet another price increase from Shaw Direct – up another 6.6%! That’s a total incease of 28.9% since 2009. Shaw now wants $73.43 a month for the 5 channels I watch - $881.16 a year, $176.23 per channel. This increase is required in order to bring me more than 5,000 on-demand choices ... award-winning customer service and ... over 200 HD channels.
I watch 5 channels and I don’t have an HD TV. Why is Shaw allowed to keep forcing me to pay more and more for things I don’t want or need?

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 20:44 Elisabeth

I have worked with Rogers on and off and have a relationship like that of a Rihanna and Chris Brown. We perhaps can be described as being in a love hate relationship. They love hating me and the feelings are mutual so believe me as opinionated as my commentary might be Rogers and I complete each other... Now I need to take a shower!
Now with that being said, Canadian content is very important to a Canadian economy so guys like Rogers, Bell, CBC, and CTV must all do their part in providing CANADIAN content, for that we need to remind the CRTC why they are here in the first place. The bastardization of our television content has been to sell out to the United States and purchase outsourced content, and truthfully the consumer doesn't care where they get his/her content as long as the programming appeals to them. I for one have been disappointed over the lack of interest by local broadcasters to produce engaging content in a highly competitive market, instead they themselves have become consumers rather than enriched content producers providing a valuable export.
When I think of valuable exported Canadian content I think of things like Dragon's Den. This is a show that translated well in the USA with Shark Tank and originally was from the UK. This is one show that would be successful no matter where you air it. Unlike Canadian Idol and Canada's got talent that was a poor man's attempt to capitalize off an American market, Canadian's need to produce more content for a better TV, and FILM industry and bypass restrictive production laws that make it less appealing to create content here. Now to show my age there were others such as Degrassi, the Friendly Giant, Littlest Hobo, Pasquale the singing chef but seriously in today's market what are we selling?
Our film industry has been great with movies like X-Men, Resident Evil, and a few others coming to shoot here but how many people knew that movies like Police Academy was produced by CityTv? Sad to see what has become of it, wouldn't you agree? We need our broadcasters to be leaders of innovative and productive television and film production. They have the means of distribution, they have the means of production but they refuse to invest and spend on in house productions, local coverage, and content creation. Lately their focus has been on sports because it takes no creativity on their end and profit is gained by shares in ticket sales, merchandise, and as bad as our teams are, people still watch all the commentary shows. Sad really.
The excuses being made by these Broadcasters is that people will watch on their computers or people will watch on their iPads and nobody wants to watch Canadian content when they have so many options. Did you notice how the argument focuses on the revenue model and not the content of what people are watching? THIS ARGUMENT IS A SCAPEGOAT for irresponsible lack of production values and content creation. It also begs to ask why they can't produce the content that people want to watch and supply it on all platforms.... By God that might actually create more JOBS don't do that!
Now for those geniuses that say well we can order Netflix and I can get my news online unrestricted by borders and regulations, yes this is true. But as the CRTC has shown, people still tune in on Television as a lazy alternative to mainstream. What is mainstream? Things that the masses watch. Your local news is mainstream because you need to know what is going on in your neighbourhood. Sports is mainstream, regardless of what team you support you will likely turn on your tv to watch it, not stream from the Internet unless its a PPV. (Shame on you), but then you have shows like Break Out Kings, that only appeal to niche audiences that need help to grow. Then you have channels like TLN and Omni, you might not speak the language that is being aired but that content holds the same weight of representation to others that TLN and Omni produces it's content for as it would to somebody who speaks English, they need help. Some people have kids and some don't, so we need more educational children's programming, we need more programs that appeal to audiences of different needs and flavours. I am a black single father. That means I need cultural content from my background, I need my pro wrestling (insert sport or show of preference) and I need something that will enrich both my daughter's education and mine, but we need our broadcasters to produce competitive content. Deal or No Deal? (Another great Canadian export)

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 09:20 4everEvolving

<p>As for those that think al a carte ordering of channels will make things cheaper, you are kidding yourselves, the reason guys like Rogers are licking ther chops is because once they unbundle yes you will get your one or two channels of desired content but in exchange you will pay more for less. For example, your like a child who looks at a pizza slice and sees his friend get two slices so mommy says alright, turns around slices your one slice in two and you celebrate. If you pay $60 for 200 channels, why are you willing to pay $10 for one? Just so you can eliminate the French channel you don't watch? You can think of TV like health care, yes the masses are paying but you are free to watch what you want when you want whenever you want, if you dropped bundling you would only be increasing the price on a per channel bases only to reduce the variety and options. Rogers says thank you by the way.</p>

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 09:42 4everEvolving

The TV business is finished. It's over. And the CRTC will never be able to regulate the internet. The old business model forced Canadians to subscribe to specialty chanels they would never watch and a % of those revenues were used to fund programming which served a political purpose but was unwatchable. Canadian TV has been hijacked by ideologues and partisan interests which will always translate into bad ratings. And now comes the panic because everyone is cancelling their cable TV. The internet allows Canadians to stream and download content from anywhere at anytime. When you allow bureaucrats to micromanage the cultural industries and the creation of content, the audience disappears. The ratings for Canadian news-casts are now at historic lows. Advertising dollars are disappearing because nobody sits through commercials. All we need is high speed internet and a VPN application. Viewers and consumers are now in control. Broadcasters have lost their influence and their relevance. It's a Brave New World and nothing can save the Canadian TV business.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 10:30 ProudCanadian

Why is Rick Mercer still on TV and why are my tax dollars being used to further his liberal agenda?

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 10:51 ProudCanadian

I object to paying for French channels when I don't watch them. I generally like the content we have on tv, but I wish we could get more local channels as we have Bell satellite and no fine as we live in a rural area, so we really have no competition to choose from. Why do the French channels have history channel in he and the English Channel does not?

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 22:44 Shelley354

On a few occasions I have e-mailed the CRTC as well as the program director of the news program, about inappropriate comments and newscasts during hours when children would be awake. Basically the responses,were the same with both the CRTC and the program director not caring about what is shown on TV during times when children would be watching. The letters often were word for word the same.In otherwords things haven't changed.Thus I question if this new format of a dialogue with CRTCwill be of any use.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 13:46 Ally

We have not made use of Satellite services in our Rural area for 2 years, $70+/mo for half a dozen decent channels? What a money waster. Less than an hour's drive from our provincial capital, we cannot access local channels without raising a 40ft tower. We use the internet for our news and Netflix for entertainment. We do not watch sports with any regularity, reality shows wore our patience thin long ago, we do miss the History and Discovery Channels; we are considering AppleTV so we can watch some of these channels as a family again. Unfortunately there are some evenings that will not be available due to poor 'high-speed internet' services in our area. Our viewing, if given a choice, would be educational channels History, Discovery, Space, Movies, and Local for news. Our Teens access their favorite shows online now anyway, so no need to add all the kid channels we required a decade ago.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 17:02 lola5

I want to be able to pick and choose the tv channels i like,get rid of the inept CBC, CTV and Global Canadian junk that is so arrogant and insulting. Ilove BBC And Amercia tv. Also get rid of CRTC to save Canadians millions taxpayer dollars..The CRTC has no purpose.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 20:51 angry_canadian

Please ban ALL over-content advertising. It is extremley annoying to be watcing a show and have an ad appear over the show. Right now ads run for 4-5 minutes. That should be mmore than enough.
And that includes ads for upcoming shows. ALL over-content ads should be outright banned with no exceptions. This is the one thing that will make me cancel cable.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 00:26 AdBuster

Thanks CRTC for taking the lead on looking after the interests of Canadians and not the big cable companies. I believe Canadians are sick of the high prices, poor service and not so great products. We really have to make the cable companies more competitive.
That being said I cut off my cable TV service some years ago when they started charging me for High Definition, That was the last straw. I put up an antenna on my roof and I receive about 21 high definition channels in high definition ( I live in the West GTA) and that is plenty for me and the rest of the family. The best thing is that it is all free. The best channels in my view are CBC, CTV, PBS and of course the weather station. What I really miss though is watching Canadian Football. I was an avid fan and we used to go to the games but since TSN bought up the broadcast rights I can no longer get the games. I kind of feel that we sold off a bit of our Canadian Heritage and Culture to the highest bidder. CBC - if you are listening to this blog - bid higher next time or simply make your own internet channel for Canadian Sports. I know I will subscribe.
Speaking of the internet, I subscribe to Netflix and watching the shows on Netflix when you want and without commercials has changed the way my family watches TV. I would say that 80% of out TV watching now involves Netflix. I also figured out a way to get the American Netflix which has much greater selection. Going back to watch regular shows with all those commercials now is a painful exerpience. Programmers really need to find a better way to monetise their products.
CRTC - great idea to unbundle televisions shows. The only way I would consider going back to cable TV is if I could choose and pay for only the channels I wanted to watch.f
With respect to the CBC - I have no allegences to them but I do believe it is tax payers dollars well spent. (take note Conservatives - if you want to continue to get my vote - lay off the CBC) I have enjoyed their programming since I was a kid (including Rick Mercer) and the organization really offers some unique insight into Canadian affairs and from my perspective - helps us define our culture.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 10:20 markc

My family and I watch sorts of programming, from children's programs to dramas to sports and even some documentaries. The problem here in Canada is that we are hand-cuffed as viewers by the "Canadian Content" rules. I understand the importance of Canadian Content to allow Canadians to showcase their work and so on but really in a subscription based system as we have for cable, satellite and even Netflix why does that even come into play. I choose to have a Netflix membership and I should have the right to its full content "Canadian Content" or not I also pay for TV channels from the US and should have to right to watch the actual programming being played on that channel and not some piggy back CTV broadcast. I deliberately choose to watch the American channel - example Super-bowl Sunday, I want to see the game but many people do actually watch the game to see the commercials. Allow us the right to watch what we want not what you decide we should watch.

As for picking and choosing channels I fear that the cost of said channels will jumped to a stupid level. TSN will end up costing $40/month and so on. The Rogers & Bell of the world will need to have their charges capped at $3-$5 / channel or our bills will be thousands in no time.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 10:50 ds1973

ESPN charges customers the highest rate of any Pay Tv sation - $4.69/month for the main channel - think we will see prices like that in Canada?

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 13:41 Cam Allan

As it stands now, most programming is costly garbage.
"News" are not News but re-hashed semi propaganda, esp. on CBC.
We have Shaw satelite, basic package, two speciality channels, $ 64.50/month for that. Approx 80 channels, at least 20 of them CBC.
Take Saturaday/Sunday for a test: garbage, garbage and more garbage! No real entertainment (ex. Amazing Race), but 20 channels show hockey or other garbage.
For $64.50 per month, one expects propper entertainment.
Who cares about Canadian programs? Beside Dragons Den, Traier Park Boys all canadian programs are not worth watching and a total waste of tax money to make them.
CRTC should get to work and create a TV system that will please Canadian tax payer, not the ego of socialist government stooges!

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:11 Frank

There seems to be less and less variety of content these days. New shows are only continued if they appeal to a wild audience and obtain sky high ratings, everything else gets cancelled. All you seem to get on TV now is these widely popular shows and their repeats. New channels authorized by the CRTC seem to be nothing but existing programming from existing channels and then mostly repeats.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:16 ertyu

I think TV shows are getting better and better...I rarely watch movies anymore, because TV is getting so good. I'm talking about primetime scripted shows. I dislike reality shows.

1. What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Response: Ad free children's programming, news, prime time scripted shows.

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

Response: I usually want to know if the show is Canadian, but a lot of the time it is so I don't watch it. Although Cdn TV is getting better, ie Motive.

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Response: local is about my city. I never watch it. Iget community news via email/facebook.

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?

Response: it's somewhat reflective but not fully, it's not that multicultural. I guess I don't notice it that much though.

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I would like to be able to watch the shows I want to watch, not necessarily the channel, when I want to. I hope it will move toward that model. But if it does, I don't know how channels will stay in business since they are filled with mostly junk for large portions of the day. I fully watch shows off the PVR, never live TV. I don't channel surf. I prerecord what I want.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:16 daisy519

1) What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
It’s not what the content is about it is the quality of the content! All your listed content is important to someone at some time me included.

2) Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Sometimes I do know other times I don’t. No it’s not important for me to know, I won’t watch terrible tv just because it’s Canadian. If Canada can make good quality programming all the more power to Canada and I will watch it.

3) What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Local programming should be more geared towards near to me. Now my city is not large enough to host it’s own TV station so I rely on local being withing a 100 km around me. In the past I had relied on local news coming from my local radio station but even that is all national news now. Nothing local at all other then the paper. I think something valuable has been lost.

4) Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
I really couldn’t care less. Let’s face it, if it is a documentary about something Canadian then yes, but hey The Big Bang Theory is reflective of me even if it’s American it also is part of our/my demographic diversity etc etc.

5) What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I think the best shows are not on traditional broadcast TV. HBO, Showcase, Netflix etc are all producing great tv with shows like Sons Of Anarchy, Game of Thrones, House of Cards. Because of the current situation of packaging crappy channels in with good ones we have joined the growing number of people who are unplugged and are now simply streaming TV content that we want to watch. It’s not hard to get US content in Canada any more, nor should we have to be forced to take extra steps to get content that is out there on the web, legally. I was shocked to find a great Canadian series (no longer being made) on US Netflix, (not available on the Canadian version of Netflix go figure). I think that is the future of TV. Streaming. It has actually freed us of wasted time looking for new episodes on X night only to find it’s a re run, again. Don’t have to go through the hundreds of pages of listings our sat box or cable box had which was basically, music channels pay per view (way to many of them and way to over priced and way to complicated to delete from each set box) and duplicate channels to find what we really wanted. Was tired of nothing being on when I was ready to watch tv. Now, I sit down click Netflix, go to Discovery online or a host of other services and find what I want when I want it. I get to test out new series, shows, documentaries, movies without waiting for me to get to it’s time slot, it is all my time slot and at a great low price.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 13:29 Tatjana

The programs most important to me are the programs I watch regularly. There are other programs I have watched or that sound intersting that I might see when looking through the channel guide. The programs I like run the gamut from comedy, documentaries, drama to reality shows and cartoons.

I know some of the shows that are Canadian some because I have watched them for years, some because they have "Canadian" in the title, some have the local look to it and others are highly promoted or I know by word of mouth. It would be important for me to know a program is Canadian simply because as a Canadian I would like to see the shows that our country is producing. It would also be interesting to see local shows and know how they are doing on the North American stage.

I consider local television to be programs about my province. Local news is important to me because I like to know what is happening in the city or province that I live in. It is not as important to get it on TV because I can get it easily on the web or on the radio. However it is more convenient to have it on the TV.

I don't think the programming on television is fully reflective but it is getting better with shows like Flashpoint and to some degree The Listner.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 16:31 iPheuria

My biggest compaint about cable programming is that the relationship between the original license for a titled cable channel and its current content seems to have divergent paths. Why is Castle on Space? Why is Ice Road Truckers on History? Why is Mike Holmes on BBCcanada? I make purchase choices based on my viewing preferences and then monolithic cable companies make bulk purchases on serialized shows and flog them around their entire cable channel lineup. Is this not false advertising?

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 20:03 lbt123

I understand the why of canadian content and the support the industry needs. But you know what after soo many years of supporting shows nobody watches i'm getting tired of it. If only canadian content was not be so awful. CRTC let it go.
Second, the basic package has to go and give us the choice to select the channels we want. Now of course the bells and rogers' of this world will cry like little girls, like they did this past summer, but i see absolutely no compeling reason to start off the package at 20-25 bucks! CRTC let it go.
Finally, the signal substitution is the biggest fraud ever. it's disgusting. I pay to have that american channel, and I pay good money. What the hell gives you the right to impose signal substitution so that the 'local' broadcaster can get more money for their advertising. They're already being subsidized! And oh ya bell and rogers gloabl need a boost for advertising. what a joke, How about they real competition for once? Of course that won't happen because they got yoo in their pockets.
Just let us choose what channels we want. and like another wrote, get out of my bedroom CRTC!

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 20:16 anthony sisto

1.What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Response: The most important to me are children's programming, documentaries, drama and sports. They are important because they represent areas where television programming has a sufficient level of quality and should be encouraged. Other forms of programming that are bland,sensationalistic and crude are often found in reality TV and comedy shows. Television news has become less about objective presentation of the facts of current events and more aboutproducing an entertainmnet product. As a result,I now rarely watch television newscasts and rely mainly on internet sources.

2.Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Response: Often I do know which programs are Canadian but it is not important. What is important is good quality television programming. This long has been the consumer's main requirement. Canadian content is irrelevant. What is important is quality content. For example, the best English drama programming in neither Canadian or American but British. As a result I watch much of TVO or PBS which run lots of British drama.
3.What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Response - I consider local TV program about my city. Local news is important but I get it mainly via radio or internet. I rarely go to local television news. Community TV is low on my priority list and I rarely watch it.

4.Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
Response: A reflection of Canada's culture, etc on television is not important to me as a single metric. What is important is quality television. If a program is of high quality and happens to be about some aspect of Canada, then it becomes important. If it is of low quality, not compelling and is Canadian, the fact it is about Canada does not make it any more important. It is simply not worth watching.

5.What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Programming will become more fragmented over the next five to 10 years with less control exercised by traditional media distribution companies and more content being conveyed over the internet. It is coming and Netflix is a good example of the glimpse of the future.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 10:24 Ed L.

Local news is extremely important but as more and more channels are put on the air, the programming becomes much more watered-down and it becomes tougher for local businesses to participate in advertising, which keeps locals stations on the air. I guess my point is to allow local television broadcasters access to cable channels to advertise local businesses just as national advertisers. Like it or not, advertising keeps stations on the air.

What do I think about what's on the air? Repeats and nothing but repeats

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 17:22 zuyak

Favorite Canadian dramas . Orphan Black by a mile. Big Republic of Doyle fan. Watch Continuum religously.
Shows I miss the most Intelligence, This is Wonderland, The Newsroom and Durham County. I wonder if we had had higher PVR and VOD penetration when some of those shows were cancelled, whether they might have lasted longer? Perhaps better measurement data that includes PVR,VOD and broadband play would demonstrate there are more popular Canadian shows than debate suggests sometimes.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 12:06 hennessycmpa

1. What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Programmes that are Canadian produced, Canadian content and both national and global in scope. We prefer educational programming that makes us think, not based on American shlock. We prefer documentaries, historical programmes, nature and environment (The Nature of Things), deep thinking dramas, and good thought-provoking comedies (satirical, like Rick Mercer, and loved Little Mosque on the Prairie and Royal Canadian Air Farce, both of which were sadly cancelled). Also investigative journalism such as The Fifth Estate. Foreign programming would be appreciated, such as BBC. When we watch the telly, it's either CBC. TVO, Vision or PBS. Even The WeatherNetwork. Most of our news nowadays comes from the BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, all on-line. We prefer reading and watching at our leisure, rather than being tied down to a time (eg. 10:00pm when The National comes on). We have recently signed on to Netflix in order to watch movies without commercials.
2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Most of the programming we watch is Canadian because we choose that, specifically. We check out programmes beforehand on the websites to see where they have been produced and which networks are carrying them. We consciously avoid American broadcasters and channels. We are Canadian, not American, therefore, we want to watch programmes that are produced here in Canada, supporting our Canadian industry, are about Canadian issues, or Canadian comedy.
3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
"Local" programming means programming from my community, which is outside of the GTA, but still in Southern Ontario. Very little of that exists, with the exception of what you can hear on the radio.
Canadian television programming is very Toronto-centred, or else Canada-centred, which is fine, as long as good representation of Canada is included. If all the shows produced here are emphasising life in the East Coast, for example, then we are doing a disservice to the rest of Canada. In the days of North of 60, Danger Bay, The Beachcombers, Black Harbour, for example, we were able to catch a glimpse of areas outside of the Toronto-centric Windsor-Quebec corridor. Recent programmes such as Republic of Doyle, Dragon's Den, Murdoch Mysteries and Heartland are doing a pretty good job of bring entertaining Canadian television to Canadians.
Local television news is important if it truly reflects the local area. Local news is important to keep the community connected. Many local stations (eg. CTV South-western Ontario out of Kitchener) only have a small segment of truly local news. The rest is just regurgitated from the main CTV broadcast out of Toronto, or else using syndicated news from the US to boost up their programme.
Rogers Cable does offer local news stories with minimal programming, but it is very amateurish at times. Nevertheless, at least they are providing local news and events.
World and national news we only seek using on-line sources as already mentioned, in order to read the stories at our convenience and as soon as we hear about them, rather than waiting for the evening.
4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
It used to be, very much so. But sadly, the diversity of Canadian culture on TV has been greatly reduced over the years. There needs to be more representation from Canada's first nations people. Whether or not North of 60 was, or Arctic Air is, truly representative is a bit of a moot point. At least these programmes highlight issues that affect the North and first nations. Canada's multi-cultural make-up needs to be better represented on television as well. Very sorry when Little Mosque on the Prairie was cancelled. Also, a programme like King of Kensington really gave a great overview of the cultural richness and diversity of Toronto. Vision TV is good at bringing a variety of cultural and religious programming to Canadians (as long as they can still access it through their cable networks).
The CRTC needs to continue to strictly regulate Canadian content, in particular, content that better reflects the diversity of Canadian culture. Not necessarily programmes that restrict viewership, but integrate all cultures together, as Little Mosque so neatly did. Thre is also a richness of European and Asian culture here, why can't we have more programmes accessible to all, in English as well as French, Punjabi, or Ojibway, for example. However, as Canada's official languages are English and French, most programming should be in those languages in order to be accessible to the most people watching.
5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Good question. Certainly our TV watching has changed remarkably over the past 10 years. We have moved from very TV based to watching more programmes on the computer - podcasts, i-TV and Netflix have revolutionised the way we schedule our entertainment time. Personally, we detest commercials, and therefore are watching more and more of our programmes on the computer to get away from the constant bombardment of commercial broadcasting.
Having lived in the UK for several years, it was heaven to be able to watch 7 different channels of the BBC, all without commercials. The BBC provided extremely high calibre of programming, local, national and global in scope, which appealed to all interest types. Yes, we had to pay for a yearly TV licence, which today costs 145.50 (about $230 Cdn), but to be able to watch all excellent BBC programming, movies, the Olympic Games coverage without one single commercial was worth every penny. Not to mention the extra channels on the BBC "red button" options. The BBC also provides many of their programmes on-line for those who may not have the opportunity to watch them when they are broadcast. We would love to see options like that here. The TV licence money generated partially covered programme costs in lieu of commercial revenues. The UK government, however, is also commited to producing high-calibre, intelligent television programmes and therefore they have a culture budget that does not cut corners. It would be a breath of fresh air if our current government supported the arts, culture and intelligent broadcasting here as well, rather than constantly cutting the budget of the CBC and CRTC.
Having said that, we still feel it is imperative that Canada retains a national commercial-free TV broadcaster, the CBC, funded by the government and regulated by the CRTC. It MUST showcase Canadian content, just as the BBC is the UKs national broadcaster, funded by the British government and the TV licences, not by commercials.
As technology continues to become more and more about personal choice, personal time and self-regulation of our entertainment choices, so must TV broadcasting have to change. There should be less reliance on a monoploy of only 2 or 3 cable providers, and more options for cable choice (in the UK, we had a huge selection of what cable provider we wanted to use, and cable prices were MUCH cheaper there than here - we were shocked when we returned home to find the ridiculous prices for just basic cable).
Options like Apple TV and internet TV are outpacing the traditional TV that we have grown up with over the past 40 - 50 years. Being able to choose which channels we would like to watch, rather than being forced to have dozens of channels we don't watch, is now the way to go. Being able to selectively choose which channels we want to watch is a much more sensible idea.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 13:23 LJM

I have never been so fed- up with Canadian t.v. in all of my life as now. this ia a new month, November, 2013..... we are ,according toour present t.v. providers, entitled to watch new t.v. shows..... not happing, WHY???? WE ARE STILL REQUIRED TO WATCH REPEAT SHOWS.... !. MISSING IN ACTION, 2. AIR FORCE ONE, 3. DEATH WISH 1,2,3,4, 4. DANCES WITH WOLVES, 5. JERIMIA JOHNSON. 5. REPEATS OF NCIS, NCIS LOS ANGELOS, HAWAII 5-O, ETC, ETC. ,ETC ALL REPEATS , ONE AFTER THE OTHER.... DOES THE CANADIAN GOV'T & CRTC NOW GET THE PICTURE.... WE ARE FED-UP WITH WATCHING NOTHING BUT REPEAT SHOWS. When is the CRTC going to force t.v. providers like Corus Entertainment (worth over $2.2 Billion Dollars), Bell Media, Astral Media, Shaw Media to provide decent t.v. to the people of Canada to watch???? How many more Billions of dollars must corporations like Corus Entertainment, Bell Media, Astral, etc. make before they will actually show us something decent to watch? To Date .....nothing but repeat shows , & crap.
I was forced to watchthe Canadian production: "Played" as there was only otherrepeat programs to watch, "Played" was totally pitiful for me to watch. .. The script was bad, the show production & direction was very bad, and the acting was "pittiful".... THIS IS CANADIAN ACTING AT IT'S BEST. I now, avoid watching any Canadian Production.... it is not entertainment.... but a total waist of time... If CANADIAN PRODUCTIONS WERE ANY GOOD, THEN WE WOULD GLADLY WATCH THEM, NOT BEING FORCED TO WATCH THEM.
If the CRTC cannot, & will not make the present t.v. providers to give the people of Canada decent t.v.to watch.... then we only have a few choices left to do:
1. Cancel our subcriptions to the satallite, & cablecompanies , & purchase a digital decoder so one can install an antennae, and ,then recieve only local t.v.for NEWS, WEATHER & SPORTS, and purchase NETFLIX to watch new shows, or rent movies from our local stores. I would not purchase any pay/per view shows from SHAW, BELL OR ANY OTHER PROVIDER.... JUST ON PRINCIPAL... AS THESE PEOPLE ARE SHOWING US CRAP ON PURPOSE SO WE WILL SPEND MORE & RENT MOVIES FROM THEM..... NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.....WILL I RENT PPV MOVIES FROM THEM.
The CRTC CAN provide the people of Canada decent television:
1. Allocate 4 or 5 t.v. channels to air nothing but Canadian Content 24/7 ( 24hours per day, 7 days per week) This should take care of the Candaian Content requirement. those people wishing to watch CANADIAN CONTENT , then can any time they wish,and the rest of Canada WILL NOT BE FORCED TO WATCH IT .
2. FORCE the present t.v. providers to post a $10, 000,000.00 Performance Bond, thus ensuring that they must provide decent t.v. to the people of Canada, or forfeit their money.
I REPEAT: If Canadian Productions were any good we would not have to be forced to watch them, but would be happy to watch them.... presently , they are CRAP..... POOR ACTING, POOR DIRECTION, POOR PRODUCTIONS...... NOT WORTH WATCHING.
CANADIAN ACTORS SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME WATCHING AMERICAN SHOWS... then they can find out how to ACT, DIRECT, AND PRODUCE DECENT MOVIES, /SHOWS..... TO DATE Canadian Produced Shows are not worth watching.

Totally fed-up with the present CANADIAN TELEVISION SYSTEM.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You,

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 17:23 lucky123

Dude, no one is forcing you to watch Canadian content. Calm down.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 22:50 JamesMcGill

Hi again:
Here is what I think about Canadian t.v......There is absoutely nothing to watch for entertanment....We get nothing but one repeat program after the next, How many times does the CRTC expect us to watch the same damn shows over,& over ,and over again, & again, & again???? You have given corporations like Corus Entertainment,( worth over $2.2 Billion dollars), Astral Media, Bell media, Shaw Media a monopally to provide t.v.to the people of Canada. They are feeding us nothing but CRAP ON THE 300 + CHANNELS THAT ARE AVAIABLE. why is this.... because they can and don't care what they provide, as there is no one to stop them from doing so. we are completely at their mercy,... just like a dictator. the CRTC CAN'T STOP THEM, OR DON'T WANT. as we still have the same damn shit to watch over, and over ,again,and again every month.How many more BILLIONs of dollars must these corporations make befor it is feasible for them to show us some new shows???? Why do I have to pay the same rediculous monthly bills to watch repeat programming, over, and over, and over again.... Does this seem fair to the CRTC???
It is past time when the CRTC must enforce gidelines to make these corporations accountable for their actions:
1. Require all t.v. providers to post a $ 10,000,000.00 performance bond ensuring good t.v. programs, with no repeat shows to air for a period of not less than 50 years...this may eliminate repeat programming!!
2. The CRTC should allocate 3 or 4 channels to run nothing but CANADIAN CONTENT AND SHOULD RUN 24/7 with nothing but Canadian Programs... those people wishing to view CANADIAN CONTENT can any time they wish and the rest of us won't be forced to watch it .
3. The CRTC must find NEW T.V. PROVIDERS, so at least there is some compitition... this may lead to good programming.
4. The CRTC should not force us to watch CANADIAN CONTENT.... I for one can not stand to watch a CANADIAN PRODUCTION. Canada can not provide a canadian actor that can act, acanadian producer that can produce any thing worth watching,,or a canadian director that can direct a decent movie, or show.... STOP FORCING US TO WATCH THIS KIND OF CRAP.
We will have no choice but to get rid of our t.v.'s if this is kept up..... WHERE will the television industry be when no one will watch their rotten t.v..... THEY MAY EVEN GO BANKRUPT, PITY, ONLY IN CANADA ,EH? PITY??
TODAY IS A NEW MONTH and still all we have to watch is repeat programming.... this is fair is it not???and all for the same damn monthly price, this is fair , isn't it????

We all may have to do what others have already done, cancell our satellite or cable t.v. subscriptions, order local t.v. channels to watch NEWS, WEATHER & SPORTS. Rent movies from our local stores or from Netflix.... and watch SHAW, BELL, ASTRAL, CORUS ENTERTAINMENT, ETC GO BANKRUPT, AS NO ONE WILL BE LEFT TO WATCH THEIR CRAP THAT THEY NOW PROVIDE....... WOULD THIS BE A WAKE- UP CALL TO THEM??????
Truly discusted with the present CANADIAN TELEVISION.... NOT WORTH WATCHING AT ALL!!!!!!!

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 01:03 lucky123

1. What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Network series, news and some documentaries on History/H2 are most important to me. In summer I watch a lot of movies as there isn’t as much on the networks. I do not watch children’s programming, and sitcoms don’t interest me other than the Sunday night animated ones. Sports programming is limited to Winnipeg Jets on CBC/ TSN regular and CFL games if the Blue Bombers are winning. Reality is limited to The Amazing Race and Survivor. Why? I like to be entertained foremost and informed what is going on.
2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
I watch the Mike Holmes shows on HGTV as it is Canadian. US home improvement shows won’t cut it because of our climate. Generally, if it is on CBC it is Canadian, not that I watch much other than the occasional Rick Mercer, maybe the Nature of Things, and the one that follows if the topic is of interest. 22 Minutes is too corny.

It would be nice to know if movies or programs on the other channels are Canadian, so I can keep this in mind so I don’t waste a lot of time on fluff created to fulfill a CanCon quota.
3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
The local news is the most important programming on local channels. I watch Global National followed by the local news almost every night. I’ll occasional watch the local CTV news if Global is pre-empted by golf tournaments that run late. I’ll watch the occasional Focus Manitoba if they are of interest to me.
I mean to watch some shows on the Shaw community channel but never think of it in time. I think this is because the HD channels are in the 200’s on Shaw, the community is 9 in SD and the HD version is somewhere in the 300’s PPV channels. Maybe Shaw could move this to 215 after the French CBC so it gets better exposure?
4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
It seems to me the whole CanCon thing is a disaster with complex rules and most of it just cheap filler. How is it that a program like Supernatural filmed in Vancouver BC not considered Canadian? It is supporting the BC economy,and is subsidized by tax breaks. Same with AMC’s Hell on Wheels filmed in Alberta. Revolution on NBC (and City) and HBO’s True Blood each have a lead actress from Winnipeg so there is Canadian element to them even if not set in Canada.
On the other hand, a lot of movies on Movie Central have the Canada emblem at the end but I can see nothing Canadian about them, especially if they their plot involves a fictional US President and the White House, or some other recognizable US location. If tax dollars are going to be used for CanCon productions, producers should at least use Canadian landmarks. It would be cool to see aliens or zombies invade Ottawa.
There are a few Canadian success stories. Flashpoint is one, Continuum is another, which is nice as it is a futuristic Vancouver. A problem: what do these programs have in common? US support! Flashpoint was carried on CBS for a couple of years. Continuum is made for SyFy (would love to have that instead of Space.) Motive is a summer fill-in on ABC. It seems Canada cannot support stand-alone domestic drama development despite all the tax money and corporate support (which consumers eventually pay for).
The Amazing Race Canada was a big success last summer. I enjoyed it. Note to producers: Maybe next time include a Manitoba pit stop? It is high time there is a Canadian run of Survivor. Is there any truth to the story if the contestants left Canada, CTV would not have gotten the CanCon credits? Maybe that is why there is no Canadian Survivor?
There is too much repetition of Canadian shows. Weird or What on History is one of the worst cases – the same episodes keep repeating night after night. They weren’t too bad when they first aired, but come on; these are 2-4 years old now! Perhaps there needs to be a limit on how many times a show airs before CanCon credits wear out.

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Each year I find I am watching less and less on the US and Canadian broadcast networks. It seems the networks air many cheap to produce comedies and singing/dancing reality shows which I can’t stand. Also too many remakes, but that applies to movies at the theatre too.
A&E, TLC and Discovery used to be good, but they are more or less overrun by bad reality shows. I don’t even see the one show I like to watch, Mythbusters in the schedule anymore.
The best programming right now is on American services, like The Walking Dead on AMC. TNT has a lot of good programming but that is not available in Canada due to unnecessary protectionist policies. I have to subscribe to Super Channel for Falling Skies, which is ridiculous when it is on a basic cable channel in the US.
If the Canadian system cannot provide me what I want, I will be joining the growing number of cord-cutters.

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 17:23 kcbrk32

1. Comedies and dramas are most important to me. I get my news and documentaries from webpages, feature films from Netflix. I am not a sports fan.
2. I know which shows are Canadian, which shows are American but are filmed in Canada, which American shows include writers/directors/producers/actors that are Canadians.
3. I would consider the local news to be local television. Local news is not important to me as I can get the news stories I want as they are being reported from the Internet.
4. I don’t think reflection is all that important to me in television programming, I watch TV as a bit of an escape from my everyday life and I don’t think I’d tune into something that was too familiar to what I already know.
5. I think that there will be much more indie productions in the future, small producers and no-name actors getting together with capital raised from a public (think Kickstarter) funding to produce content. The content will bypass studios/broadcasters and go direct to the net. More shows will be available online meaning that viewers won’t be subscribing to channels but instead to shows they watch shows à la Carte. For shows that are produced by studios, there will be much better feedback from actual viewers and not just Nielsen families. Indie productions and better sampling of viewers could be good (content people actually want to see) or bad (amateurish, pandering to the lowest common denominator).

Sunday, November 3, 2013 - 22:03 kaitou

1.What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?

There are 4 people in the household who all have different tastes in tv watching. I personally am a big Sports fan and enjoy some scripted TV programming.

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

Yes I do because I watch exactly one Canadian produced program: HNIC. Canadian produced scriptedprogramming is and has always been terrible and woefully inferior to it's American cousin. If you look at the ratings each week, you'll see the majority of Canadians agree as US programming dominates the list. Nobody cares about CanCon anymore and it's outdated. TV shows garner viewers based on the quality of their productionand Canada is far behind.

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?

Local is obviously the area you live in. I get most of my news off the internet and have no use for Local programming.

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?

No and thank goodness for that because Canadian programming is awful. As said above, you can see what Canadians are watching by looking at the ratings and it's not Canadian programming with the exception of the News and HNIC. People want to be entertained by what they watch, not forced to suffer through terrible production and boredom asa means of being patriotic.

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

Hard question to answer as the landscape is changing so rapidly. More and more people are going to internet based resources so they can watch what they want, when they want and that is likely going to be the norm before too long. I'd be satisfied if we no longer had the archaic rules in place that cut out competition from other Countries as a means of protecting our inferior providers and producers. If Canada truly opened up a competitive field and allowed US providers to offer their services without any CanCon stipulations, then I would be truly satisfied. As it is, that will likely never happen which is why the internet is now the outlet for many Canadians to get access to programs the silly laws of thisCountry don't allow them to by normal means.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 02:29 trask

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
I like all of them, good programming is more important to me not any type of genre

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

some I do (for example many of the French shows or Dragon'sDen....) others I assume they areUS (especialy if they also play onUS stations.

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Local news (city, metropolitain area, province, country)is extremely important, but for the restit would be niice if it is local
but not that important

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
not really but this is a tough question. First of all many of the shows that I watch are US (even onCanadian stations) so obviously they won't reflect canadian stuff. SecondCAnada is so vast soi what can we define as Canadian culture....?

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

no idea

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 10:33 Anthony

Documentary programs, news and current affairs are of primary interest in this house. Mt wife watches some serials and I watch major sporting events. Besides these our selective goes to the Internet for pop culture. Netflix has turned out to be a major source of entertainment for us with entire seasons available and without advertising. I would rather pay a subscription than a cable bill any day to watch the programs I like. Canadian television has gone to the lowest common denominator with shows like Border Securty, Yukon Gold and Alaska state troopers. These shows are insulting to ethnic minorities and to First Nations. To top it all off some of the programs pass for documentary funding with the Canadian Media Fund and the CAVCO tax credit system, so they get produced with money directed at the creative industries.
As a First Nations person I am Appaled at the lack of aboriginal programs broadcast by mainstream content providers. And the CRTC has sat back and said nothing over the last 14 years. The broadcasters a

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 11:34 Urbanrez Productions

This program does not work well for the ipad. Anyway to continue my thoughts
The broadcasters all have an obligation to represent all Canadians and the broadcasting act defines a special place for aboriginal people. But since the creation of the Aptn most broadcasters will not touch native produced content. Each broadcaster should have a quota on how many hours are devoted to this. CBC does their share and CTV in Vancouver does to a lesser extent. But bell media and shaw are totally off the hook

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 11:41 Urbanrez Productions

There are many angry people on this lets talk to Canadians. One would be left with the impression that most people should have their television sets taken away for them. So maybe one more contribution before I sign off from this angry mob.
1. CBC. We do not need the national network. Keep news world and program all news on the main channel to the newsworld.
2. We do need mandatory carriage of CBC newsworld and the APTN.
3. Creat a subscription based service for all programming on the Internet.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 11:50 Urbanrez Productions

Answer 1: What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
I watch good entertaining programs (specially after hard day job),sometimes documentaries or a good film, but nowadays and mostly thanks to PVR recording device, pretty much I tape what I want to watch.
Answer 2: Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
That is the least thing I care.....where is it from?....as long as it is good, that's all I care
Answer 3: What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
What I consider to be local television is just the News, that's it. and I think nobody cares about community TV, and for any community event or activity.....well that's what the news are there for.... right?....
Answer 4: Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
There is enough room for everybody!!, let's face it, this is a multicultural Country. People from other lands (like myself) do enjoy the local cultural enviroment as well as entertainment without having to forget our roots and our culture. Members of the CRTC keep in mind that the technology is there to please everybody. Now what's missing? well let me tell you I am with TELUS here in Vancouver, and I am just waiting to see if they will ever provide of Spanish/Latin TV stations to their multicultural package programming....!! I am just waiting to see which Cable provider willplease the 70,000+ Spanish/Latinos who live in this city and get their business.
Answer 5: What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Well Hopefully we will be able to watch what we want,whenever we want without restrictions. Internet has globalized everything....the sky is the limit.....I am looking forward some day to just walk home, turn on the TV and watch: the news from Spain, a nice soap opera from Peru, a Dance competition from Argentina, ending up with an old Black and White Cantinflas Movie.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 16:24 Carlitos

1.What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
I usually watch news twice a day and then documentaries or dramas.

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
I don't care which ones are Canadian. I do not watch programs because they are Canadian. I watch them for their content!
3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
I never watch community TV. I do watch local news once a day to get caught up but that can be frustrating due to the lack of indepth reporting being carried out. The reporters seem to go through the motions but usually leave too many unanswered questions.
4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
Again I do not watch content because they are simply Canadian
5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
The revolt that is underway now by the cord cutters will be in full blown. This means that the number of people watching TV over cable tv will pale in comparison to those who are using other sources. I have basic cable simply because I refuse to pay the outrageous prices to be able to get the few channels I want to watch. I may watch 2 hours of content from my cable provider. The rest of the time its either Netflix or other sources.
I see streaming services picking up steam. As the incumbents market share wain in the coming years their exclusivity to certain programming that they current enjoy will decrease. This will allow us to get this same content from streaming providers. Allowing two of the major incumbents ISPs to purchase 2 major TV networks was a huge mistake that the CRTC made.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 17:36 Snowbound

It's time to catch up with young people and collaborate with them, and have broadcasters partner with them , to ensureyoung people's success as communicators through their school years. By bonding with youth and encouraging them to be proficient broadcasters, youth will bond with the industry, and ensure Canadian talent is found on THE TUBE, not just youtube.
Here is a BIG IDEA to make this happen : http://bit.ly/12q60kT .
Glad to have your feedback ! elybonder@gmail.com

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 21:16 Ely Bonder

Q- What shows are most important to me?
Simple answer- what ever show holds my attention.I have watched shows in foreign languages to which I could never understand,yet the content held my attention.The only Canadian shows that I enjoy are few and limited.I watch National News and HNIC.All other programs are sports and quality related on US Networks.I can tell without fail a Canadian produced movie.Acting is questionable,quality of production is low,and extremely predictable story lines.As Canadian as I am..I'm all about choice and quality.I don't care if a show is Canadian or American,what I look for is quality.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 10:47 about choice

Today is 5, nov., 2013: Still the same repeat programming on t.v. My!!, Canada should be so proud to carry such lousy t.v. Congradulations Canada..... We are so happy that all you can provide on t.v. is repeat programming..... Just how many times are we required to watch this repeat programming?, 10, 20, or 30 times? Candadian t.v. is so wonderful.... because there is absolutely nothing to watch...... Why have a t.v. at all??? One good thing.. your buddies at Corus Entertainment, Bell Media, Astra media, Shaw media, etc. are making a bundle of money , lining their pockets while they can, by showing us nothing but cheap repeat movies, that they paid little for because they are so out dated. WaKE-up CRTC....START FORCING THESE T.V. PROVIDERS TO SHOW US SOMETHING WE CAN ACTUALLY WATCH....... Better yet... fire the present people, and hire completely NEW T.V. PROVIDERS Maybe then we could have something to watch , besides repeat programming. This time lay out some stipulations for these t.v. providers to follow:
1. Performance bond requiring them to provide decent t.v. ( $10,000,000.00 dollar bond might work)
2. Provide 3 to 5 Channels of strictly Canadian Content; & to air 24/7 ( 24 hours/day, 7 days/ week)... People wishing to watch Canadian Content can at any time they wish and the rest of us won't be forced to watch it.
3. Repeat programming shall not be permitted for a period of at least 50 years... this should prevent some repeat programming from occuring..
4. Do not force the Canadian people to watch Canadian Productions .. as, right now they are terrible....Canadian actors cannot act, Canadian Directors cannot direct a decent production, and Canadian Producers cannot produce a decent show..... When these people produce something decent, then we will be happy to watch it, and you won't have to force us to watch it......... Is this NOW clear to you CRTC?????????
Truly discusted with the present CANADIAN T.V.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 18:10 lucky123

So, on one hand you want the CRTC to force broadacsters to do a number of things (including, absurdly, fire themselves), yet you also want to abolish the CRTC. How is the CRTC going to regulate and enforse these changes if they no longer exist?

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 20:36 JamesMcGill

We all can except that canadian television needs to evolve with the demands of the times. like many people on here i agree that we should be able to pick and choose our indivdual channels that we want to watch.. many of the hundreds of channels repeat and show the same shows on different channels. however i do believe the local stations with in your city must be carried in any television package that you provide. i agree with others that its time the CBC is defunded, its focus is way too much eastern canada.
All tv companys should have local news provided, meaning within your city. i believe that a quick flash of a maple leaf at the begining or end of a show, could be added to let the public know which shows are canadian content and produced in canada.
i like most sci-fi shows, comedies , and educational..mayday, mighty ships, things that give you a inside look into operations of different machines and buildings.

Thursday, November 7, 2013 - 15:08 scooby1701

1) Most important to me are High quality scripted programs and informative documentaries which are a mix of adult and family oriented. I usually get my News online, I do not watch it on television. An important idea for me is the transition away from reality television programming. It is television made on the cheap, so it does not support the television industry or create jobs. It is also, generally speaking, aimed at the lowest common denominator and supports shallow values, without challenging or teaching the audience, the way a well written piece or a relevant documentary does.

2) I make it my business to find out which shows are Canadian, which are American but shot in Canada, and which are American. This information is readily available online. I live in Toronto, and I find many of the shows which I know to be shot here are advertised on ttc ad space. If this is policy I think it is excellent, if it isn't, it certainly should be. An emphasis on advertising the work done by Canadians to Canadians can only be good for the industry.

3) While I get some small thrill when watching Rookie Blue or Flashpoint for example, and being familiar with the setting, I don't think programming needs to emphasize setting itself in specific Canadian locations. Good stories well told are universal. I think that should be the emphasis. Local news I get online, or occasionally from the radio, I personally don't get it from television.

4) I think there are more and less well represented groups on televsion still, but I think we are moving, very positively towards a more accurate depiction of the diversity we have here. I think an emphasis on ethnic casting, as well as a strong focus on women in media are important. Again however I emphasize that good stories well told are universal. Absolutely there should be a emphasis on diversity, but this should not dictate the content of the programming.

5) I see an upward trend in the respect for Canadian-made material both here and south of the border. I hope this continues. Obviously many people - myself included - are switching to online resources for most of their viewing purposes. I've seen a nubmer of Canadian networks handeling this very well, by simply going with the trend, posting much of their content online for free, with the simple stipulation that you watch a few commercials before and during your program. Whether this is the future, or further adaptation will be required remains to be seen, but I leave speculation like that to industry experts.

Thursday, November 7, 2013 - 15:35 Jack Morton

Very well said Jack.

Although, I still like to get my news on TV. Today is a crazy CP24 day with the Mayor.

You do got to give credit to the networks. If it is a Canada show, the do funnel the money into advertisements. I remember a ton of Rookie Blue ads on the ttc before the season premier. Without that all I’d ever hear about it Two Broke Girls.

I agree though, I don’t think we need to emphasis the setting so much as we just need to continue to invest in the industry. If we could get good, universal stories, we could package that out internationally and our industry could be a stronger player and in turn create more Canadian jobs.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 15:46 NateTO

Hello there,

1. I think children's programming (specifically cartoons), comedy and anime are most importaint to me when watching tv because its a great source of just fun entertainment that help take you into another world of imagination.

2. For the most part, the Canadian content I enjoy are only 6 Teen (which only airs now on Cartoon Network Canada) and the Total Drama series. I also find the knowledge of if you are viewing Canadian content important so you are informed that what you are viewing is our own original content which is rather interesting. although I do think (this may be off topic but I cant seem to find a conversation that relates to this) that when we recieve the rights to start a US based channel ie. Cartoon Network/Adult Swim Canada, Disney XD Canada, and Nick Canada we shouldnt need to domesticate it and modify it so we can fill the need of 30% Canadian content and I belive these channels should be broadcasted directly from America and shown on our TVs the way they are ment to be shown and on their terms( take Canada off the ends of our channels so ie. Nick Canada just simply becomes Nick). I understand that we need to broadcast our content but why not let ie.Cartoon Network show what they want and we still have Teletoon to show what we want. if this were to happen, we would have a better variety and this may also help prevent piracy from american satellite feeds. I understand also that we have our own TV rating systems but I'm sure you can modify things like those. All I'm saying is if we broadcast channel originally from America and have the rights to show their content with their properties and logos, we should let it be the way it was made to and not limit ourselves to the content our there just so we can show what we have. Just eliminate the 30% Canadian content rule (at least on US based networks) and leave them alone to do their own thing.

3.I consider local programming to be city, town, region, or county wide (municipal) although it is important to be informed as to what is happening proventially, federally, and globally.

4.I think our content reflects us in curtain ways although we are very similar to the US and i belive we are all as one and share alot of things with each other thus we are united and we share cultures.

5. In the next 5 to 10 years, I think programming will be very similar but we will have more freedom and we will share channels internationally with the world giving us a much wider variety of content and enjoyment.

Thanks :)

Sunday, November 10, 2013 - 16:58 bignosebomber

1. I love watching scripted dramas. I detest most reality programming - especially that which encourages immoral or selfish behaviour for the sake of a monetary prize. I am entertained by imaginative storytelling, not by watching people's physical or mental suffering.
2. I am mostly aware of which shows are shot in Canada (that is to say, Toronto or Vancouver - Heartland's Calgary area location and Republic of Doyle's east coast perspective are the exception) which may or may not be Canadian productions. It used to be that one could pick out a Canadian show before the opening credits ended as the production quality was so bad - maybe we were trying to be "artistic" or something, but now the production values have caught up with American fodder.
I think it is important, especially now, for the audience to recognize a program is Canadian made if for no other reason than letting them realize our abilities are SO much better now than before (which is when most adults formed Canadian production-hating attitudes). A little bug of a maple leaf in the top left of the screen would be all it takes. Bet it surprises some folks.
3. Local programming by definition is programming produced locally. Regional programming would be things produced either in another city in the same province, or more widely, programming made by and about the half of Canada (east or west) involved. Local news is most important to me because it is the news that affects me most. Regional, national and international news is useful for outside awareness, but is usually something I can do nothing about.
I have always been stymied by the existence of the community channel. It would seem to be anachronistic in this day and age ... a terribly useful idea before the existence of cable, but pretty much useless after.
4. Canadian programming is not representative of the entirety of the country. It is mostly the view of Torontonians. Even Heartland comes from the Toronto view of what western Canada is. Programming decisions are made in Toronto so we must watch what Torontonians have decided is watchable which, surprise surprise, is a lot of procedural dramas taking place in Toronto. Little Mosque on the Prairie was out of Toronto for crying out loud. If there were more shows truly sourced from the rest of Canada, the obvious Toronto shows (which for the most part are pretty good) would be a truer representation as things really are - Toronto is just another city in Canada: no better no worse than any other. Flashpoint could happen in Calgary, or Montreal (that would be more realistic).
Vancouver is more frequently the location for American produced programs shot in and around the Vancouver area - still good economics for the west coast craftspeople. So I say HURRAY for Republic of Doyle (although it may still be Toronto affected) for being truly Canadian outside the "major production centres" - east coast culture is unique.
Prior to the digital age it was an economic necessity for production to be localized - our country is physically too big to have it otherwise - but at this point in time, there is no reason for that to continue. By the virtue of the technology that Canadians helped bring about, we can all meet face to face in the same room via our computers. National decisions can (and should) be made by regional representatives across the country giving a more fair and even cultural sway to what does and does not make it to broadcast. Get some Skype y'all!
5. My guess for the next 5 to 10 years is that television will be much more closely tied to the web. Local news will still be a necessity, but regional and national could be reduced to headlines with links to full reporting on-line for those who choose them. My prayer is that news cease to be a form of entertainment - it's better to be right than first - I hope the news teaser is eliminated (if the subject is so unimportant as to rate a tease, it's not news it's gossip).
I believe the CRTC must remain strong in its commitment to preserving and encouraging a Canadian identity. Save us from becoming the 51st state. I think of days prior to the availability of cable when our Canadian culture and identitiy was strongest. Those were the days of The Tommy Hunter Show, Wayne and Schuster, Front Page Challenge, Winfall (great game show), Don Messer's Jubilee, etc. We weren't comparing ourselves to our neighbours to the south at that point, we were just us and we were great!
It's up to Heritage Canada (I think) to create a Canadian Proud campaign to encourage us to know in our heart of hearts that being Canadian is not the same as being American (especially culturally), that Canadians create quality things that we can all be proud of and that we don't come in 2nd to anyone. If that happens, the CRTC's job will become a lot easier.

Monday, November 11, 2013 - 13:33 Gartner Entertainment

1. Good quality Canadian made programming is extremely important to me. I just graduated from a media production program and finding a job is next to impossible. Every company says the same thing, With strict budgets and federal requirements, there really isn’t any room to pay you right now. Great, another unpaid internship because CanCon requirements are killing budgets with quantity over quality. A good show would require more paid jobs than a whole bunch of subpar Canadian shows looking for unpaid interns just to fill the airwaves.
2. I hate to say it, but I can always assume which programs are Canadian made because they’re such poor quality. Every so often, a broadcaster injects a few more dollars and makes something worth watching like Flashpoint or Rookie Blue. The problem is money runs out and the show gets pulled.
3. Some old classmates and I have always joked about going the Wayne’s World root but we would just do that on youtube. But you could never do that with news. Realistically, it’s absurd to thing we can really get local with our local programming, but I think a lot of us would just be happy with good Canadian programming instead of a bunch of stuff nobody likes.
4. We have a talented pool of diverse Canadian actors, but far too often they head south of the border for real opportunities. Perfect examples: Shay Mitchell, Sandra Oh, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Eugene Levy, Francois Arnaud, Nina Dobrev, etc. We need to be able to keep good Canadian talent so we can have better Canadian shows.
5. I really think programming will have a higher blend of current events and plot. At least, that what I think will keep engagement and live TV relevant. So instead of making our information more like entertainment, we’ll make our entertainment more informative. Could you imagine a show like Veep but based on Rob Ford while everything is unfolding. The audience would be glued to their TV just to see how the fictional character would unfold.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 12:41 UnemployedGrad

Here's my two-cents,

I love my local programming. In Whitehorse, it’s hard to relate to whats on TV when everything is shot in New York or LA. I’m proud to turn on the TV and watch local programming. Ever watch an episode of Garage Sale Scavenger Hunt? I found this gem of a show on something called NorthwestTV while channel surfing. When the Whitehorse City Council commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcTDxMiqlCU) went viral online, my students felt a sense of pride about it. I believe that we can create a true feeling of patriotic pride through TV. If we have more local or home-grown programming that we actually like, with apparent Canadian elements, not just maple syrup and beavers, then maybe we won’t have to worry so much about American culture. When something is good, people feel proud about it. A perfect example of that is our Canadian Winter Olympians. They’re good, so good that they win medals and the result was an entire country proud to watch, follow and cheer them on. If our Canadian tv shows were as good as our Canadian Olympians, then more people would want to watch, follow the series and cheer on the characters.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 14:33 Pat YK

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
Personally I like scripted drama,feature films, documentary and news. When my children were smaller children's programing was very intertesting. I like a good story. I really dislike reality shows and believe they are cheap fodder for the networks. I wish there was more good Canadian content to watch. I am not so interested in procedural stories. I gravitate to the human stories.

Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

I liked Bomb Girls and was dissappointed when it went off the air. Murdoch mysteries and The Republic of Doyle interest me. These shows all have a personality, they are distinctive. I wish Canada would emulate American mainstream media less and emulate the cable or British shows more. 6 episodes of something really unusual and imaginative rather than long seasons of shows that seem like every other show on TV. Yes more Canadian drama shows please! But ones that are distinctive, creative and imaginative.

What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
I don't watch local television programming. Not interested in community TV. I get my local news from the paper, on line or from the radio.

Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
No it's not. But that's because there seems to be something wrong with how Canadian shows are developed. I don't want to see diversity for the sake of being correct, I want to see Canadian stories from the brightest and the best writers, many of whom come from diverse communities but they don't get the chance. Everything seems to get watered down for Canadian tv. I thought John Doyle's comments about the current state of Canadian drama were very apt.

What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
There seems to be more and more crappy reality programs on now. We seem to have a gazillion channels of crap, so I watch TV less and less. I don't know if that will continue. I am gravitating more to watching through Netflicks so I can pick what a watch.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 21:45 Trina via Langford

For me it's about freedom of choice without having bundles shoved down my throat. Why can't we have a system where you pay for basic cable (networks) and add individual channels. With the emergence of streaming services i believe televisionshould move to a new model to stay competitive.
Also, why not allow channels like to EPSN, ESPN 2, Fox Sports etc. I am a huge college basketball fan and am not able to watchwithout looking for streaming sites because the product is not available with my carrier (Telus).
The same can also be said about Netflix. How many Canadians use a vpn service or change their DNS settings to obtain the "better" version of Netflix?

The CRTC should focus on keeping carriers onside like they do with phones and not force feed us content .


Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 14:16 TVSpec

1) I am usually too busy with work to have a set TV schedule so I’ll watch whatevers been recommended to me by my coworkers and then we can talk about it a work.

2) I know which ones are filmed near me... Theres nothing more awesome that being around when a film crew is in town. Definitely my coolest highlight is getting to see Ricky and Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys when they were filming around Halifax and Cole Harbour. Finally a celebrity spotting more interesting than Cindy Day LOL!

3) Local to me is about what is happening in my city and even my province. Actually, sometimes programming about other local regions in Canada help me get a glimpse of this country. After all, it’s too expensive to really travel across Canada, so local programming kind of fills that void.

4) I flip a lot so i see lots of Bollywood movies and other shows in different languages but i don’t really stop to watch because i can’t understand them. I usually stop on something funny or on a science or history show.

5) Future programming with most definitely have more special effects. With technology, you can do some much with so little. I’m sure we’re going to see some pretty cool stuff when we least expect it.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 15:03 EastCoaster

My biggest problem is with the specialty channels not delivering on their promises that they made to get their licence from the CRTC. Why does the CRTC not keep them accountable? Think of how many specialty channels that have come along in the last 15 years. Remember PRIME? a channel for "Zoomers" with re-runs of quality shows and original content for middle - age plus people. Remember Lonestar? Westerns, movies and shows, great while it lasted. My point is, these channels find out there isn't the audience they thought there was for their format, or they find a way to make more money easier and they morph into something else. You may have signed up for Lonestar because you liked Westerns, now you are stuck with whatever it morphed into and continue to pay for something you didn't order. If a channel cannot find its audience, it should be allowed to fail, not morph to something else. There are so many examples that it seems likely that if you really want to get a channel up, you can guess what format CRTC would think is a good fit, run that format for a while and then go on and dowhat you want. And what the few Companies want that own all the specialty channels is for them to run the same shows on all their channels even though they do not reflect the theme of the channel you thought you were getting whenyou bought it. Vision TV has more British shows thanBBC Canadadoes. In my mind, BBC Canada should ONLY have British shows.
The few companies that own everythingare not investing any money in programming. Comedy Gold, a channel that is on its' at least 3rd morph is playing the same Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart,Lucy, etc episodes as they did when they first started about 3 years ago. MTM show was on the air for about 10 years, but Comedy Gold thinks we are happy to watch the same15-20 episodes they bought 3 years ago over and over.
Packaging is also a problem.Each package is designed to have 1 "must have" channel in it to sucker you into buying the basic package as well as at least 8 more specialty packages. I'd like to have SUN TV. I have the News Package so I can get the other news channels, but SUN is put off in some other obscure package with channels I don't want. I do not want any more of the specialty packages, I have 8 already just to get the 4 channels I do watch. Why is AlJazerra on as a basic, but not SUN?

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 00:04 bcnrhs

The CRTC & CBC appear to be bedfellows and this relationship must stop. The CBC is permitted to lord it over other TV broadcasters so they can run a manopoly by excluding smaller operations like SunNews from competing on a level playing field. I as a tax payer do not want to prop up a left wing institution such as CBC who promote such gronola bars as St. David Suzuki. Let's promote those TV news channels that tell the news as it is received, not spun in a thousand directions to suit their agenda.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 09:20 TruthCounts

Quite frankly Sun News is canned stupidity. Why the hell did it get a license in the first place?

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 22:45 JF Bérubé

TruthCounts, you mention Suzuki, but neglect to mention right-winger Kevin O'leary who probably gets more screen-time across CBC properties. Sun News has tried and failed to attract viewers on an even playing field, facing the same challenges all new channels face. I found it too amusing when they applied for need-to-carry status, essentially admitting they couldn't make it in the free-market without public subsidization.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 21:01 JamesMcGill

yes every body should be allowed pick channels what they want family channels like teletoon and teletoon retro , nick, family channel, diisneychannels,ytv, tree house are good for kids but food , hgtv,tlc,pet channel,animal plant,a and e,gsn,golf,bio,these are junk tv channels we should be allowed to pick what we want if i want all americn channels by them selfs like cw wpix11 , wgn, peachtree tv, ktla, my 38 bosten, amc , abc, nbc, fox,cbs,these channel s i like there is to many golbal channels, and too many ctv channels, crtc should let us pick what programming we want not order to watch comedy and comedy gold is good my message to crtc let us pick our programming channels we want to watch

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 10:48 timaitchison

The only things I like to watch are football, hockey, tennis, good movies and news. Football and hockey are well covered, tennis coverageis getting better. The movies are generally very old, bad and repetitive. News? Ha! that's a laugh. Why don't they just rename it Gossip? No Canadian news worth watching outside of Sun TV; they have a lot of opinion shows, but at least their news is pretty factual, straightforward, and relates to interesting and important topics.
Sell the CBC. I don't want to pay for it. Even if their programs were any good, which they are not - they're biased, PC and horrible, I still wouldn't want to pay whatever my share of $1,000 million per year isfor it.I especially don't want to pay for separatist Radio-Canada. And then I have to pay forCBC/Radio-Canadaagain on my cable bill? Come on!
Let me buy only the channels I want.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 11:14 martin gomez

I find the current cable/satelite model to be unjustified. Commercials were originally included in programming as a way to offset the fact that TV was sent free of charge over the airways by charging advertisers to get their message out en masse. Today, we pay for the right to watch these programs and are still bombarded with commercials; if commercials are still included, why is programming so expensive? I believe this is one reason we see many people turning to internet provided programming,- to avoid commercials (and const). That issue aside, I find the bundling of packages to be manipulative- it does not take a great depth of investigation to see that the bundles have been specifically laid out such that like programming (i.e sports, food shows, kids programming etc) are separtated amongst packages, thus forcing people to get many channels they don't care to watch (and multiple packages) to get the ones they do. Lastly, I understand that cable/sattelite providers want viewers to see the channels they get as well as the ones that the "could get" thus all channels are listed, whether you ordered them or not. That said, it is infuriating to me that the channels are not organized in a way that it is clear to me which ones I have paid for access to and which ones I have not. Not only are my HD channels in a totally different location and order from my "regular" channels, they are also interspersed sporadically with channels that I can't get. These should either be lumped together in the bundle that I paid for, or the ones that I do not get should be greyed out so that I need not select each channel only to get a message that I need to subscribe.
I understand the idea that telecommunications companies can offset costs of expensive channels by bundling with less expensive, less popular channels to share advertising...but again this is dishonest. Why would a company want to buy airtime on something no one watches anyways? Someone (either the advertisers or the consumers) is being misled. If companies really need to offset these charges in such a way...why is it that they are recording record profits?
Some fairly basic psychologcal research suggests that people are actually happier when they have less choices - too many choices is simply overwhelming. Thus, I say get rid of the bundles and just offer the good channels in good bundles, or allow users to pick their own bundles.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 16:57 jamie

Where do I start? I suppose with the conglomeration of channels into a group of what? Three mega media corporations that are vertically and horizontally integrated into every aspect of people’s lives? The CRTC has broken their own rules by allowing Shaw to own two separate broadcasting groups as well as all of cable distribution in western Canada. Shaw saw the writing on the wall and the fact that cable may lose to other methods of distribution so they moved into the broadcasting side. They placated the rule makers with a promise to increase Canadian production funding but subtly indicated they wanted to be able to decide what that spending was going to be on. So far there is little sign of that increased production funding for us Canadian content providers.
So far virtually none of the specialty channels are delivering on their licence commitments. How can they continue to be able keep their licenses when they stray so far from their mandates? Why is there no accountability?

Channels like The Learning Channel - had a mandate to be a, hah, well a Learning channel. How is Honey Boo Boo, Toddlers and Tiaras, Say Yes to the Dress, Alaskan Women Looking for Love and Extreme Cheapskates etc., proper content for The Learning Channel which is morphing into something else now that it is TLC?
And Discovery Channel that went low brow mainstream and pushed the science over onto its sister Science Channel and yes, you now have pay for the next tier to get it.

How many other specialty Channels have been approved that aren’t meeting their mandates? PRIME, Zoomers, Lonestar, BBC Canada, Comedy Gold, and several others that started out with a particular format and once the mandatory time period is up with the CRTC they morph into something else. Space Channel is a great example. It actually used to run scifi type shows for the majority of its programming schedule now it’s mostly crappy cheap exploitative horror, following in the footsteps of the ScyFy Channel in the USA (it used to be the Sci Fi Channel).

There are countless example of this dumbing down trend throughout the cable line-up. Why spend money to entertain people with quality product when you can snag em with Honey Boo Boo? That type of Un-Reality programing is an insult to both the subjects and the viewers and its even more pathetic because it gets past peoples personal filters and things they would never watch given a choice becomes the standard and the mega media conglomerates go home laughing at how it’s impossible to underestimate what people will watch if that’s all you give them.
Let’s talk about the benefits to the media groups when they conglomerate the channels under singular ownership. They buy the programming once, tailored for the on air requirements, then they run it sometimes simultaneously on sister channel (which isn’t so bad because if you missed in the main time slot you can pick it up later) but where it gets really dirty as a business practice, is when they then run it sequentially on the majority of their other fifty channels without having to pay for another license to air it.

This cheats the content creators. AND to make it worse, they have amalgamated all of the Canadian content spend requirements from all of the Specialty Channels they bought up at fire sale prices and overall have managed to reduce the spend on new Canadian dramatic programming.

As a content creator I have seen my existence go from making a decent living to visiting the food bank once a month. That because the greedy mega media corporations don’t care if you only have the same ten AMERICAN shows to watch over and over again.

Even the Movie Channels rerun the same movies to death. Two years ago we had a reasonable number of new movies each week, then it shifted to each month. Now we get the same stuff from three years ago running over and over again in the main time slots once in awhile we get one new movie but it’s getting to be less and less. I thought the objective was to give the consumer more choice in order to combat piracy. This drives them to download sites and the up and coming services like NetFlix.

Packaging. Yuh. Each tier is designed to contain a "must have" channel in it so that you have to pay for the entire lineup of specialty packages whether you want them or not.

And then there’s APTN. APTN is more Canadian than Canada! Why is Aljazerra on basic but APTN is way up in the tiers? That’s just wrong on so many levels. APTN has a right to be on basic and I for one as a content creator for APTN and as an Aboriginal Canadian TAXPAYER have a right to see it on my basic lineup. The way that the CRTC has treated APTN it gets lesser treatment by the Canadian Media Fund because of placement. It needs to be in basic. It deserves to be in basic. If you don't like whats on it right now, give it a chance with some proper cash flow. Its doing amazing with the little it has to work with.

I do support the concept of the CBC. I know that there are many who object to this but I would like to see their Canadian content commitment increased (like it once was) and their spend on content creation via independent creators be increased. This needs to happen if we have any consideration for an active independent production community to survive. I also have no problem with SUN TV – Canada’s own Quebecor clone of the insidious FOX News, I do however have a choice not to watch it. (Interesting that even Videotron - also owned by Quebecor won't carry SUN on basic). Perhaps SUN TV should be forced to pay out a few bucks on Canadian independent production. For you ultra-rightwing nut jobs - I also think David Suzuki is a hypocritical flake making a massively good living.
I’m not totally sure how to solve the problem regarding the concept of pick and pay. I get that, a lot of the specialty channels will die if they aren’t included in tier buys, but maybe they should if there isn’t enough real demand for them. Bump the basic tier up by a couple more channels (APTN and whatever) and give us the choice of pick and pay for the rest. BUT DO NOT increase the cost of each picked channel so that its back in the region of the extorted $100 package that most of us are now paying for unwanted tiers to get the three or four channels we want. For that matter allow users to keep a tier system if they want but allow others the choice.

What are the cable companies paying for carriage now? Let’s give them a solid 10% profit markup like most retailers would be happy to get at the mall. We are already paying a whopping fee for infrastructure in the basic package so let’s get real here.

Cable companies create nothing! In most cases they are stealing content and forwarding it down the pipe to their viewers – pipes that were bought and paid for twenty years ago so don’t whine and moan about the cost of infrastructure. The underground cable and distribution boxes in my neighborhood haven’t been upgraded since they were installed in 1970. Corporate greed is killing us and killing the industry.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 19:31 jthor

I would like to add that it's been proven that ratings are a farce. People watch the least offensive program in aparticular time slot. Give people nothing but a choice of crap they will pick the least offensive crap - but that boosts it in the ratings artifically causing the powers that be to believe that people actually like what they are viewing. People are creatures of habit. They watch particular news hour shows because they are used to doing that every day. Once they are sitting there they are most likely to flip through channels after their news looking for something else to watch because they have x number of hours to waste before bed. Some will add a laptop to the equation and surf the net at the same time making any offensive TV programming less offensive because they are splitting their focus.
The whole damn thing is broken. Give people good quality programming to watch and they will watch it.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 20:06 jthor

You've basically just argued that ratings DO work...

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 22:24 JamesMcGill

You have the strangest perspective on how things work. I've just demonstrated categorically that ratings are totally skewed by the current system. Ratings only work if people are doing one thing at a time, or actually watching something that they WANT to watch, not what they accept. Its been proven in the US Neilsen system that there a regenerally over three TVs in the Neilsen households and only one has the ratings box on it. IT doesn't work at all. Its totally broken. Do some research. Here's a primer for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_objectionable_program

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 02:05 jthor

Your argument seems to be: All TV is crap, thus people watch crap, thus crap TV gets good ratings, thus TV stations produce more crap. You're arguing that ratings properly do what they were designed to do: reflect what people are watching. ...you just don't like what other people are watching. I actually agree with you, we need to produce more quality TV; that's why I support increased funding for the CBC instead of forcing them to rely on advertising revenue (and thus ratings.) But, I came to a realization a long time ago: most people like crap. While I like to be challenged by what I watch, most people watch TV for a mindless escape at the end of a long day; they don't want to be overwhelmed with complex characters and themes of ambiguous morality like I might. We have to accept that there is going to be a lot of poor shows on TV. You say, "Give people good quality programming to watch and they will watch it." Like I said above, I agree we need more quality programming, and I think that there's room for these shows to catch on with viewers, but your asertion that all that needs to happen before we achieve TV pefection is for networks to fill their schedules with nothing but 'quality' programs (as if there could ever be unanimous agreement on what a 'quality program' was,) is out of touch. While some quality programs do break through, many flounder, not only here, but in the US as well where shows like Breaking Bad that are almost universally considered among the best of all time, have ratings that pale in comparison to NCIS. As much as I love Breaking Bad and The Wire, filling a TV schedule with shows like these will not make the millions of people who watch NCIS every week all of a sudden realize that they've been wasting their lives watching crap.
p.s. In Canada there are no 'set-top' ratings devises like the US, instead survey partisipants carry with them a 'PPM' devise that automatically picks up whatever they're watching no matter what TV they're watching on...even if they're watching at a bar or friends house.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 23:51 JamesMcGill

Quality programming takes many forms. As far as Breaking Bad goes I'm sure if it were a main stream show insteed of a US Cable Access show it would have created a major backlash against the show. I for one do think it was excellent programming, great writing and in spite of the subject matter, highlighted a major view on how a desparate man makes his way through five years of life.
There is another wonderfully written show about a Hells Angels type gang called "Sons of Anarchy" again amazing writing and some of the best character studies I have ever seen - once more I'm betting there would be a major outcry if it were mainstream. Do I think we should have access to this type of show on basic? Actually yes. I would enjoy hearing people actually discussing their TV viewing for a change. As for NCIS - I see nothing wrong with it. I watch it as well as NCIS LA.
I used to watch the original CSI then CSI MIAMI and finally my favorite of all three was CSI New York. Here in Canada we are creating some really good shows - Lost Girl, Continuum, and now Orphan Black. Before that we had a few shows that scored stateside including Flashpoint. The Listener is still shooting new episodes and although not my favorite is good writing.
What I deem to be crap TV is all of the "Housewives of______" fill in the blank for yourself and other shows like that. And yes, Family Jewels etc... There are several reasons I feel this way. I am part of the industry here in Canada. When the so called free form unscripted shows came along they dumped anything scripted and hundreds of us lost our living.
Now it turns out that these so called scripted shows are just excuses by networks (still making record profits) to eliminate union talent. A big scandal has erupted over the last few days about shows like Pawn Star not paying millions by shorting people they hired. They hire people they term as Producers who are then tasked with virtually everything, sometimes working as much as 100 hours a week doing everything including scripting the so called unscripted shows. That is crap in so many ways.
Shows like Amazing Race and Manhunter (and there are others equally worthwhile) are entertaining in their own right and have a place in quality programming, as do shows such as XFactor and American Idol - we had a Canadian analog of that for a couple of years but obviously Canadians got tired of it faster than Americans.
Actually Canadian ratings measurements are still largely manually done and are forms filled out by randomly chosen individuals - probably a more reliable system than than US Neilsen system.
What CBC needs is an actual mandate to create the kind of programming that you refer to. Right now they are floundering in the beilef that they are required to compete with the mainstream networks when they should be allowed to create their own path and like the BBC it should be commercial free and free of shows focused only at ratings grabbing. In taht way they would be able to once again build on shows like Quentin Durgens MP, and masterful variety comedy like Wayne and Shuster (equal to Carol Burnett anytime). Leave the cooking shows and the other reality type approaches to the cheap channels. CBC, given the freedom can create shows that we will tune to given the availabilty. And yes, we all need the work.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 00:56 jthor

My main concern is when different channels that are owned by the same company show the same programs on two seperate channels and then claim that it is "New". An example is the show Orphan Black which was a summer series on Space Channel only to be recycled as a "New" show on CTV One. Why am i paying to watch the same show twice just because Bell own CTV and Space?

Another issue i have is with the so-called History Channel being taken over by scripted reality TV when they could be showing more documentary series and educational programming. I could really care less about Ice Road Trucking or Selling Cars in the southern united states or Pawn Shops that buy historical things in a closed store and scripted environment.

Canadian Content has become better in some aspects I.E "showcase original programming" and worse in others I.E "CBC original programming and "CTV Original programming" this should be improved because i know when they cut budgets quality suffers.
Honestly i do not watch very much canadian content i would say maybe 5%.

I do not watch local programming besides the news.

I see programming in 5 to 10 years suffering from even more Scripted Reality Programming because it is cheap. However it is also stupid and pointless and a catalyst to the Death of Television. I watch more and more programming online because of the freedom of choice and the lack of commercial interuption which has become worse in the past 10 years. when you cannot end a program on time because of an over abundance of commercials that take a show over the time alloted to the 10:01 or 10:02 on a clock i find that highly annoying and unesessary.

I also find that more that more and more specialty channels are seeing how far they can take commercial breaks some go past 6 minutes and then have only 6 to 8 minutes of the program which i find unacceptable this needs to change.
Another complaint is the lack of care in editing programs with commercials i find more and more that programs are being cut off by commercials in shoddy editing that is highly annoying.

These i believe are things that can be changed and easily changed and i for one am growing tired of the Television producers not changing with the times it is a new generation with new technology and i see regular television disappearing if these things and a plethora or others are not changed. The music business did not change fast enough with the times and you see what that did to them.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 20:12 Cory Kamermans

I cannot believe the government is concerned about our country's television programming given the cut-backs to the CBC and the National Film Board. BTW they are as subsidized as the private Canadian channels so please support our dversity, our local and regional cutlure by (a) providing more funding to the CBC (b) removing commericals from programming, or if this is unthinkable, do what the Europeans do - have all ads and commericals all of once either in the middle of a program or at the very end. It is not that I am a CBC egg-head, it's that as Canadians the quality of our programming on the CBC should be at par with the BBC and the ABC (Australian Broadcasing Channel). Consider that France has four public broadcasting channels or that Italy has three RDI channels. If the CRTC is interested in our national or Canadian culture, then what is it doing to safeguard the fine public national channel we have?
We use to be able to see more documentaries and more Canadian films made by the National Film Board. I am pleased we have at last documentary channel and pleased that programs such as the Passionate Eye continue to exist.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 21:22 Maria

Actually, Italy has 5 state channels. BBC has 4 and France has 6 if you count their overseas territories and dominions. In fact, Canadian state TV is the least funded in the industrialized world. Just to be on par with Europe we need to fund it till the cows come home.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 22:18 JF Bérubé

We also have a particularity that countries such as Italy, France and the UK don't have to deal with. It's called biligualism. This means you need to double the resources. If we use the BBC as a model with its 4 generalist channels and its two news channels this means the CBC/Radio-Canada would run 12 channels. Then you'd like them to be commercial free as is the BBC? Get your checkbook out because it will cost an arm and a leg. :-)

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 23:14 JF Bérubé

There is to much advertisement on the television, they seem to put the commercials at the same time , so when you change channels to avoid a boring commercial, pow another commercial. In an hour of programming there is more than 25 minutes of commercials. Unreal. And those specialty channels the same programs day after day. Please remove those reality shows.

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 16:17 beaverval

I have to admit that the new programs coming out from Toronto are very good to say the least. At par with the shows from USA. Finally! Get rid of the boring must have chanels

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 18:16 frosty1

What really annoys me is having to pay for channels such as HGTV, History Channel, Food Network etc that show mostly reruns of the same shows on a daily basis. Some Mike Holmes show have probably been rerun a hundred times or more.

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 20:47 Ronald MacDonald

Mike Holmes rerun a hundred times? Yeah, this month! On three different channels!

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 04:30 jthor

I must say that I am satisfied with the job CBC has made so far, but I wish CBC News Network would be broadcast over the air and not restricted to the cable. I appreciate the cultural and ethnic diversity reflected by the English service, it reflects who we are as Canadians. However, I am disappointed with the French service. As a fully bilingual Canadian I watch both services I find that Radio Canada/RDI does a very poor job reflecting the ethnic and cultural diversity tha we have in Quebec. It looks as though there were no ethnic minorities in Quebec or the rest of Canada, all of the reporters and anchors are French-Canadian, with a French last name, Radio Canada/RDI does not reflects the racial and ethnic diversity we have in the province of Quebec, maybe for the French network they do not exist. I have also noticed a certain level of bias against the rest of the country and the federal government (regardless of whichever party is in power), especially in programmes such as "Tout le monde en parle", not to mention that most of guests are from Quebec andmost of the topics are related to this province. My understading is that Radio Canada is a crown corporation, funded with federal funds and should serve the entire country, not only the population of Quebec, there are French-speaking communities scattered from coas to coast which are not taken into consideration and are not reflected in the Radio Cannada/RDI content. I am also disatisfied with my my cable provider and the way I am forced to pay for channels that I do not watch or for which I have no interested. Suscribbers should be allowed to choose the channels they want and pay for them individually without being forced to pay for bundles just to watch maybe one or two channels from the bundle. It is an unfair commercial practice and it is one of the reasons why so many Canadians are ditching cable TV.

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 20:50 Bernard DeKoninck

I thing it's the opposite. The French network is great with programming you can actually watch over the Internet. As far as new distribution technologies is concerned its anglo sister looks out of date, conservative and greedy. We can't get it live on the web. Big tune out factor.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:26 JF Bérubé

Can we ever get rid of bundling by the cable providers ? - also, please please please, make it illegal for our networks to simply highjack a US feed and regurgitate it back at us....hello no original Super Bowl adds !!! ... if they can't produce something we'll watch why let them profit from someone's else's product ? after all this can't be protecting "Canadian programing" now can it ??

Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:04 john mac

For heaven's sake, please PLEASE unbundle cable television! We are forced to subscribe to dozens of channels just to get the six or seven channels we regularly watch. We are retired and just paid a monthly cable bill for $225, of which 3/4 was for television programs. That is outrageous! We are aware of the time-worn arguments of the cable operators, and believe that today these have little merit. Once unbundled, the CRTC must act to prevent cable operators from trying to penalize viewers by overcharging for individual channels. Current rates have become obscene, almost as obscene as the $500,000 a month "severance" (yes, that's right!) that Shaw Cable is paying its former President.

Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 12:52 Jim Osborne

I refuse to pay for what is on television the way it is provided now. We had an antenna until CBC went HD and received minimal TV for free. We now have satellite that was provided for free through the exchange to HD and the channels we receive are CBC, CTV, Global, Knowledge from BC even though we live in the East, TSC which we never watch, Shaw's weather channel which we never use and a music channel we have never listened to.

What I would like from TV is in depth journalism on topics of importance to us. More Fifth estate, more PBS, more knowledge based programming because that is what we enjoy the most. For entertainment in TV we do like to watch a movie once in a while and we do enjoy Rich Mercer and 22 minutes as they are Canadian current affairs with some much needed humour added to them. Our internet connection is ptiiful enough that watching anything in length is an exercise in patience and interrupts the content to the point where you finally decide what you're watching isn't worth your time.

If we had to pay for the programming we watch we would likely go without all together as not one channel has made itself so important to us that we would be lost without it. If I was in the business of providing TV the way we feel about it would concern me deeply.

Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 07:37 TheBigPicture

I still get a lot of my news from Canadian television, but other than that, I hardly use it. Tools like Netflix have made traditional broadcast utterly obsolete. For Canadian entertainment, I tend to watch web series, a medium in which Canada actually is recognized as a world leader. Shows like Clutch and Out With Dad take a lot more risks than anything Canadian broadcasters are churning out.

Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 19:19 Virtua Sinner

While I like what Netflix offers, I don't see how it makes the broadcasting system currently in place obsolete. It can't possibly offer News and Sports like the broadcast system can.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 22:49 JamesMcGill

Along with many others, I am appalled at the funding cuts to the CBC, but I'm not sure the CRTC has much, if anything to say about that.
There's too much "reality" TV and not enough good scripted stuff.
I'd like to see more Canadian-made TV and film. More Canadian stories. We can't be trying to copy the U.S. We don't have the same stories to tell. I don't mean more lame Corner Gas comedy. I mean new, daring and more interesting stuff. Can't we as little Canada here afford to be less "safe" with our new programming? When's the last time something truly original and "cool" came out of Canada? The BBC seems to be able to churn out pretty damn good stuff...

Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 21:49 MarkMac

If we adopted the same subsidizing mode and format as the BBC's you'd scream. Ask a brit how much the BBC costs them.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:04 JF Bérubé

Actually, we used to live in the UK and happily paid for our TV license. All of our friends there, and we had many, agreed that the TV license was totally worth it because of the calibre of commerical-free programming. Currently the TV license costs 145.50 which covers all the BBC TV channels: BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, CBBC (youth), CBeebies (children), BBC Parliament, BBC News and BBC Alba (Scottish Gaelic channel), as well as the "red button" which allows for up to 4 more stations as well as recording!!! We were in heaven watching the Turin Olympics - sometimes 4 different events at the same time, all without commericals. Plus there are 11 BBC radio stations as well as a local radio station (we listened to BBC Essex). Not to mention all the fantastic documentaries, entertainment programmes, news features and dramas that the BBC produces. AND, almost everything is also available on-line. AND, it's ALL commerical free. Folks in the UK sure aren't screaming. They scream when they travel to the US or Canada and have to put up with all the commercials and lousy American telly.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 12:21 LJM

5 - On the future of television programming...
Should wetransfer all the television content to the web?

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 15:29 saindon

When I heard the CRTC was doing this I felt I had to add my 2 cents. I hope these comments are useful.
Over the past few years I have started to feel like I'm a second class citizen in the digital world, just because I happen to live in Canada. I'm a big NCAA football and basketball fan. The american networks tend to show a few football games each week, and once in a while TSN or Sportsnet will let one through, but there a ton of games we never get the chance to see and this makes it really hard to follow some of my favorite teams. What frustrates me is, if a game isn't being shown on a Canadian channel, it might be available to watch online on a site such as ESPN, but because I live in Canada I can't watch that either. If I had a nickel for every time I tried to watch a sporting event or other video online and saw the message "Unavailable in your region" I'd be a rich man. Another example is my Apple TV. Devices like the Apple TV are, in my opinion, the way people will watch most of their television and other programming in the future. When I look at what an american can do on their Apple TV compared to what is available to me I'm outraged. I would love to subscribe to NBA League Pass to watch any NBA game I want on my Apple TV or other devices, but I live in Canada so I can't. I live in Canada, so I can't subscribe to ESPN. I live in Canada, so I can't subscribe to Hulu. I live in Canada, so my Netflix has maybe 10% the content of an american subscriber. Being Canadian seems to be such a handicap when you look at how much there is out there, it's very frustrating.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 16:07 doctor_rod

Do some research and know where to go because some sites do VPN those "unavailable in your country" streams.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 16:56 JF Bérubé

I’ve done my fair share of travelling and what I’ve been exposed to is some very culturally unique programming in a variety of countries. These programs really highlight specific aspects of their culture and finds a way to connect with the audience. Something that they can identify with from the comfort of their own homes.

For example, on my flight to Iceland, I watched a homegrown Icelandic sitcom called Næturvaktin (translates to The Night Shift). Thankfully it was subtitled, but what it gave me was a snapshot of what to expect when I landed. Jokes and references I didn’t understand on the plane became undeniably apparent once I began travelling around the country.

Flip to any international channels, you’ll find rich in culture, homegrown programming; from the talent and variety shows produced in Brazil, to locally produced documentaries in Vietnam that highlight their extensive war-struggled history.

Country-specific content is extremely important to a nation’s cultural identity. It’s our generation’s time capsule. Canadian produced television content gives our citizens a positive reason to be connected to each other coast-to-coast-to-coast and feel proud of what they are watching. It’s an opportunity for the Canadian media to take back our cultural identity from Hollywood execs who see us merely as the 51st state. It’s time for Canada to be a leader in media in its own market.

Gone should be the days of making Canadian programming for the sake of making it. We need to be able to produce content that truly makes us proud. And the best part, Canada was made for it. Hollywood even knows that, taking advantage of filming multiple million-dollar movies right here in our own back yard only to feature Americanism through-and-through and recruiting so much great talent we produce.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have access to US or other foreign programming. I think our broadcasting system should encourage TV stations to provide a mix of the best programming available, regardless of where it’s from. However, I was proudly born and raised here. I’m proud of my diverse neighbourhood, government funded health care, a healthy standard of living, an educated population, and a country with a rich, cultural history. Let’s have some pride in Canadian broadcasting too!

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:17 Behind The Lens

All TV programming should be a la carte: you choose what you want to watch, on demand, wherever you want.
These old rules are hurting our choices and our wallets. If I want to watch Hulu, I can't (well not easily and that's a grey area currently as well). To get the same programming that Hulu offers for $8/month, we have to buy a cable subscription worth like $60/month. How is that fair and good for Canadians?
Answers to the questions posted:
1. As a family what types of programming is important to us is ever changing and diverse. There is no one type of programming we like/need. We need choice of it all, when we want to watch it but not be forced into buying a package.
2. It does not matter if I'm aware that a program is Canadian. We want good quality programming regardless of source. This also forces Canadian shows to compete and raise their bar to match what the Americans put out.
3. Local news is the only thing that is somewhat important on a local level. However, most of our news is consumed on the web not through TV. So local/community programming is of little value to us.
4. Regarding diversity: again if Canadians had free choice to watch whatever they wanted, from across the globe this doesn't matter. My family is a mixed-race household and we want the choice to be able to find whatever ethnicity programming whenever we want it. On demand is the future here, and content should be from all over the world with no limitations to Canadians.
5. With a Canadians free to pick and watch from many more sources, this increases the competition and the quality of programming in general. The government is still free to subsidize production in Canada to make Canada an attractive place to film and also to help promote programming that fits our needs. If it is of sufficient quality, Canadians will watch it and so will other countries!

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:23 jdbethun

the most important part is defending CANADIAN CONTENT, IF I want to watch JUNK I 'd rather watch my junk than the re-runs of re-made garbage coming from US., then FORCE if you must the cable companies to DE_BUNDLE packages, to view one channel we have to pay for 15 that are re-running the same old programs.
and I BELIEVE in the CRTC and CBC, in journalism, and not in sensationalized news, the only place I go for my news is CBC,

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 18:55 tessiecat

Comedies, dramas, feature films & sports are most important to me. But even more important is that these are not restricted due to the fact that we are in Canada. Content sees so controlled by the fact that we are in Canada. We should have a choice on this material and it should be available across all mediums with the same quality (HD video across mobile, web, and on demand).

I currently know which programs are canadian but its lack of quality. most canadian content does not share the same quality as foreign content due to the fact that it is forced down canadians throats, so why would they have to worry about competititon and offer more compelling material.
Local news is important but should be delivered informats that suit todays technology trends, web, mobile & on demand are not currently as up to date in terms of news video. Community programming is not important to me at all, it can be handled via local news because there is not enough actual content that could justify needing its own programming.
Candian culture can be properly reflected by creating great Canadian content, not be forcing programming to all be "canadian".

I hope the programming in the next 5-10 years moves all its content to the web. That way TV's access the content the same way mobile and computers do. Thus creating a consistent experience and true flexibliity for Canadians. Canadians shouldnt have to pay for tv cable AND internet. Or pay for cell service AND mobile internet data. Everything should just be delivered via data.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 15:26 Peter

I have to disagree with your point about the quality of Canadian content. When HGTV first appeared on cable, a lot of the programs were Canadian and much better than the American ones. They now mostly broadcast American junk. The CBC has some excellent programs like DocZone, the Fifth Estate and Passionate Eye. Content from Radio-Canada is even better. There was Da Vinci's Inquest which I understand ended due to lack of funding. If I had to choose between American and Canadian TV, I'd pick Canadian television every time, but the quality is slipping due to cuts in funding. And Canadian TV pales in comparison to its British counterpart.
Your point about a single delivery point via data makes sense, but it will take time for the industries and some Canadians to adjust. There are still people in this country who don't have computers or smartphones. They have a right to news and entertainment too.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 17:47 polishtheday

Canadian journalism has maintained good standards of ethical reporting and reliability about content and I would truly hate to see these standards lowered by allowing a "yellow journalistic" news channel to become part of the basic news package.
I have lived in different parts of Canada and appreciate how much the CBC promotes Canadian information and talent. I would like to see the CBC strengthened.
There are good Canadian programs and movies and they need more access to us.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 16:45 camelia

I fully understand and endorse the need for the protection of our Canadian TV Broadcast system. Our American neighbours to the south have 10 times our population. They can therefore produce TV programs more cheaply and plentifully due to the econimies of scale.
Without regulation, there would not be a single private Canadian network or station that could survive. Many Canadians would simply tune in almost exclusively all the American Channels...but what a sad day that would be...
I, and many of my friends want a Canadian Identity when I watch Television. It's great to be entertained, informed, and to watch good sports from an entirely Canadian perspective, and, like every other Western Civilized Nation, it is only right to expect to have TV & Radio that broadcasts inside our Country and therefore 'speaks', about our Country.
I love America, they are great neighbours, as a matter of fact, I married an American lady, but, just like me, she wants her TV system to reflect the specialness and uniqueness of her own Country. We both travel to both Countries and cherish the differences in both history and culture of the two countries.
Niether she nor I would wish for Canada to become the 51st state of America, would you?

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 17:12 Greg D

I am responding this question:
Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
I will be very upfront and honest here. For a total of 6 years, I was the the National Imaging (Brand) "voice" of the Global Televsion Network and I was directed to this website via a television commercial produced by Shaw Media; likely a function of their POP to the CRTC.
That said, I find it very interesting that Shaw Media has any concernsat all about Canada's opinion regarding our television programming.
I say this, because upon their (50%+) ownership of their first conventional television network (Global) , Shaw Media made a lot of changes. One of those changes was to the brand in general; graphics, logo.....and the voice(s) of the brand - which obviously affected myself.
It's common knoowledge within the industry that Shaw Media hired a company based in England for their branding work and....hired a DJ out of Pittsburgh to take over what was once a job held by this proud Canadian. That Shaw media could not find a talent of this individual's caliber in this country.....is not only a travesty, it also speaks to how easily Canadians can lose their livelihood in a heartbeat via simple search on Google; Shaw's mandate seemingly to look for something cheaper.
Which brings us full circle. If our broadcasters are not hiring Canadian Talent to produce content for their Canadian-based networks....how can they possibly stay in touch with, much less support the very country in which they are broadcasting?
I made my living for 6 years doing this work, only to lose the gig to someone who doesn't live in Canada and mails it in from a radio station in Pittsburgh, who struggles with pronouncing "Saskatchewan". Indeed, the same can be said for all the graphics people that lost all the work that went to England.
What would I like to see? I'd like to see the CRTC put measures in place to protect and secure the rights of all Canadians to secure work with our broadcasters in our country.....instead of outsourcing said revenues to other countries.
When you hire local....everybody wins.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 19:32 voicetalentpro

I totally agree with your comments and entirely sympathize with my livelihood now also in tatters because of SHAW'S channel grabbing. I would also like to see us go back a few years to when ALL commercials shown on CANADIAN TV were made in CANADA by CANADIANS. It's insane to see how much money the Federal government and the Provinces have spent training hundreds of us to be part of an industry that they subsequently discard when corporate greed mongers put a little pressure on the powers that be. They are only happy when we are all working for free... hey, I guess we love what we do don't we? So why do we need to be paid for it!!

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 02:21 jthor

I think that it is extremely important that we, as Canadians, see our stories on TV. We need to support the production of good quality scripted dramas that reflect our culture. Regulations are needed to insure that these dramas are screened in prime time slots. Broadcasters have shown us that without regulations they will resort to a steady diet of cheap American content. Local news is another important aspect of protecting our culture, and should be strengthened.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 20:04 Talia Pura

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
The most important programs for me are News and Political Satire like 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer. I also enjoy good Documentaries like exposés done by shows like Marketplace, The Fifth Estate or W5. But I spend most time watching feature films from Netflix or Apple TV. The current content on commercial TV with ads or promos constantly popping in from the bottom or side of the screen DURING the show are the reason why most conventional TV has turned me off.
For occasionally lighter entertainment I might watch shows like Hell's Kitchen or The Amazing Race, but I've grown tired of almost all current sitcoms, except for Modern Families. Since shows with great writing like Frazer, Will and Grace and even I Love Lucy have left the air, they've been replaced with insipid, juvenile comedy that amounts to little more than a half hour of fart jokes, or filled with sexual innuendo and nothing else. None have captured the charm and timing of original shows like the Jackie. Gleason Show, although many have tried to imitate it. And more and more we are bombarded with shows about vampires, heroes with fantasy powers and unending quests to escape from something or somewhere or to find some unreachable nirvana.
I was a big fan of Sherlock, BBC's modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes, which illustrates the timelessness of good storytelling. I've also enjoyed watching the Netflix series House of Cards and Lillihammer. Both series truly involve the watcher in tales that are unique, interesting and believable, something most network television has forgotten.
While I'm not proposing we return to an era of Leave it to Beaver or Father knows Best, I feel that good television has to inform, entertain and inspire. Bad television, like a cheap over-cooked meal, will leave us with nothing but mental indigestion and will be something we avoid repeating. Good programming, on the other hand, is like nectar that we can't get enough of. It should challenge the viewer, and take them into a new world of discovery, joy, loss and redemption and make them feel that the journey was the reward and not a waste of time.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 03:58 rondyn

Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Why are we so obsessed with whether shows are Canadian? Years ago, we would "swell with pride" if a show mentioned Canada, even if it was just a ploy to get Canadians to watch an otherwise all-American show. And American shows continue to misrepresent Canada whenever they do do a "Canadian cameo", like in the Shameless episode where Frank is smuggled into Canada and abandoned in a park in Toronto only to be arrested by a mounted RCMP officer in full ceremonial regalia - as if we have these mounted police patrolling parks in all our Canadian cities.
We don't need this level of intervention any more. The industry has matured and there is more TV and movie production in Canada now than there ever was before. I'm not saying we shouldn't support Canadian jobs in the industry - just that Canadian content rules are not necessary any more to "guarantee" that content on television. I'm happy to see support credits at the end of a film from the Canadian Government, but the concept that the industry could not survive without mandatory carriage or Canadian content rules is out-dated and unnecessary.
With more and more TV content supplied by cable and satellite companies through their acquisition of Canadian networks, it feels like our pockets are being picked clean - numerous times. Mandatory carriage requires the network stations, now owned by big companies like Bell Canada (CTV), Shaw (Global TV) and Rogers (City TV), to be carried on basic cable and satellite whether we watch the channels or not. In the early days of cable when there was no such association, this was a way to guarantee local stations would survive in the event everyone switched to cable. Well, everyone has switched to cable and most smaller stations have NOT survived in spite of the Mandatory Coverage gravy-train. The large cable providers now get to keep this guaranteed income and supply whatever junk they can because there is a guarantee they will get paid for it anyway with Mandatory Carriage.
It's time to get rid of Mandatory Carriage fees and replace them with Mandatory Coverage without fees. Mandatory Coverage would require every cable provider include a list of government-mandated channels that any viewer could choose from and would be available to them as part of their monthly subscription. They could choose from 1 to 100 of these channels and would only pay for the channels they choose. The survival of these Canadian channels would depend on the marketplace, although the Canadian cable and satellite companies would be required to offer the same 100 channels whether or not they made money with them, until these channels themselves stopped broadcasting.
All non-Canadian channels should be offered in an open-market type of environment without restriction, bundles or terms. That's not to say that bundles cannot be offered, but for consumers who just want 1 channel, they shouldn't have to sign up for 3 or 4 more they have no interest in. This should apply to all premium services like HBO, TMN, Superchannel, multicultural channels, and most "sports packages". Discounts for bundles could still be offered, but there's no reason why a customer cannot elect to just take one of the channels in a bundle instead of all of them. If a customer is a hockey fan, why couldn't they just order NHL Centre Ice instead of being forced to take NFL Football and MLB Baseball with the Super Sports Pack on a 4-month commitment?
The biggest challenge to letting Canadians pick and choose individual channels is the technology. Using the remote controls that come with the digital boxes supplied with cable or satellite TV is far too complicated and prone to error, leading to even more customer dissatisfaction. Call Centres, as busy as they are right now, would have trouble coping with customers daily requests to change their channel lineups, and again the chances for error increase with verbal instructions. Using computers, cell phones or tablets to select that channels of a customized television system is one possibility since these interfaces make selection easier for the viewer, but many Canadians, especially seniors, may find the technology challenging and may not even have a device that they could use to do this.
To allow all Canadians to make individual channel selections would require a system like a lottery terminal. In fact with the proliferation of small businesses with locations blanketing Canada with lottery terminals, linking to these devices might be the answer. Cable and satellite customers would visit the stores where these lottery terminals are located, fill out a ballot, similar to a 6/49 lottery form, selecting the individual channels they wanted added to or removed from their subscription and the retailer would then process it through the lottery terminal, which would route the information to the provider's system ultimately authorizing the channels the customer has chosen. The customer would pay the retailer a small fee, say $2.00, to process the transaction and the lottery terminal would print off a receipt showing all the channels that the subscriber was now subscribed to and the amount they were paying for each. The customer could make these changes as often as he/she wanted to, but would pay the $2.00 every time to compensate the retailer for competing the transaction. The cable and satellite companies would only get revenue from the on-going subscriptions to the channels selected.
As one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world, government institutions like the CRTC have to change their ideas about "protecting Canadian culture". While we need to treasure our history and recognize unique heritages of the founding cultures, the aboriginal and native cultures as well as the French and the British, we have become so much more than that and we have to trust that we will become even more open and diverse as we move ahead. If we don't change, then more and more Canadians will "cut the cable" and selectively watch their TV over the Internet on their computers, and the plethora of protected Canadian-content, mandatory-carriage TV channels will be watched by a handful of Canadians paid for and subsidized by all the other computer-watching Canadian taxpayers.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 05:01 rondyn

What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?
Only the original Cable TV companies like Rogers, Cogeco, Shaw, etc. provide true community programming on TV. Mandated as part of their original licenses, I feel they have done a good job of showcasing communities and making people aware of what is happening locally. The same is not true for newer "cable" companies like Bell and Telus. They have chosen to purchase existing networks to use them as examples of community programming, but the content on these stations has not changed and still show a majority of imported programming that has nothing to do with local people, places or events.
Local news is very important to people in a community, yet TV channels are obsessed with the continuous 24-hour news event from anywhere in the world and often crowd out the local news. That's not to say that we don't want to know about the continuing Rob Ford saga or the Senate scandals, but we should also have channels we can tune in to get away from these stories and local programming should be exactly that, LOCAL programming.
Community access is also a terrific idea allowing volunteers to not only appear in front of the television cameras, but also to learn about TV production behind the camera. It is a great concept providing a professional environment in which to train the broadcasters and film-makers of tomorrow. It is through this nurturing of talent that the Canadian television industry will grow stronger and survive, not through the subsidies of mandatory carriage.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 05:22 rondyn

Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
Yes and no. To quote Charles Dickens from A Tale of Two Cities, It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.
Our news programs and documentaries are some of the best in the world and uniquely Canadian with some of the best production standards I've seen. And while we have produced some excellent and unique Canadian comedy sitcoms like Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairies which have in turn been distributed worldwide, there are far too few everyday stories that reflect our daily lives.
We used to try to emulate American sitcoms or dramas and still do, but the most popular programs of that culture now trend towards bizarre fantasies and excessive violence and special effects which, thankfully, are not replicated in most Canadian grown productions.
Could we have more programming exploring our diverse a multicultural society? Absolutely. Will Canadians watch it? Probably not. Unless it's a popular hockey game, stars a well-known actor or covers a topic of hot interest I'm afraid most people, especially the younger generation, are glued to their screens playing Call of Duty, texting their friends or updating their Facebook status.
To be more engaging for the younger generation, TV will have to be more interactive and participatory to compete with the smaller screens that dominate their lives.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 05:42 rondyn

I have three comments :

We should be able to select our TV channels even with the basic service.
There are way too much advertising on television.
The level of noise of the advertising is also way too high. It seem that this problem have been addressed in the past with no results.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 09:34 vpetitfils

Life is hectic. You go to work, come home make dinner for the family, give the kids a bath and put them to bed. For my husband and I, we look forward to spending a couple of hours in the evening sitting on the couch watching a few of our favourite programs. It's our down time, it's how we reconnect with what is going on in our city and around the world. It's how we shrug off the stresses of the day. While news programs play a key role in what we watch, we also enjoy a variety of tv programming from dramas to comedies, and it is so disappointing that there is such a limited selection of Canadian programming on television. It is such a source of pride to see a Canadian production suceed (like Flashpoint) and prosper on the airwaves, or see a comedy where the jokes are a reflection of what is currently going on in Canada.It is so disappointing to see stations like CTV and Global show less and less Canadian content. Maybe if there was more Canadian programs, there would be more Canadian productions and pilots for the networks to choose from.Television for most of us is our gateway to the world around us. It's often the main source of knowledge for current events. I have a 2 year old, and don't want him growing up knowing all about the States and having no idea about Canada because there isn't enough exposure to Canadian geography (thank goodness for The Amazing Race Canada!!!), politics, or social issues because it's not part of the programing that he watches. Television, be it via satellite, cable or internet streaming has a major influcence on the majority of our society. Shouldn't it therefore be reflective of who we are as a nation? Shouldn't it support Canadian writers, performers and artistic talent? Let's put more Canadian programming on Canadian TV. Let's support Canadians!

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 10:45 tvwatcher

Let's recognize and support our vibrant creators and producers in Canada's tv & film production industry. It nourishes all of us: Canadian jobs; our national identity; and our economy.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 11:05 Carol

I would like to see more primetime Canadian fictional/dramtic content that are made with Canadian creators, storymakers, performers.
Why have canadian channels that air the same american programming as the american channels ?
It is important to build our Canadian stories&culture, Canadian identity, Canadian industry

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 11:28 Shannon Joutel

1. What television programs are most important to me ?
Scripted Dramas that tell our stories are important to me ( Murdoch Mysteries, Republic of Doyle, Orphan Black, Jack, Prairie Giant, The Tommy Douglas Story) Feature Films I am so please to start seeing Sarah Polley's film on tv this month but where are Atom Egoyan's, David Cronenburgh's, Charles Officer's and others? Why do we not have easy access to Cabadian film and TV on our screens? Canadian and International news ( CBC, TV Ontario, Fifth estate and documentaries that have Canadian themes and content are most important to me. I am tired of seeing American style cop shows and American reality shows on every channel . I see the same American Shlock on Canadian channels at the same time as they are shown on American channles. Too often I am left with no choice... I don't want to learn about miranda rights on CSI (insert American city of your choice) I want to learn about how our Canadian legal system works...
2 What do you think about how you receive television programming?
We watch TV programming on atraditional television set, online, and on a smart phone, I hate the inflated costs of cable and internet like everyone else but I am afraid that the Canaian stories we need to tell to protect our cultural identity will be lost if all is left up to choice. We live next to a the biggest exporter of content that already floods our airwaves with American shows. I want choice to see canadian shows that speak to me..I am afraid if we have no protections in place that smaller broadcasters with a distinct canadian mandate like VIsion or TV Ontario will disapppear. Please do no harm.. Leave Canadians with a choice to watch CANADIAN TV
How satisfied am I?
Well this week I tried to follow local politics and found out that I no longer could view city hall council meetings on my regular TV. I was forced to view it online through streaming which cut in and out constantly and forced me to use up precious data. Is this a money grab? Why would the CRTC allow Rogers to stop broadcasting .. will we lose the provincial and federal feeds next?

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 11:56 Theresa Tova

I'm a drama queen - I love Canadian stories first and foremost. They appeal to my imagination and connect me to my world. Especially prime time drama and comedy series.Sometimes I watchserieswhen broadcast - especially political satire shows - but more and more frequentlyI watch my favourite shows on Rogers on Demand, my current cable provider.I crave the big high-def screen experience when I'm at home butfrequently screen shows on my laptop and iPad when I'm traveling. The opportunity to see great Canadian content on screens of all sizes thrills me to the bone. Twitter alerts me to shows that I sometimes watch on my BlackBerry. The diversity of platforms is pretty remarkable and builds audiences and engagement in good stories.
My concern isthat when I look down the road five years from nowI want to see space created forCanadian content on the internet. I cannot see why Netflix Canada and others should not contribute financially to the ongoing creation of Canadian content. We like our shows to have high quality production values and I believe the appetite for good Canadian content will continue to be voracious.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 12:43 Ferne Downey

The problem with the current system is it does not line up with everyones needs.
For example i use netflix and other streaming platforms for content. The only use i would have for a live tv service is for live events like sports.
The ideal solution would be to offer pay per channel or pay for channel type bundles. Ie sports, movies, primetime channels...
Everyone has internet now so why not make it an addtional add on to that account with out an outragous charge..
Oh and also these compaines really gotta stop pushing home phone on everyone, no one uses home phone in the younger generations

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 13:24 gpynn

I like the idea of having a Canadian Content component. I think we need this to avoid being overrun with American content. However, I was disappointed to find out that Reality TV and shows like ET Canada count as Canadian content. I guess it is produced by Canadians etc but really I think counting it as part of network's Canadian content defeats the original intention of having a Canadian content component and sets a low bar for qualifying as Cdn content. I think we should have 2 categories,scripted Canadian content andUNscripted Canadian content and have requirements for both. That way newtorks can't take the easy and cheap way out, produce nothing of signifcance and simply buy all of their scripted content from the US.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 13:39 Hwck

I think that we need to redefine what we mean by the Canadian broadcasting system and look at it from the perspective of the audience. I don't believe that the audience thinks of YouTube as part of the Canadian broadcasting system (I don't anyway), but we do think of Netflix and our tablets all as part of the system. Digital platforms and OTT providers are just different delivery systems for the same content. One of the current problems is that there are no obligations for OTT prides to offer Canadian programming, and the cable-owned broadcasters won't license it to them. So we can't watch Flashpoint or early seasons of Continuum on Netflix - though there's no problem getting CBC shows like Being Erica or Heartland.
I know getting there will be complicated and definitely tough but I would like to ultimately see the choice to watch Canadian programming on the platform of my choice.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 14:55 klashton

Why do you think cable is so expensive? Apply the same rules to Netflix and just watch the subscription price go up. Very bad idea.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 22:17 JF Bérubé

I think requiring Netflix to create original Candian content is one good idea. They've done well so far with their original American content so I'd like to see what they could do north of the border.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 22:28 JamesMcGill

The major problem with imposing quotas is that American content is cheap to Netflix. As soon as you get into Canadian content you are talking about content that is expensive to produce due to its restricted audience. Our industry basically lives on government money. The American industry can not only live on its own but also gets rich on its own. In Canada we have created a subsidized industry. Well, guess what. The money needs to come from somewhere.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 14:08 JF Bérubé

Original content (no matter where it's from) is expensive. Quotas would not just be about original content. Most of what we watch on Netflix isn't original content. I would like to see a greater choice of older Canadian shows (like Flashpoint or Degrassi:TNG) on Netflix. And yes, I would love to see what they might do with original content but that would be a bonus, just in the way that House of Cards is a bonus. If Netflix was a part of the system they would also trigger subsidies for that content so wouldn't be paying the full cost.
So no, I don't think that the Netflix price would *have to* go up if they became part of the system.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 09:49 klashton

I want to give you my money, just not the way you want to take it.
(Or, a rant about trying to watch sports during the digital age in a country where telecomms exercise monopoly powers)
I'm frustrated that I cannot watch the Canadian franchises of major pro sports (MLB & NBA) on my OTT device (Apple TV via MLB.TV) or my iPad (NBA.TV or MLB.TV).
To the telecomm parent companies of the Canadian sports channels I say this, I will never buy a cable subscription to see these properties. My family already has an Internet connection and two wireless accounts. You are doing quite well by us.
But here's the thing, I still want to give you my money. I'm begging to give it to you. I would have paid $50 bucks to watch the do or die, winner takes all, 2013 NBA Finals Game 7 on my iPad.
I understand that these games have value and that it's the sports entertainment business. I get it.
But what you don't get is the resentment I have towards your entire business by trying to force me to buy things I don't want, don't need and don't watch.
I just want to watch these games how I choose on what I choose.
So, let's have an amicable customer to business relationship that sees you deliver the product to me in a way I want and we agree on a price.
Because the way you program does not make me a happy customer.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 15:37 MrDGWells

Simply put, I want to vote for still more Canadian content. Consider the success of recent programs in England: such as the excellent revival of Dr. Who. Dr. who has found an international audience, not by making the show more American or international but by making it as British as they can. Ifwe make our projects as Canadian, and as high quality as we can, we ensure work for our Canadiant artists: and we ensure a produict we can proudly market on the International stage....

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 16:04 johnwdarling

I think the success of not only Dr. Who, but things like Downton Abbey prove that if a show is truly compelling enough, people will watch it no matter where it originates from. (Who could have predicted how Americans of all people would take so strongly to a soapy British period-piece like Downton?)

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 22:24 JamesMcGill

There is not enough Canadian television on Canadian television.
Half the time there is a Canadian live action show on television it is disguised as "somewhere, or some town America".
The CRTC should be protecting our culture. I wish they would make it a priority.
If Canadians don't start seeing properly Canadian stories in television and on their mobile devices there soon will be no culture to actually protect.
t that point there'll be point in the CRTC Existing any more because without a culture, there will be no Canada.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 17:47 Aidan Devine

1. What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?

I think all types of program are important, with the exception of reality TV it is NOT reality. Reality TV is exploitive and often destructive; it does nothing to promote Canadian culture or ideas.

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

Yes I do know which of the programs I watch are Canadian, unfortunately not in a way I would always describe as good. I find production values for a lot of Canadian content are not always up to par with those you would find being produced in the U.S. or even Britain. I think knowing a show is made in Canada by Canadians is important, we should be proud of the stories we tell.

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programmingprograms about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and community TV to you? Why?

I definitely consider programs about my city, and more often than not my province to be considered local programming. I think it’s very important to have local news, people should have the ability to inform themselves of what is going on in the community they live in through any means at their disposable, whether it be, Newspapers, Television or the Internet.

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?
I think whenever you have something written by a Canadian, Directed and Acted in by Canadians you can’t help but have something that is reflective of our culture. We can’t help but incorporate a part of us in the stories we tell. Unfortunately I think there is to much focus placed on how Canadian something is, whatever that means, when what our industry needs to focus on is just creating more scripted content by Canadians (versus unscripted reality TV trash). Story telling is how we pass on our history, our ideas, ideals, and our culture to those who come after us. We just need to worry about producing the content. Content created by Canadians. The rest will just naturally happen.

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

The world is changing so quickly it’s hard to say. All that I can hope for is that we continue to grow our Canadian film and television industry, and strive to not only deliver Canadian content to Canadians, but rather to the world at large. The world is becoming more and more connected every day, and it’s never been easier express our ideas, our culture to anyone willing to listen, and watch.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 18:23 gaald

Further to and to clarity my earlier post:
Bell (CTV), Shaw (Global), and Rogers (City) need to stop taking proverbial wheelbarrows of money to Hollywood to buy up every possible TV series to broadcast over the air and overrun their specialty channels. Spend the millions instead on developing and airing quality Canadian programs based in Canada. No signal substitution allowed on the US networks, which will be a moot point anyway as the Canadian networks will become 100 % Canadian. (The US networks should still be available but be made optional. That way I could drop them during the summer when they are all repeats, or when they are no longer worth subscribing to.)
Oh, and the new Canadian networks can be carried on American and worldwide cableco's too, which will give the Canadian companies money to develop more programming, and wean them off gov't (taxpayer) subsidies. I would call this a win-win situation.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 18:28 kcbrk32

I don't like 80%-90% of Canadian television, but I don't like 80%-90% of American television either. Most television isn't all that great. I think it's a shame that we hold ourselves to an unrealistic set of expectations that virtually no other country in the world does. Hollywood makes plenty of crap, but everybody only remembers the great stuff. I don't know why so many Canadians seem to feel that everything made in Canada has to be brilliant, merely because there's public money in the production budget, or because CRTC regulation is involved. That's not how it works. Whenever I hear somebody talk about how bad Canadian TV is, they almost always finish with, "Except for ____. That is/was a great show." Well, that's how it works, I'm afraid. That great show came to you courtesy of a plenty of failure, just like everywhere else.
I also think English Canada struggles with its identity in general, so when it comes to TV we're constantly contradicting ourselves. One moment we're shouting that Canadian TV should be just as good - read "just like" - American TV (only counting the good American TV, that is). And the next moment we're up in arms that our TV is too bland, too cookie-cutter - too much like American TV, because we're just copying them (with lower budgets). We can't have it both ways.
I want there to be Canadian programming on TV, in all genres. I don't see what he point of having a country is otherwise. Honestly, if you don't have some way of telling your own story - as an individual or as a group - then the only difference between an American and a Canadian is the address you mail the tax return to. If that's all being a Canadian means, then that would be too bad, in my view.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 20:12 N.Dot

Completely agree with everything in this post.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 21:57 JamesMcGill

We need more original scripted Canadian content on Canadian TV. Now, I agree with a lot of the complaints being thrown around about the poor quality of Canadian programming. It’s true, most of it is crap. That being said though, most American programs that are produced are crap too. I’d wager that the majority of TV produced around the world is pretty forgettable. So why do people seem to think of Canadian shows as the only ones that are bad? There are a few main reasons as I see it:

1. Numbers. Pure numbers. American conventional networks alone develop over 100 new series every year, many of which never even make it to air because they’re not considered good enough. If we assume only 5% of new TV shows are ‘quality shows’, that means the US will produce 5 or more ‘quality shows’ each year on average and Canada will produceuh, less than 1. We need to produce more original shows, plain and simple. Producing more shows increases the probability that some of those shows will turn out to be good, not to mention create more jobs for writers/directors/actors/ etc. This leads to point number two
2. Constantly decreasing Canadian content requirements of the private networks. Watch TV on a private network during prime time and all you see are American shows. Loosening regulations have allowed the networks to not only produce less scripted programming but shift it out of prime-time and to non-scripted things like ET Canada, which in the past wouldn’t even have been allowed to count towards the minimum Canadian %. Our airwaves are over-saturated with American shows that viewers could turn on NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX to watch if Canadian networks didn’t simulcast them.
3. Money. Canada has the worst-funded TV system in the western world besides the US where their large population can easily fund hundreds of original programs every year. I support increased funding to produce Canadian shows, whether through fees or taxes. Obviously, our industry will never have the same amount of money available as south of the border, but if we want our programming to get better, we need to spend more on it. More money means not only higher number of programs, but a higher quality as well.

I don’t think anyone would argue that having unique, popular, quality Canadian art/theatre/music etc. isn’t important to a strong Canadian culture, so I don’t know why so many people seem to want to do away with Canadian TV. Television in art, and as such helps define us as a people and a nation just like these other mediums. Original Canadian content has been dying away over the last few decades and without changes, I fear it could soon disappear completely.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 00:03 JamesMcGill

The two biggest reasons I watch TV are to learn about local happenings (via current events shows, not news programs) and as an escape. These provide the most value to me because they affect my quality of life.
I do believe that I know which shows I watch are Canadian. I don't think that knowing that is of particular importance, however.
To me, local television is that which is from the area to which I would travel in a day, so my city and the surrounding ones. I believe that local television is a valuable resource because it presents information about our community and encourages the community's growth.
I don't have any thoughts on the last two questions.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 03:39 ChrisHasFlair

i watch all types of programming, and I don't care where its written/produced and directed == all I care about is does it interest me, is it of a high standard, and most importantly, do I have reasonable access at a reasonable cost to me. Look, Canadian life is not much different from American life -- what are we protecting? if we are worried about supporting our television production/movies here in Canada, are we ready to pay through the nose? For me, the answer is no.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 14:29 englishsetters

Except for CBC news and some sports coverage, though in Canada unless you want to pay a hefty fee, you can't watch canadian athletes most of the time. I watch CBC everyday, and I'd hate to not have it. However, as others have said, I don't care to watch Mike Holmes, reality shows, and game shows.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 14:31 englishsetters

I'm 27. I live in downtown Toronto. I'm an actor,singer,voice over artist. I haven't had cable TV since I lived at my parents house in 2004. I stream, I download, I've had Netflix since it was available in Canada, (3 1/2 years roughly). We need to get more Canadian content on streaming and online services. Cable is a thing of the past.
TV is a more viable art form than it has ever been in our history. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me if it's identifiable as Canadian if the profits are staying here. I like watching great actors move me and tell great stories. If they are only airing on cable and are too difficult to find via the internet, I simply will find something that is, and it's usually American.
To answer the third question. Not at all. I can find my news on the internet or in the paper if I choose to seek it out. Content about my city or province news related or otherwise doesn't interest me.
Question number 4...I don't know, honestly. Cable TV isn't on my radar, and truthfully, it's the same answer you'd get from a lot of people my age and younger.
Future plans for the TV industry...Most of our best directors leave Canada, most of our actors are trying to squeeze their way into the vault that is the American tv/film industry. Why? Because they do it better and offer way more opportunities to work. Why? Because they have the money and can waste unbelievable amounts on taking risks with new and exciting content and Pilot Season . We need more money. We need to be able to take those risks to create great Canadian content, but in order to do so we need more money. I don't have any solutions, I just see the problem. America is able to play it wild and fast and we have to play it safe because...well I don't know why. The Canadian TV industry is a big confusing Giant and there are many known and someone unknown factors. The entire industry is changing here and in the states so quickly and violently almost, that it's hard to know what's happened to it until a year down the road when you look back and can assess it almost statisically. Look at all the Netflix original series now! When did that happen? In the last year...We need to stop thinking Cable TV and what Canadian content is on it, and start thinking new mediums and how we jump on board. The Canadian content will take care of itself. We'll always have Canadian creators who feel strongly about telling those stories. How we just get our Canadians to create something that anyone around the world will watch is what's important. We need viewership here but especially abroad like the brits and yanks have shown us.
I'm getting off topic but I suppose I have a different view on the industry seeing as how I'm immersed in it and know how it affects our working (and out of work) creatives first hand.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 19:18 Canuckactnsing

EndSimultaneous Substitution
Canadian private TV channels are owned by very wealthy telecomm companies. They have enormous resources (revenues, profits, cross-promotional platforms).
These telecomm companies are in a strong enough position to withstand the disruptions caused by ending the simultaneous signal substitution regime. It'll hurt, but they'll be okay.
There is enough creative and promotional talent up here to make Canadian shows that will be financially successful at home and sellable abroad.
Simultaneous Substitution creates too many warped incentives and needs to end.
We need to encourage an environment where it's good business for Canadian companies to make even more and promote even harder Candian programming, especially in the prime Fall and Winter seasons.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 20:33 MrDGWells

I have serious concerns about the 'unbundling' of television stations. I want to ensure that my viewing includes all the options of Canadian stories on my screens and although I understand the need for consumers to have choice at a reasonable cost, I am concerned that a pick and pay system would ultimately undermine both these needs. Too often in the past decade have I seen our regulatory board pass measures that are supposedly in the consumers interest, only to see our own industry suffer and ultimately ensure the increased benefit to to a few major corporations. More alarming, as our viewing options become more limited to only US programming, our sense of who we are culturally, diminishes. Television drama is still the lynchpin of popular culture and the stories we tell there give us a sense of belonging. They reflect our values, they unite us over geographical distances, promote cohesion, collaboration, inclusion, empathy and cultural pride. Our stories inspire us and distinguish us as a dynamic and unique nation. They are the spark of innovation and a catalyst of prosperity.
But we can't be what we can't see.
A strong regulatory regime balances the needs of consumers with support for stories by, for and about Canadians. Embedded in our Broadcasting Act is wisdom to guide us through each passing phase of ever changing viewing fads and habits. I urge the commission to look to the broader good and ensure that, for the sake of what seems a gimmick bid for popularity, we don't lose our cultural identity.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 23:42 Wcrewson

I am 66 and have watched North American TV for over 60 years. I am well educated and like quality TV programming. I resent having to pay for sports channels (Rogers Cable) that I never watch (though I would like to be able to access figure skating when available), reality TV garbage, and what really concerns me is the amount of porn available on Pay per View, when so few decent movies are offered. I strongly recommend cheap, basic individual channel choice with an end to bundling channels. Thank you.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 08:41 Ingrid Philipp

I believe that the Canadian television industry is at a serious cross roads. My fear is that unlike me my son will not have a future in this industry. This is a valuable discussion taking place, allowing for all these types of opinions and views, unfortunately if this discussion doesn’t lead to a different business model I think the industry will repeat similar errors committed by the music industry.

The days of buying a cassette or a CD for that one track from the bricks and mortar immediately changed when Napster entered the room. This is in no way in support of Napster’s history, however there’s a lesson to be learned by the mistakes committed by a complacent industry and the fierce pace of technology.

The past and present business model enjoyed by the three English Networks is and will continue to be challenged. Like the music industry viewers are and will continue to disconnect their cables/satellites and accessing programing via other means. Called it the Netflix’s effect or not, but the consumer (viewer) is informed and has options. One doesn’t have to go far and reach for examples – Netflix’s’ presence in Canada only reflects the future ahead. If the present business model doesn’t provide what the consumer is looking for in terms of price point and quality then it too will be redundant.

For me the main question is - are the three English networks interested in just continuing to retail television or participate in building a strong Canadian Global Television Market. The present business model works well for it’s shareholders – but does it have longevity? Consolidation of the industry has not lead to a better market place both for the viewer and the independent producer. Brainless concept rip-offs have not increased viewership or global markets – the ever increasing American programing leaching into Canadian airwaves are driving nails into the industry.

No one has a crystal ball and fully understands what lies ahead – nevertheless Canadians will watch programing produced by Canadians if it competes in the world stage. The derogatory phrase it’s a Canadian show occurs because of the lack of support which turns many Canadian programs into lost leaders.

Given the appropriate support Canadians can compete and create strong Canadian program brands. The range of talent in our country doesn’t have to be quantified - it’s always been present and constant.
Regardless of one’s ideology, the consumer (viewer) enabled by technology will and is bypassing the present delivery/business model. Like any other commodity it’s easy to buy from a manufacture and resell it to a consumer. However like many products that once were produced in Canada which now are manufactured off shore, we all have to decide what kind of an industry we will have 25 years from now. I believe that part of the solution lies on creating a viable and competitive Canadian Global Television Market and why not? - If this concept has worked for America I see no reason why it would not work in Canada.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 09:26 C. Esteves

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
I watch a lot of TV, and really I just want to be entertained, but in terms of what shows areimportant to me, I put the emphasis on: children's programming, documentary, drama (in which I would include feature film) and news. I think these are the types of shows that need to be done well, and that contribute most significantly to theBroadcasting Act's policy goal of encouraging the development of Canadian expression.
Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Absolutely. I always make an effort to find out who made a show I am watching and where they are from - usually easy to do with a quick internet search.
It's important for me to know which news and documentary programs are Canadian because I want to be informed about issues that are relevant to my life - what my politicians are doing, what's going on in my country and in my neighbourhood.
It's harder to articulate why it's important to me that at least some of my dramatic programming choices are Canadian. I believe good stories can be told by anybody and come from anywhere. But I also think it's important for citizens to see a version of themselves reflected on the screens. This doesn't mean I need to see a maple leaf or the CN Tower in every shot - it's more subtle than that. I think that Canadians are great storytellers (Alice Munro, anyone?) and I love seeing those stories on my TV screen. All other things being equal, I will pick the Canadian show every time.
What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I don't think programming will change significantly in the next 5 to 10 years, but the audience will. People are already accessing programming from a wide variety of sources, and this will continue to happen. I think that moving away from cable and satellite services will continue and even accelerate as a trend. But people will still want to watch sports and news, and people will still be looking for entertaining programming.
The challenge will be (as it is now - but harder) for producers and broadcasters to continue to finance quality programming and to let the audience know that it's out there. My fear is that the struggle to pay for programming will lead to less programming and programming of lower quality. There is a place in the system for low-cost programming and even for user-generated content. But there also needs to be a place for the great shows - the Orphan Blacks, the Flashpoints, and even the American shows - in order to continue to have programming that challenges and engages us.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 10:29 LawStudent

1) I would like to be able to choose individual channels.There is so much garbage on TV and I do not want to have to pay for channels because they come in a package. 2)There is also so much vulgarity, it is insulting. Even commercials are insulting, vulgar and violent. I would like commercials to be censored so that if I choose not to watch a stupid program, I do not have to see the commercial for it, just because I subscribe to the channel that it appears on. 3) I also really find it distracting to have ads pop up on the screen while I am watching a program. I pay for the program so why am I forced to see these pop-ups?

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 11:10 cynthia_holmes1@yahoo.ca

I have worked in this industry in a variety of capacities for more than 20 years. I've worked on sets, developed policy, adminstered funding. I could answer questions on programming from many areas, but I'm going to focus on my perception of the current issues between public funding (funds and tax credits) and the public/private programming environment as it currently exists.
I have long believed that the current funding model as supported by the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act are incompatible with modern creation and distribution of screen-based media. Even calling that stuff "television" is perhaps archaic.
There are three primary sources / forms of financing the Canadian subsidy system: the government appropriation to the CBC, the Canada Media Fund (CMF) and tax credits (both provincial and federal). Most Canadians do not realize that the subsidy system provides millions of dollars not only to the CBC but also the private broadcasters via the subsidies of the CMF and the tax credits. CMF and tax credits do not flow directly to the privates, but by substantially reducing the cost to those broadcasters for mandated Canadian programming, they act as subsidies. And because of the additional revenues received by the privates for simultaneous substitution, the subsidy revenues flowing into the coffers of those broadcasters are substantial.
Here's the big crux of the problem: we are constantly blurring the lines between our needs to have an industrial mandate (jobs!) versus having culture mandate (CanCon! 10/10! Canadian voices!). The Canadian public (outside of Quebec) still views Canadian content as being a second-rate product, regardless of what creators in this country say repeatedly. The stories we tell, for the most part, have Canadian stories and landscapes softened so that those mythical "U.S. pre-sales" can perhaps be gained. We take no risk creatively because we percieve are hampered by shackles of accessing international finance, and so our product must be blandly palatable to a non-Canadian (read: US) audience. To Americans, we say, we are neither American enough, nor sufficiently foreign to be interesting. And so, we take no creative risk to show ourselves as we really are.
My proposal has always been radical and yet simple: dismantale the Broadcasting Act and the CMF. If the privates want competition, let them compete. Remove the content quotas (save for news, and kids, if part of their CoL) and let them go. But charge them for the privilege. Instead of BDU revenues going to the CMF, expand the revenue base (not just BDU operations, but media conglomerate revenues), lower the percentage, and direct all those funds to a re-imagined CBC. Give the CBC the chance to be a true public broadcaster, not always scrambling for market revenues, but able to actually achieve its mandate. Expand its screen-based activities - maybe set up a "CBC2" that reports to the same Board of Directors, but has a separate operation outside of Toronto. CBC1 can do news, sports, current affairs, kids, maybe some big ticket drama; CBC2 more experimental, perhaps online broadcasting only, reimagining documentary, arts programming, drama, comedy. Creative risk without the same economic imperatives (they still must be economically efficient, but more focused on mandate than revenue sources). My friends in the guilds would say "but that means fewer outlets for creators! where would they pitch?!"; frankly, they have so few outlets now in the contracting Canadian landscape, it wouldn't make much difference.
And as for a la carte programming, I have this to say: Bruce Springsteen wrote "57 Channels" in 1992. In the intervening 20+ years, that number has gone up by more than a factor of 10. Not all of those "channels", now further competing with the added choice of the internet and OTT services, can survive. Like the 400+ car companies on the Dow before the crash of 1929 or the dotcom boom, survival cannot and should not be guaranteed. Preserve the CBC, and let the rest compete, as they wish to.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 12:23 WesternWonk

Well put. I'm 100% in agreement with you. Thanks for explaining how the funding works.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:13 polishtheday

The CRTC currently regulates how much Canadian content broadcasters must air. These requirements have helped to grow and nourish our Canadian television production industry. They ensure there's a platform for Canadian stories to be told and help to create jobs. Scripted entertainment employs professional performers.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 12:26 suemilling

What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?
As a parent I think Canadian children's programming is extremely important. The values of our country and reflecting our curriculum standards and education in the television our children watch is pivotal. I also strongly feel that the mandate and responsibilities of the public broadcaster should be different than those of private broadcasters. Television is an excellent tool for education and enrichment in our children's lives if done well. It can me SO much more than selling toys.
I greatly enjoy drama and feature films. I think Canada has a storied and internationally respected place as documentary storytellers and I think we are in a unique position to tell many different stories of different cultures and nationalities that could appeal to an international audience.
I also greatly value, what I percieve to be, the balanced news sources that we have. I feel that we are better informed than our neighbours to the south.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:31 Square Eyes

Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?
Yes, I have a good awareness of what is Canadian. But that doesn't matter to me. I watch things because they are good and appeal to me and reflect my tastes and interests. As it happens, a lot of what I like to watch is Canadian. Though I do watch a lot of US and international dramas.
And I have little to no interest in news that is not Canadian.
But one of most recent faves is Orphan Black.

What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I feel like I pay too much for cable. I am not interested in downloading files illeagally but there is not enough on-demand choice. I cannot possible afford the costs of HBO/TMN etc. But I do want top watch the shows. I think there will be a lot more people cancelling their cable. I am worried this mean there will be less money for Canadian programming.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:39 Square Eyes

Like many Canadians, I expect, I'm watching alot -- maybe MOST -- of my 'tv' online these days: Broadcasters' websites, netflix, and paying for content through itunes. So much has changed and so very, very quickly. But I feel that our 'content' isn't keeping up. There simply aren't enough Canadian options available. I want to be able to see more Canadian content on those new online 'channels'. And I fear that without policy and regulation in place, those big companies have no incentive to do so. they'll just keep throwing more cheap american programming up there.
I grew up in Newfoundland, and the CBC -- real, Canadian content -- had a strong local component. We learned about the rest of Canada through the TV shows and the stories they told. We also saw our own, local culture refected there.I really do believe the CBC, in particular, has been a nation builder. It builds pride in who we are, in all our diversity, and distinct from our neighbours to the south. Absolutely critical to how all of us -- particularly our children -- identify as Canadians.
The key to 'more choice' is providing enough opportunity for our stories, Canadian stories, to be viewed, told. Our Canadian broadcast policy and regulatory system has really been the bedrock of our tv and film industry. If we don't maintain and even strengthen that system TODAY (reflecting how we are receiving that content in our homes) we will lose our industry, our terrific stories and our sense of who we are, tomorrow.
don't let it happen. now is the time.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:49 mstiles

I love seeing true Canadian talent in a Canadian setting. I know several shows that are currently airing that are Canadian because they are set in Canadian cities showing Canadian sites and areas.
We have a great pool of talent and need to continue doing and increase the level of Canadian programing.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:51 kdone

With regards to Community Access Television ;

It's not often that I look to the United States for inspiration, but at least they have independent, community driven, media centers that recieve a percentage of the cable compaies' profits to help meet their opperational expences. Even in Quebec, I believe cable companies are required to pay independent access groups for the content that they produce.

Meanwhile, here in British Columbia, having the cable companies operate the "community channel" is like having the the lunatics running the asylum, or more accurately, having the fox run the hen house. If the cable companies are crazy, they are crazy like a fox.
Their spin has always been that the "community channel" had "grown up". I believe it has been perverted. The cable companies have turned the channel into their own promotional tool where much of the programming mirrors that of commercial TV.

In response I have worked in my community to form Tri-Cities Community Television Society, serving Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam. Our membership include The Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, Coquitlam Heritage Society, the Coquitlam Foundation, the Evergreen Cultural Centre, Société francophone de Maillardville, the Port Moody Art Centre Society, ArtsConnect, and PoCo Heritage. We have also received limited funding from all three cities and no funding what so ever from Shaw or TELUS.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 15:27 Geoff Scott

1) Drama, comedy, and news/information programmes are the most important to me. I want a Canadian perspective on the events unfolding in the world, from business to the environment to politics. Naturally, I want to see Canadian artistic perspectives, too. (In most of the rest of the world, you wouldn't even have to explain that.)
2) I know which programmes are Canadian, because the best, from my mom's fave (Heartland) to mine (including Being Erica, 19-2, and Corner Gas) have never been coy about it. They are grounded in the strong sense of voice and place common to most great shows. Can you imagine Slings and Arrows or Republic of Doyle set in Albuquerque? And why on earth would you want to?
3) Local programming is a series of concentric circles to me: city, province, country... I live in the Greater Vancouver Area, which is big enough to warrant its own newscast, for example. However, I have family in rural areas and small towns which may not be able to support a whole channel or even a whole programme, but also need to see their stories and their concerns addressed.
4) No, it's not reflective at all. I live in a city (Richmond) where almost half the people are ethnically Chinese: where are all the Asian-Canadians, especially in leading or even significant roles? Where are the differently abled? Where are the women in leading roles in drama series who are over 40 and over size 6 and don't use Botox? I see Ezra Levant and Kevin O'Leary, so where are the union organizers? Why are there seemingly ZERO francophones in English-language series, and maybe 2 1/2 anglophones in the history of Quebec TV drama, despite the fact that we have remarkable bilingual performers all over the country? Where are the deaf culture activists? Where are the Acadians, the old money Rosedale elites, the urban First Nations, the neo-con politicians, the nannies and fruit pickers and undocumented workers, Christian fundamentalists from Fort Mac and Buddhists from Halifax? Outside of sketch comedy, has there ever been an out queer character in a series lead or major supporting role? Where are the shows that are even one quarter as culturally diverse as Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, or Montreal? Et si j'écrivais tout ça en français, je suis certaine qu'on ne me demandrait même pas pourquoi ça vaut la peine d'être bien refletté par la programmation qui se trouve sur la ressource publique que constitue <<les ondes>>. I'm pretty sure that, in the French-language version of this discussion, the reason why you would BOTHER to have your own original programming IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY would barely even come up. And if you asked that question in Sweden or South Africa or Brazil, they'd just look at you funny.
I've read a certain party platform for dismantling all federal funding for the CBC based on the idea that a national broadcaster is simply duplicating the functions of private broadcasters (it isn't) and that it should compete with them on an "equal", American-style footing (it shouldn't and can't, which most of the world's nations have managed to grasp by now.) Or based on the idea that the CBC is a bunch of lefty Toronto elites who make life troublesome for a certain party. And that attacking them will always play well to a tax-hating political base, be it the super-rich or the fragile poor or the shrinking middle who would rather spend every last dime on home improvement projects rather than on any collective projects to serve or bring together the country as a whole. Plus they figure the youth don't watch TV anyway and are apathetic and won't care. (Wrong. Young people watch lots of TV. They may watch it in 3-minute chunks, or in binges that they bit-torrented without paying a dime to the people who created it... but they're watching it.)
If I'm right about that, and the CBC goes down, and the CRTC keeps watering down its regulations about Canadian content until the English-language private networks are able to count an hour of Tim Hortons commercials as their quota of original Canadian programming, so they can access all those delicious advertising revenues without lifting a finger to create anything at all... then my French will start getting much better. Because, from Tout le monde en parle toLance et compte, I'm pretty sure the Québecois are not going to give up television as a shared, big-tent space for political dialogue, entertainment, and emotional engagement. Now THERE'S a nation that, as far as I can tell, has kind of understood that it's important for a society to laugh together, to experience stories together, and also to have forums where its members can discuss and analyse and learn more about the world around it. The delivery methods may be changing, but television is still a vital part of that national conversation. If "Canadian TV" is reduced to some bored technician in Windsor flipping a switch so that we all see Canadian Tire commercials during the rebroadcast of Jersey Shore... then I think we'll notice the difference, and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 15:59 Leanna Brodie

Programming: What do you think about what’s on television?

Thank you for the opportunity to engage the CRTC in an informal manner. I apologize in advance if I stray off topic or make grammatical errors.

In this context I will choose to wear my "parental glasses" when answering what’s on tv and imagine the TV world they (being our 1 and 3yr old) will engage in the next 2-10 years.

As a parent, I hope that Canadian stories, ideas and values are more available to our children than they have been to me/us lately.

With the multitude of channels now available, I fail to see from a practical perspective why there isn't enough space on the proverbial dial for more Canadian programming across age groups, genres and formats.

Additionally I see two positive results from their exposure to more Canadian Stories:

1. Our children will better understand, who they are and where they come from, a necessity in this age of digital ambiguity and Canada has a proud (and for the most part peaceful) History and informing the Generations behind and ahead of us about ourselves, is essential for its continuation.

2. Jobs... from a nuts and bolts/practical perspective our children need a functioning domestic TV industry to create employment opportunities for them in the future. As traditional TV media becomes more available, across more platforms, the skills gained in the audio and video sector will migrate well, no matter the hardware/endpoint.

Additionally, I feel that TV, practically speaking, plays a critical role in the stability of all genres/formats (feature films, docs etc.). Broadcasters have and I hope continue to play a role in sharing Canadian stories online and off. As a genre I fail to see why TV is not broadcasting/on demanding as many Canadian made feature films as International ones? I see feature films constantly being played on TV and often use my PVR (which I pay an additional monthly fee for) to build a library of films to watch later, so again access is achievable and extended in the modern age.

Lastly, to limit the genres/formats we invest in, is to pretend to know how technologies will engage us and our children in the future; but how can that be when we don’t even know what those technologies.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 17:16 Wyeth

I subscribe to cable, but am seriously considering cancelling it, especially since the channels I watch most frequently are now available on my phone through my cell phone provider orover the internet.
I don't watch basic cable and resent having to pay for this and for "specialty" channels that rebroadcast the same program all day and paid programming at night. I've been able to pick and choose to some extent through Telus, Bell and now Videotron, but that doesn't solve the problem as I still have to pay for basic cable I don't watch. Even most of the specialty channels don't interest me.
I mostly watch news (CBC, RDI), arts (ArteTV), and Scandinavian shows (Borgen, Kommissaire Winter, Varg Vaum in French on ArteTV - too bad these don't appear on the English channels) through cable. The latter appear in the program guide rarely following no apparentpattern so I can't watch or record them regularly. I plan on buying the DVDs, which I'll most likely have to order from Europe (and wait awhile for delivery and then play them on a region 2 DVD which my Apple TV doesn't recognize) or else through a UK or Scandinavian iTunes account.
I watch BBC over the Internet. The so-called BBC programs on cable are a joke because the programs are repeated and often are many years old. I might, in the future, watch broadcasts from other European countries. I'm not that interested in US television, except for a few programs on HBO, the Movie Network and AMC likeMad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones and the Newsroom. I can get some of these, but not all through iTunes and Netflix.
Watching sports is a social thing and I don't usually socialize at home. I like to watch World Cup Soccer on TV from an Italian sports bar or British pub. I do watch sheepherding trials when they appear on BBC. I used to watch a Canadian program called Top Dogs on OLN featuring dog sports like herding, agility and flyball and I like watching cross-country skiing on the rare occasions it is broadcast. I used to watch educational channels like the Knowledge Network until they started looking like the other channels, but now I have MOOCs for edutainment.
I subscribe to Netflix and am currently watching Portlandia, but am disappointed in their offerings in Canada so I'll probably cancel my subscription.
I can watch most of what I want from my computer, tablet, phone and Apple TV using a VPN service to switch from country to country, but it is inconvenient to have to do this sometimes. I know a lot of hard work goes into the making and broadcasting of these programs so I'm not doing this to get it for free, but to have access to a range of choices that I don't currently have in Canada. I also realize that it's not the cable companies fault, but that doesn't change the fact that I'll go somewhere else if I can. We live in a globalized world. The media we have access to should reflect this.Why I can't subscribe directly to channels and watch them on my computer, or tablet, or phone, or Apple TV?
I think the mandate for providing and promoting Canadian content should go to CBC/Radio-Canada which should be publicly-funded and available to all Canadians via the Internet, cable, satellite and over-the-air in large urban areas. I don't think there should be advertising on these channels and wouldn't mind paying for a TV license to watch all (including the specialty channels) their channels using the same model as in Britain.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 17:35 polishtheday

I know which shows I watch are Canadian, I recognize a number of Canadian places in commercials and I know which "American" shows are filmed in Canada. And I frequently see Radio-Canada crews filming in Montreal.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:00 polishtheday

I believe it is of utmost importance to continue to exclude cultural content from the free trade deals. The CBC, provincial programming such as TVO, CPAC, Discovery, French programming and local programming are necessary components of a basic cable channel bundle. These choices should available in every cable subscription in the country. They should also be available by antenna.
Equality of opportunity for all Canadian children requires that basic cable programmes are of high quality and provide ready access to Canadian culture. This, in turn, requires a large volume of subscription with low rates. Basic cable packages should include diverse channels so that light entertainment and informative programmes are equally available. Every basic cable bundle should include one optional channel for the consumer to choose. Regulation is required.
It is crucial that young Canadians interested in the arts have access to and aspire to being included in nationally-available programmes showing diversity and equality and shown on nationally-available channels. The most basic element of culture is the ability to see oneself and one's family and surrounding environment reflected in the art one has access to and that art is still mainly available, especially in impoverished communities, through television.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:15 L. Kaye

Technology: What do you think about how you receive television programming?

View comments

I think cable, satellite and iptv in Canada are way too expensive! Therefore I currently access TV via the internet and through over-the-air! Programming and channels need to be expanded over the air! It's a shame you can't turn on your tv and access National News Coverage like CBC Newsworld.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 09:45 bobbyhre

I have Netflix, and basic-cable. I consider NetFlix to be a far better value than basic-cable, or even extended cable.
Basic cable is simple a dumb repeater. Watch the same old shows, on the same time slots, and if you miss it, you miss it. With netflix, I have choice and control over what I watch, when I watch it, and even on what device I watch it on. I don't have to buy or rent another expensive converter box for each device.
I don't see how Rogers can charge 399 for a simple HD converter box, without even PVR functionality. There is literally nothing in that box that is worth 39.99, let along 399.99. For a fraction of that price, I can buy a netflix box, which can play other movies, other media, and even stream media to other devices.
As far as Canadian Content is concerned, with Netflix, Canadian shows are asily identified. Where on Rogers, I'm fairly certain the only Canadian content is the news, if that can even pass these days.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:42 AnneNonymous

I have digital cable and I have had Netflix. We live in Canada and have absolutely no choices, I've seen their expanded library since I was last a member. There is no way Netflix gives you access to around 90 percent of the content I have at my fingertips. I pay a premium for that, but I have everything in place on my DVR which sucks because I'm forced to use Cogeco and they haven't updated their boxes in any real way since DVR's were invented,lol. I'm not arguing with you, in fact I'm sort of wishing you had more to choose from on Netflix. I read an article a few years back and the simple reason you don't have tons more shows like they do in the U.S is licensing issues. I don't possess the knowledge to explain it, but there is like this legal blackhole that makes it hard to get content licensed to us in simple terms. I like the options I have for free channels on demand, if I miss a show I go to the channel that it's on under "Channels on Demand" scroll thru and if the episode you missed aired like 1-2 days before it will be available on demand. No fast forward, however an hour show is done in like 47 minutes because the commercial breaks are just one ad for either a specific show or a montage of several shows on the network, then right back to the show. You could get all this, hopefully better if you aren't in a Cogeco area for around 130 or so a month. Less or a bit more depending on the channels you pick. I realize this is a high bill, but I find it worht it.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 09:36 frankgrimes78

first off the HD switch over was a big scam, pretty much everyone living in rural canada who used to be able to receive over the air broadcasts have now been forced onto cable or satellite as digital TV is all or nothing, no fringe area as with analog TV, so as long as you are close to a big city you will have Free over the air programming, then there are those of us who have invested in analog media centers for viewing & recording & streaming their content to other TV's in their house however the way digital has been implemented with most providers takes us back to the era of the set top box,but now scrambling all the channels unless you buy or rent their receiver or PVR thus making personally owned equiptment unuseable, First off all providers cable or satellite need a mandate from the CRTC that all broadcasts must remain in their original state at every step on all networks, meaning if a network broadcasts Free over the air it must remain in the clear & can not be encrypted by any carrier or content provider at any point in the relay or delivery process, this will ensure that end users who have purchased their own equiptment will be able to continue to use it, 2nd ly as a result of all the rural OTA users who have lost their OTA programming in the digital switchover, the CRTC should end the practice of allowing service providers to sell OTA (over the air) programming they receive for free to their customers, customers should pay a fixed $10.00 per month system access fee & recieve all the local OTA programming for their area, this would make it affordable for those on fixed incomes to have basic tv, and along those lines the CRTC needs to mandate service providers to make available digital HD packages broadcast in the clear, as they currently do for analog TV, for those not interested in pay TV who wish to use their own pvr or media center equiptment.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:53 R Foster

The problem with television in Canada are the bundled packages, which makes it extremely expensive. When you want to watch 3-5 channels, you have to buy the basic package and then another 3 specialty packages, because of course the channels that you want to watch are all spread out between different packages, forcing you to pay a huge amount just to access a couple of channels that you actually want to watch.
We need to get rid of the "basic package" concept, as well as specialty bundles. Instead all channels should be available for individual subscription. Yes, this means some crappy channels will go out of business because nobody wants to watch them. But it also means that other, new channels will appear, offering content that people actually do want to watch. It will mean improvement in the quality of programming and a reduction in cable fees (as people get to pick what they want to watch).

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:12 Anthony S.

I currently watch TV via satellite and prefer to use a PVR to record the programs that I want to view and then watch them at a time convenient to me.
My primary quarrel with my subscription is the cost. The infrastructure for this service has been in use for a number of years and the costs should be coming down as more subscribers are signed up. However, they keep going up. The same situation applies to cable subscribers.
My second pet peeve is the bundling of services. In order to receive a new channel I am almost always forced to buy a bundle of channels even though I do not intend to watch most of them. However, I realize that bundling allows new channels or specialty channels to get paid for their services even though their audience is small. The suggested solution to this is that a consumer be able to obtain specific channels for a small additional cost if the consumer has either several bundles or pays a certain base amount for subscribed channels (whichever is the lower overall cost).
The biggest threat to satellite and cable providers is the Internet. This medium is unregulated and it should remain so. Whereas most Internet services are provided by the same companies that provide TV, the result in a swing from satellite and cable to the Internet will probably result in higher fees for the Internet – in order to maintain existing revenue totals. But that trend could mean a reduction in cable or satellite fees in order to retain existing customers (who use those services). A free market situation with more suppliers could satisfactorily address this issue of costs for different services.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:59 Dennis_C

Streaming video services like Netflix are the future of "TV". This is so blatantly obvious to anyone who has used them, it almost goes without saying. The viewer gets a much wider selection of material to select from, and the content producer doesn't need to go through all the "gate keepers" that stood between them and traditional TV.

But the most important thing about streaming video services is that the companies behind them are much smarter than the cable providers. Netflix, Hulu and YouTube seem to be available on practically every consumer electronics device that is capable of playing videos. Heck, even modern TVs come with these capabilities built-in! Just plug in your power cord and connect the TV to your internet, and it automatically works with these services.

Given these market conditions, I find it strange that cable companies seem to believe that they can sell their proprietary signal decryption boxes for hundreds of dollars when what they're competing against is a free service (over-the-air ATSC, YouTube), or a very inexpensive service (Netflix) that their new TV has built-in support for.

It won't be long before the content producers all go direct to the consumer via the internet, and the middle men (channels like CTV and cable companies like Shaw) are completely bypassed, and this is a good thing for consumers. I just wonder how many of the middle men realize that they are dinosaurs, and the meteor is about to hit.

My main message to the CRTC: don't interfere with this transition. To some people it may be tempting to try and enforce "Canadian content" provisions on streaming video companies. But when the viewer gets to select the content they want to watch, what does it even mean to have a certain percentage of content being Canadian? How would such a policy be enforced on a service like YouTube? It cannot be. Canadian content producers can easily get their content on YouTube or Netflix whereas in the "old world" if you take a time slot on a TV channel it was depriving another content producer of that slot, and so the CRTC mandated that Canadian producers got at least a certain size of that pie. That role is now unnecessary in the new world.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:26 Geoff Armstrong

When I gointo the dealership, I'm looking for one car. Nobody expects to walk out with several cars, yet cable providers want to sell them all to me. Granted, it could be seen as a membership to drive one of several cars, and in order to get the keys to more cars to drive, they charge more. However this all doesn't make sense based on the fact I only have a single body, and I can only drive one car no matter how many cars I have access to. I can only watch a maximum of a single channel for 24 hr a day. Now you may also say, it's a membership to different kinds of cars, all economy or all sport, or all luxury. If I had access to all these cars, why would I consider driving the lemons, when I can drive a porsche instead?
There seems to be enough Canadian content coming from Over-the-Air sources that pays for itself through advertising. Why can't cable companies be mandated to help users get set up with an antenna and forget bundling it themselves?

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:37 elmsley

I have 4 HD (1080P) televisions in my house. My gripes are plenty. Why do I have to purchase the basic channel packages which I don't watch at all? I want HD only. I realize they only broadcast in 720P but in time this too will change.Why are some shows and local news on the HD channels even though that are broadcast in low grade digital television? Why is this allowed? This is totally a falsehood that CRTC has allowed to happen.
I also agree with many of the comments that cable is too expensive, programs are repeats and commercials are a plenty. DRV's are expensive but well worth it to blast through the inane repetition of commercials. I do watch TV on my IPAD and computer more and more but and am now considering an HD Antenna combined with Netflix and dropping cable altogether.
Something has to be done with the channels few want but pay for anyways. Our children are gone so why would I want the Disney, YTV, or Cartoon network. I am unilingual English so why would I want to watch a network aired in Punjabi, Mandorin or any third language. I do agree that French Television should be supported, however. I guess what I am saying is I want freedom of choice not dictorial cablevision.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 13:50 Haligonian

Get rid of the SET TOP BOXES they are un-neccesary all newer TVs can decode Clear QAM if they want to encrypt channels you didn't order that is fine they can do it on there side of the system not in the home via Set Top Box. But of course this will never happen as all people are criminals trying to steal the Telcos property (TV Rights etc) and put it on the internet for free. Or atleast thats what the telcos sell as the truth to the CRTC guilty before proven innocent remember.
If set top boxes where stopped we could record television on our computers and on our own choosen PVRs. Then you wouldn't have to pay crazy amounts of money for the Telcos PVRs which are 5-10 years behind technology wise.Then of course we could shop around our VOD to the best program/website and the Telcos dont want that they want you to pay 6bucks to rent a movie for 1 day.
I miss the days of old cable when i could use my HomeTheater PC to record TV and watch it through out my house on any device through my own personal network. Without having to wait five minutes just to change channel as the set top box reported back to the Telco mother ship that i was clicking a button and it should change channels now. A the good old days when we werent all suspected criminals.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 15:05 RSS

Each TV channel should have a seperate and individual price. A subscriber then should be able select any number of the hundreds of channels that a provider carries according to the households interests.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 16:46 Stan Peet

I am a cord cutter. I was also in the same boat with analogue cable as the others, being able to use my own computer equipment to record and playback content on many different devices and tv sets. When the digital switch over started happening I was excited about tv again because I could receive HD signals on cable in the clear via QAM. Trouble is, that was short lived. I complained to the CRTC and to my cable provider Shaw but neither was interested in accommodating my needs. I wasn't asking for all the pay tv or premium channels to be free, just the local stations as this is how it works in the U.S. unfortunately these efforts were for not. As a result of my disappointment, I canceled cable, put up an antenna and will NEVER look back!
I supplement my Antenna with a Roku 3 and subscribe to Netflix, Crackle etc. This seems to be adequate for my family’s needs. Rent movies from Xbox video or Cinema Now on our gaming consoles.
The digital changeover was also a botch:
The public was not well informed by the government with regards to the changes. BDUs were also misleading customer telling them they HAD to switch to cable in order to keep getting TV and this was completely false information. They also launched their own digital switch overs in house to further add to the confusion of consumers.
Not all local stations were forced to switch over. Bell media chose to shut off CTV2 analogue in Edmonton and Calgary and not convert it to digital, yet this is the channel where the Alberta legislature TV is broadcasted on. Talk about a dis-service to Albertans! CTV2 should have been switch or Bell should have lost their SIMSUB rights, as simple as that. Calgary lost their CBC French station because it was a repeater of the Edmonton station and therefore wasn’t mandatory to be upgraded. This was another dis-service to Albertans and a slap in the face to Francophones across the country.
The LTSS program was also not well publicised. A person in this very thread that was able to get TV analogue but not digital because the range wasn’t as good or is less forgiving than analogue qualifies for free basic stations from Shaw via satellite but is not even aware of its existence!! This service is still available until the end of November 2013.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 17:19 cloutierja

The digital box that we are being compelled to convert to is nothing more than a monitoring device to track viewing habits and sell this information to the adverisers. Yes, it's time to cut the cable cord.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:28 Abigail

I'm a TV traditionalist. I have 6 TV's at home the eldest being an inherited B/W set from the 60's or 70's. The newest is from the 90's. I have had cable since 1980 and still subscribe. I wasn't pleased when they first cut off antenna broadcasting (it was a very useful backup when thye cable went out) or when they forced us to switch to digital signals. Still with the cheap DTA's the cable co. sent me I can still watch almost as well (it is much slower to swicth channels than it was with analog) as I used to. The main technical problem these days though is the proilferation of 16:9 programs. I avoid watching them if I can but sometimes they are worthwhile and it is irritating to have those black bars top and bottom (letterboxing). It would be a good idea if the cable co. were required to broadcast in 4:3 on all the standard definition channels. It might mean the loss of part of the picture on the sides but generally it doesn't get used by filmakers anyways. In the old days widescreen movies were usually broadcast this way with very little detriment to the TV viewer. Worse still are certain standard channels which letterbox EVERYTHING. Including 4:3 shows which end up having a black border ALL AROUND. It's a huge waste of space and makes the image very small on a small TV.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 18:59 mxb2001

The current TV providers are showing a major lack of understanding and/or insight into what is happening to peoples' viewing choices. Netflix, YouTube, Hulu etc are the future of television viewing. The current offerings from the cable companies and network tv are really lame. Too much repetitive programming, too much 'sameness' from so many channles. And the long history of forcing people to pay for bundles of channels/programming just to access one or two channels has really worn thin. I watch most of my "TV" on the internet. Netflix and YouTube are great value and I can now stream any content from my browser directly to my TV. No need for cable TV at really. So where does that leave the likes of Shaw et al? I pay them for my internet service but the days of subscribing to their cable tv service are over.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 19:42 KMan

I prefer to watch television primarily over-the-air in conjunction with a PVR and secondarily using the internet. I prefer to watch content live, but it is convenient if I've missed a program to watch recorded programs after the fact. I doubt that I would watch the local news in a pre-recorded format. I don't anticipate switching to another method of watching television.
I suspect in the long run, the internet will become predominant more and more. At some point, some cable channels may start to offer their services directly to customers rather than to offer the services via cable companies. The CRTC should support this model.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:33 canadians

Thankfully my IPTV has bundles of similar channels that I can choose from, unlike the old analog days. But I still end up with channels I don't watch just to get the ones that I do watch.
I don't mind the idea of offereing bundles of channels together but I don't like the all-or-nothing that is offered. Why can't we pick say 2 (or 5 or... ) out of 10 channels per bundle and pay the flat fee on offer for that number of channels in that bundle?
Also the number of channels in 'basic' cable is easily 3 times the size of what it used to be. I watch next to nothing that's offered in basic cable and yet I have to pay for it if I want any channels.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 22:54 Trillian

TV has been evolving since it was introduced and now, the television set has become a more important device than the programming! I remember back in the 90s, I wanted ESPN, I never got it! Despite satellite technology, the world wide web and every other thing, people at the CRTC got in the way. I guess basketball and NASCAR were dangerous to Canadians - I don't know.
Today I have cancelled Bell tv for about a month and don't miss that extra $60/month I was spending on nothing. $30 for Canadian programming?!? I get it FREE with an antenna! But why is satelite and "Fibe" tv the same price??? The monopoly is always gonna overcharge and there is a case in point. I have a computer, I connect it to my TV set and I have Netflix.
Americans have so much great content but bureaucrats don't let Canadians have access toit, well I'm not gonna give my hard earned money to a Canadian company just because I can't get good content. I've been buying DVDs of movies and Tv shows for decades. I'll just have to watch them!
Really between CTV and Global I get the bulk of American programming. As for Canadian content, apart from the news and sports; who watches it?
Cineplex now offers movies online, so does Google but they can't in Canada! Why not??? I have a Google Nexus 4 (smartphone) Google play music lets me listen to the music I already bought, here in Canada. But because the CRTC doesn't let Google Play Music in Canada, I don't have access to all my own music?!?
Technology is moving at the right speed. Paper pushers have drowned themselves in irrelevant arguments. The only reason we're even discussing this is because the CRTC knows it has to hobble the telecom industries to move forward and it doesn't have the guts to do it without supporting comments. You don't have to start a conversation just tell them to start listening to the complaints they get daily!

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 22:56 smvoxx

Thank youfor your comment. Did you know that the CRTC does not block online content? Rather, rights owners decide where to make their programming available.For more information, please see http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/musi.htm.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 15:07 Modérateur-CRTC-Moderator

I prefer to watch television any way I can get it, but online is gaining popularity with our household. We love to watch it on giant TV's. We watch a very tiny amount of live stuff, prefering stuff we've PVR'ed, or fetch on demand. Netflix has the winning formula for us, because we can watch what we want, where we want, whether it's our smartphone, our computers, or TV's.
Bundles of TV channels we don't want, only to get the 5 or 10 we do want is absurd. We are overpaying a LOT in order to watch a little. Since we are spending more time online these days, we're just wasting our money by subscribing to cable, but we can't get everything we want to watch online.
We are planning on ditching cable, because it's antiquated. Cable is great for high-speed internet, so long as you are with a decent ISP like Start Communications. As long as Rogers is involved in TV, there are no incentives to remain with cable TV. Rogers has the worst technology driving the most insane channel bundles. My digital TV box often requires restarting, causing us to lose precious recordings and reduced TV viewing. The internet has yet to let me down.

We are looking forward to migrating further to internet-based television programming. It can't happen soon enough. With the direction television is going in Canada, there will be little need for Rogers bundles, because people will migrate away from Rogers and Bell television, especially when their friends talk about the savings they are realizing, and how they are less frustrated with the choices of shows.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 00:40 Tristan Young

Hi Tristan,
Rogers agrees there should be more choice and flexibility for consumers and have been advocating for change for several years so we can deliver what customers want.
If you reach out to us on Twitter via @RogersHelps, we can try to troubleshoot the issues you have been having with your cable box.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 16:11 Rogers Sarah

One channel, one price. Discounts for packages of 5, 10, 20 etc. but let ME determine what's in each package.
The way it is now I watch about 10% of what I'm paying for.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 07:24 bridgepard

I belive we should have a multitude of choices in how we access/watch TV. Unfortunately being in a rural area we are restriced to Satellite service only. I detest the Sat providers separate bundling, which you are forced into because their basic package is primarily CBC which, other than Hockey Night in Canada has nothing to offer - a total waste of 1.2 billion a year of taxpayer funds. Their latest racket, pay extra for an HD receiver then pay more for a few HD channels. However in spite of the CRTC, I think things will progress in the coming years to let viewship decide what plays and what goes. The present system is repressive and based on a last century protectionist ideology.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:46 hcamper

I have great idea... How about the goverment take there hands off this topic so they don't ruin cable tv for Canadians the way they've ruined cellular phone service. Ever since the goverment decided to get involved with trying to "fix" cellular phone service for Canadians cellular phone plan pricing has gone up on average 35% and and the susdized cost of cell phones has gone up an average of $50. Also to boot, you can no longer keep the cheaper plan that you previously had if you wish to upgrade your phone on a new contract. My point is, is that once the goverment is done "fixing" cable tv, pricing will likley increase and you will be getting less programming and service for alot more money. How about the goverment start worrying about important isssues (healthcare, education, poverty, ect.) and stop trying to fix things that aren't boken.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:54 Chris B

Q: "How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?"
A: It's none of your business.

Q: "If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?"
A: If I have a problem with the packaging, I tell my television provider.

Q: "What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?"
A: It's none of your business.

Q: "How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?"
A: It should not be up to the CRTC to decide how I will receive my television services, so this question is not relevant to me or anyone else.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:34 Rob Huck
  1. How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?

    On a traditional set but with online being a source. I also subscribe to cable TV but find the conveneince and value of services like Netflix to be more beneficial. I do utilize a PVR.

  2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?

    Completely unsatisfied. The value I'm getting from cable (Rogers) is not up to par. Being spoon-fed their idea of what makes up a good cable package is outdated and silly. The hardware I'm forced to use (set top boxes) is buggy and hard to navigate.

  3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?

    Cable TV and Netflix. I intend to drop Rogers as soon as I can, however their strangle hold on how much data I stream through their ISP package is keeping me from doing so. What would make me stay with them is if they give me better value for my money.

  4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?satisfied with that situation? Why?

    Everything will go IP based, it's inevitible. Companies like Rogers and Bell know this, it's why they are spending so much time becoming vertically integrated. It's why they are buying the content, becuase they know the delivery will eventually have very little profit margine left for them. They have a stranglehold on the industry as content gatekeepers becuase they know Canadians have little other choice.

    The solution: MORE COMPETITION

    Sure, some Canadian content will disappear, but it will quickly be replaced by other Canadian content that Candians will want to see. Bell and Rogers are monopolistic middle-men that will stop at nothing to protect their profits. Shareholders are their ONLY concern. Taking away their power will make it easier for Canadian producers to deliver home-grown content.

    Competition is the only way.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:45 Wammy

Consumers should not be required to purchase set top boxes to watch HD channels fromcable companies. Television sets already had the ability to received digital HD signals. Presently, consumers are forced to use a cable set top box that is typically difficult to use, has a poor interface and is very slow in changing channels and menus.
An argument could be made that the cable companies own the system that delivers the signals and the set top box is part of it. However, one could use the same argument for the television sets themselves. In other words, you have to buy or rent a TV set that the cable provider provides in order to view their content, where the TV now becomes part of the provider's infrastructure that delivers the content (vice the signal).
Why is a distinction made between analog cable signals that are delivered without a set top box and HD digital that requires a box? None that I can see as justified. Technical means on the transmission side can be used to select which channels consumers can receive who have paid for them.
Consumers should have the freedom to receive HD signals from a cable provider and then buy the receiving equipment they want to havethat would handle, process and view the content received. Get the cable providers out of the reception business: no more set top boxes.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 12:13 Ed L.

I could notagree more with Ed L. If the cable providers want to encode their signals to protectit....they should be forced to give us cable cards like they do in the US. That would at least allow me to choose my hardware while protecting their signal.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 17:00 rupaa

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
iPod, laptop, and tv via my Wii, using Youtube and Netflix. Sometimes we rent. We don't have a cable service, so no PVR or on demand. We watch PBS and our local CBC affiliate over the air. TVO does not broadcast over the air in my community, so I don't watch it. VERY rarely, I will watch shows on the networks' websites. Generally, the networks don't have any shows I want to watch. I can't watch TVO via my Wii, so I don't bother with it, usually.

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?

Cancelled because we were so dissatisfied with it.

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Netflix is our only subscription service. We plan to keep it. I cannot imagine going back to cable for any reason. It would have to be all on demand, I would have to be able to select individual channels, and it would have to be very,very cheap.

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I can't see traditional cable lasting. Over the internet and on demand seems to be the only logical direction.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 15:16 CLD

Cable/Satellite television MUST END!
It is extremely expensive for what little is received and I feel strongly that Canadians have been getting screwed by the "providers" for years.
Do the right thing once and for all to really protect the consumers from these gougers. Make it compulsery for consumers to choose a la cart - at REASONABLE prices. These "providers" have and continue to bring in obscene amounts of money at subscribers expence.
I am currently being forced to pay over $60.00 a month for what I view, and that is three (3) channels! You do the math.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 17:05 Mario B.

Hi everyone,
Sarah from the Rogers Social Media team here.
Rogers fully supports changes to the current TV model.
We're also listening to your suggestions here, so keep them coming!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 17:06 Rogers Sarah

Ever since switching to IPTV I've found I watch very little live television - why should I watch a show when someone else thinks I should? Not everyone work 9-5 M-F, so why should television programming only be on one schedule?

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 20:58 Trillian

I watch a lot of tv but pvr most things so I can watch late night without staying up late. Also, I skip commercials that way.
i really do not like the bundling concept. If a channel is not popular enough to stand on its own, then it should not be forced on me.
I would rather have less channels because really I only watch a few. Let people choose what they want and pay for it.
I refuse to pay for the movie network. I pay enough for high def, pvr and a bunch of channels I don't want.
i tried Netflix but in order to get the good stuff, you need to be in the statesor use a vpn. Why can't we get all the things available to US?

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 21:04 Nancy LaRose

By this time next year over a third of Canadian households will have cancelled their Cable TV.
Thank you Apple TV. Thank you Netflix. Thank you NHL Network.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 10:49 ProudCanadian

I no longer own a TV since the change to digital. I purchase programs on iTunes or watch online at CBC or CTV using my iPad.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 13:30 Deirdre

That is EXACTLY my setup....except I also have an Over The Air (OTA) antenna since I cancelled my cable subscription.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 17:05 rupaa

We have no fibe internet in the country and so we have no chance of watching g tv online. I think that the satellite companies are ripping people off, it's way too expensive. I pay $165 per month for the phone (basic service) and TV, I think that's too much and it's got to the point where we may well drop the satellite and go back to terrestrial tv. Bell should be made to reduce its prices they have gotten far too big for their boots and their customer service is appalling , they don't care if you stay or not.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 22:47 Shelley354

I watch television primarily on a standard TV. I currently use cable service but have flirted with over the air signals. Unfortunately it is not possible to erect a sufficient antenna to receive all my local signals at my apartment, especially due to their limited power, much below the levels of their previous analog signals. I use a PVR for all content I watch so I can easily view each new episode from their erratic airing schedule and control when I watch it.

I'm always dissatisfied with the channel bundling offered by my cable provider. They currently offer basically two plans, a "basic" package which increases in price substantially faster than inflation and slowly adds channels I'm not interested in. The second option is basically an every channel option at a hefty price. I also noticed that since my cable company bought a content company that the channel packages were also altered to favour their channels. Competitive
channels were removed from the basic package and their channels were added. There is a limited
set of channels I would ideally subscribe to that exist in both packages.

Over time cable has gone from being accessible on all my devices to being constrained to being viewed only on a cable box sourced by the provider, that I must buy or rent from them. The other options of satellite, IPTV provided over telephone lines or IPTV from the internet, all have similar restrictions as to what equipment can be used. I especially want a choice of equipment to receive, record and view my content. I want my TV services to be widely compatible with all my equipment including my TV so that I don't need an additional device to view content. I want the choice to buy my equipment from any source. Not only does this limit choice, it limits functionality. Since the provider controls nearly everything, it can limit what I can do with the content, even constraining my usage beyond what is legal. For example, I would like to use a TiVo, but they are basically incompatible with all TV service in Canada.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:09 ertyu

I basically just want to watch the shows I want to watch, and watch them on my TV screen. Streaming individual shows would be the best. I like the idea of unbundling the channels, but I don't want the price to go up because they charge $30 per channel or something. The idea is to make it cheaper.

1.How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
Response: I prefer to watch it on my TV, from my PVR only. That way I can watch when I want, what I want. No channel surfing. No wasting time with commercials or watching shows I don't want to watch.

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
Response: Most of the channels in my bundle I don't watch, and the few that I wanted added on to my bundle, I have to add a handful more channels just to get the one I want. I find it overly expensive.

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Response: I have IPTV. I will stay if the price is competitive. Basically price will make me switch.

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Response: I hope it will become more stream-on-demand like American netflix and Hulu. They have all the good shows on there, it's too bad we can't have access. Well, a lot of people do have American Netflix but you have to steal it to do it and I don't want to.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:25 daisy519

"Well, a lot of people do have American Netflix but you have to steal it to do it and I don't want to.". Is it stealing if you pay for it?

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 19:28 slloyd

1) How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
We now steam on our TV’s, computer, smart phones and tablets. We kicked out Bell and Rogers for being over priced and packages where you had to buy the regular sports package to get the HD package. Really if I have HD why would I want regular? Money grab? Guess squeezing ever dime out of sports fans, or what ever other fan is good business.
2) If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
Hated it!!!!!!!! Was a long time Rogers customer until Bell came in with what we thought was a great price. Turned out it was introductory and was jacked up quickly by us having to buy package A to get discovery, package D to get Military channel, package E for History etc. Oh you need to buy the regular channel package in order to get HD channels. Our hundreds of tv stations turned into music channels (never used), pay per view (as if I will pay those out of the world prices), HD channels, normal channels of the HD version and oh ya time shifted channels of everything we already had. Spent hours flipping channels to find nothing on. As soon as that contract was up, I dumped it. Won’t contract for TV again!
3) What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Unlimited Internet, Netflix and a ip spoofer to get US content like US Netflix. An over the air antenna for local CBC CTV etc. Much more value for my dollar, better content, less advertising, no re runs unless I want to watch it again, less complicated.
4) How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I hope Rogers and Bell smarten up. Unlimited internet and streaming is the future. It suits our time schedules and lives. If it is good content it will stand the test of time. No more will we have to suffer by paying for bad content just because it’s the only way it will survive. It will raise the bar!

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 13:47 Tatjana

Currently I watch TV on my telvision at home. It is either live or recorded on the PVR. How I would prefer to watch it is something entirely different. I would prefer to watch it wherever is convenient to me. I own a smartphone, a laptop and a tablet device not to mention the times when I go to friends and relatives' houses. So I would prefer to have the option to watch my programming on whatever device or place I'm at because sometimes that is the best time to watch. I have an hour on my ride to work and back home, spending time with family is sometime when you may want to watch/enjoy a specific program. I watch programs recorded on the PVR because it allows me to do more with my time and then watch the programs when I have the free time to sit down and enjoy it. It is more convenient and allows me to do more with my time.
I have cable TV through Cogeco right now and although I don't like the way my channels are packaged I would tollerate it for more features and convenience to me. While I don't like the fact that I have over 50 odd channels while I only use less than half I understand why that is. I also understand that by buying channels that I want it means that less watched channels could disappear. There are odd times when I'm flipping through channels and I see an old movie or some program that I wouldn't have been able to watch otherwise because it isn't a channel I would have subscribed to if not in the bundle. I could tollerate the way the channels are bundled, like I have for the longest time, if there was more features and more convenience to me giving me more for my money. The world today is very connected, my cable provider is also my hi-speed provider as is the case for many people. I also have data plans with my smartphone carrier which means my smartphone and even my tablet is connected to the web. My PVR is connected to the web and yet with all that connection I can't watch any of my programming stored on the PVR through my smartphone or tablet. There is no one else offering it so the cable companies have no pressure to stay competitive and do what is best for their customer. This is just one example of features that would bring me convenience and benefit for my money. Households that have PVRs usually have more than one person. The PVR has recordings watched by one to all of the members of the household. It's a typical problem that PVRs can become full because the person or people in the household don't have time to watch the programming. It continues to build until it becomes so overwhelming most people just delete it or don't see the value in the PVR anymore. Allowing the users to watch their own recorded programs would free up space and allow the user to watch their show whenever it's convenient.

What would make you stay? What would make you switch? Right now I have cable but I don't intend to stay and I'm actually researching the other options right now. I want to know what is out there that I can get the service I want whether I get to pay less or have to pay the same. What would make me stay is to be given features that make my watching experience better and more convenient. Something that when I look at the bill at the end of the month I can see the benefit of having the service instead of wondering why I continue to pay it. Things like being able to watch HD programming because I have an HD TV and not whether the channel offers it or if the package I have offers it. The ability to watch my recorded shows via my smartphone or tablet device when I'm on the go. Being able to take my PVR to another house and hook it up and get my channels and recorded content. The ability to not miss all my recorded programming if I have to get my PVR exchanged. It wouldn't take much to make me switch right now just offering my programs up to date or a few days old in a variety of ways (iTunes, Netflix and internet) that was easy to put together all my shows and I would be gone.

How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why? It's hard to say how we will be watching television in the next 5-10 years because the television industry has been so slow to adopt technology because they are scared of losing money. They aren't pressured to stay competitive therefore they don't try to bring out new features, new hardware, new upgrades for the customer. So they will drag their feet and go as slow as possible in terms of change which is why in 5 or 10 years we might be where we should be now. I think inevitably something will come along like mp3s did for music that will have a major effect. Netflix is great but it doesn't offer a guide like traditional TV where you can pick all of your shows from soap operas to reality shows. So if one company comes along and offers a guide where people can schedule all their shows to record and be accessible via computer, smartphone, tablet or streamed to the TV. Then the cable companies will be forced but by then it might be too little too late. The cable company thinks giving people a PVR is "new technology". The hardware is big and bulky and PVRs have been around for over 12 years. In that time there have been so many advancements that I really can't see that they still need to be either that big or that limited in capabilities. I pay $15/month for the rental of a PVR and all it does is bring the signal to my TV really. I could find other ways to record the programming so aren't there any other benefits it can provide for that $15? In a year that is $180 so after 2 years I've payed $360. There is no way that hardware is worth that much how about offering me the option to purchase or subsidize the cost of the device over the term of my contract. This way eventually I will not have to pay a ridiculous $15/month charge.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 15:34 iPheuria

A key problem in the reception of cable and satellite television in Canada is channel bundling and the lack of flexibility to the consumer in the making channel choices.
The ideal is a la carte channel buying where consumers pay for the television channels they want and not pay for channel they do not want to watch. Providers can still provide bundling packages but consumers should have the option of selecting what channels they wish to receive under a bundling package rather than the providing deciding what they can and cannot receive.
Consumers shouldhave the right to select their own channels as the providers, which have a basic monopoly on cable only and satellite only television networks, are dictating access rules. This kind of controlin a monopoly or duopoly market should not be permitted.
End the practice of provider bundling control and give consumers choice in what they can buy.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 09:39 Ed L.

1. I use an HD TV to watch television. I watch some shows live, and the balance of my TV watching is from either my DVD collection or DVD rentals. I used to subscribe to Netflix but it didn't have much content that appealed to me.
2. I do not subscribe to cable or satellite, because it is far too expensive for the amount you get. The installation fees for both Bell and Cogeco are unreasonably high, considering that I know some cable companies do not charge for installation.
3. My live TV viewing is from over-the-air - I have an antenna on my apartment balcony. Although I live in Kingston, Ontario, my local CKWS-TV (CBC affiliate) has a very weak digital OTA signal and it has been getting progressively worse, even though my antenna is pointed right at their antenna on Wolfe Island. I never had problems with their old analog signal. I also get some digital signals from Watertown, New York. I have thought about subscribing to cable but I find the cost hard to justify at its current level, especially considering when I was a foreign expat, I had cable where lived and it cost a fraction of what it does here.
4. I don't think how we watch television is going to change much over the next 5 years. The only potential change I see in that time is increased mobile TV, a technology that has been embraced in the United States by local broadcasters but barely even exists in Canada. Mobile TV is basically any U.S. network affiliate transmitting a mobile version of their digital HD OTA signal.
What bothers me a lot is how CBC Television and Radio-Canada have become only selectively available OTA to Canadians based on where they live. Viewers in London, Ontario for example no longer have free access to the CBC, while viewers in Regina have free access to Radio-Canada, even though there is almost zero French-speaking population there. I am lucky here in Kingston that I can get CBC for free through CKWS, but many Canadians have to shell out money for cable or satellite now, even in some large urban areas.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 13:01 kingston11

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
We own 2 HDTVs connected to an antenna due to the large number of signals available over-the-air in Toronto. Each HDTV is connected to a TiVo HD video recorder which works great with antennas. One is connected to a Slingbox which allows mobile/remote viewing in a pinch but not the usual means as we prefer the larger screen. Our TiVos also act as a Netflix box to supplement our OTA programming. Most sports we watch live or near-live. Most comedy/drama/documentary type shows are recording for later viewing, mostly for the reason of personal convenience.

If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged? - not applicable for OTAers

What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Again, not directly applicable for OTAers although we do subscribe to Netflix. We switched from cable to OTA mostly to frustrations with our local cable company.

How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I plan to continue the way I am now. I hope that Canadian broadcasters will continue to provide over-the-air service. None of them, private or public seem too interested in providing this method of watching television. I hope the CRTC can provide incentives to make it worthwhile for them to stay available over the air.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 13:16 MikeToronto

I would like to see several things change:
1) Unbundling & reasonable TV pricing - I cannot see why we have to pay for 6 or 10 channels when we only watch two out of the 10 in that package. Pricing is ridiculous. Choice of channels at affordable pricing would be desired.
2) PVR capabilities & accessibility - only the BASIC TiVo is available in Canada, and I liked it because of several reasons 1) I could remotely access it to record something. 2) I could upload what I recorded to my laptop and watch wherever I went. This capability is seriously missing from our PVR technology. Canadian PVRs should be mandated and required to be UPDATED to match today's technological options.
3) Internet TV news or drama shows must be mandated to be CLOSED CAPTIONED or SUBTITLED not only for the Deaf, HH but for English as second language citizens of Canada. I would watch more news and TV on my iPad or laptop only IF it were guaranteed close captioned but because no guarantee I'm forced to ONLY watch on my HDTV
4) More movies and TV shows must be available on Netflix, crazy that there are LIMITED shows avaialble this route. I would rather be able to watch it from my PVR recorded shows.
Type more later If I think of anything else, smile.
Thank you.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 14:13 deaftravel
  1. I watch TV mainly on my main HD set, but sometimes I use my phone when I am on the go, such as when riding the bus. When I am watching on the TV a lot of the programs I watch are live, mainly because of watching the news and my favourite shows. If I don't have time on a certain day, I will PVR my shows and watch them later when I have more time, sometimes on my phone or other times on my TV. I also watch some shows online, such as on Netflix or other shows found in the States but not in Canada.
  2. I do not subscribe to cable or satellite, although I have before. Now the price is so high it's not worth it for me when I can get most of the same content elsewhere.
  3. I get most of my TV channels using an over-the-air (OTA) antenna. Since I live in Toronto, I can get all the major Canadian networks as well as a large variety of American channels. Using an antenna also allows me to use my computer as a PVR to transfer my recorded shows to my phone/tablet for watching on-the-go. This is something that can't be done with shows recorded on cable on satellite since the PVR's provided by Bell and Rogers encrypt the programs while recording them. I don't think I will switch to another service in the near future since using an antenna requires no subscription and provides a quite reliable source for getting media content. Also, cable and satellite companies force you to bundle your local channels to get the select few channels that you actually may be interested in watching, even though most people can readily get these for free with the antenna.
  4. I don't think how we watch television is going to change much over the next 5 years. Networks such as the CBC and TVO have shut down most of their over-the-air transmitters in rural areas, forcing the residents there to subscribe to expensive cable or satellite service to continue receiving their channels. Even medium-sized cities are left with no service, such as London, ON. Meanwhile, monthly rates for cable and satelite service continue to increase, placing greater strain on low-income households.
Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 15:46 planetcnc

1) I prefer to watch TV on a regular HDTV set in the living room. I use an over-the-air antenna to receive free digital ATSC programming. As such, I receive 25 channels in my area which are roughly equivalent to basic cable offering. I complement the live TV with Netlfix-streaming service.
2) I would not subscribe to cable or satellite TV, its cost is way too high for a regular middle-class family compared to value offered. So, 0 satisfaction with services currently offered. The cable and satellite industry should offer a reasonable $5-$10/month basic service for those unable to receive programming over the air due to geography and include a per-channel cost for each premium channel added. The bundles with other services must be discouraged since they are incentives for anti-competitive behaviour. For example, forcing Bell's Fibe TV customers to purchase an internet connection from Bell to obtain the "Fibe" service is anti-competitive and should not be allowed; The customers should be able to chose their ISP independently of the TV service.
3) Over the air TV; intend to continue using it as long as possible.
4) After the digital switchover and rise of the internet streaming services, the traditional pay cable and satellite TV has a lot less reason to exist. As such, it needs to be reframed. The subscription viewership will inevitably keep declining.
The corporations need to be pushed to innovate and adapt to the new market, and prevented from trying to recoup lost revenue by curbing internet usage due the falling subscription tv viewership. One way to do this is to promote over the air services, therefore forcing cable and satellite providers to adapt to a changing market to offer real value and choice that Canadians want.
The individual channel subscriptions should be offered over the internet, to be streamed in a Netflix-like fashion. The TV still has a vital function to alert Canadians in case of emergencies, therefore a right to TV reception must be granted; Laws impeding installing of outdoor antennas should not be allowed. The TV should remain a medium for the masses and not just for the classes, whether over the internet, over the air, or otherwise.

Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 15:55 zedder

1 - How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
I prefer digitally recorded via PVR or some other digital device so that I can rewind and skip commercials, play again later.
2 - If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
I had cable but they refused to give me a deal on a PVR so I moved to Shaw Satellite - the problem with Shaw satellite was that nothing was really local, most US channels including PBS were from Detroit 800+ miles away. Yes they gave us basic local CBC, CTV, GLobal, but that was it! The amount of garbage I had to buy just to purchase a few select channels was excessive! My biggest complaint was that all the "specialty" channels carried garbage/reality TV that had nothing to do with why the channel supposedly existed!
3 - What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other?
I was on Rogers Cable then I switched to Shaw Satellite for the free PVR. I had to subscribe to advanced packages just to get some of the better channels but paying $100 a month for what I was getting was ridiculous - so I cancelled everything about 6 weeks ago and am now getting EVERYTHING that I wanted, without commercials via AppleTV, Netflix, Acorn TV, OTA HD Antenna and one online TV News site... and it's costing me less than 25% of what it did before - awesome!

4 - Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
As mentioned I dropped all TV subscriptions via Cable/Satellite about 6 weeks ago. $100/month for garbage was ridiculous! I can't see them ever changing but if maybe they went to letting the subscriber choose what channels he wants and pay for ONLY those channels it might help... that being said being commercial free and paying for what I want now (see above) works extremely well now!

5 - How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I think more and more people will be moving back to HD Antenna's and Internet services via AppleTV, Google, Netflix, iBBC, AcornTV etc. It's more affordable and you get what you pay for - As the big IT companies figure out how to make Internet TV more appealing and easier for the masses I think Cable TV will be left supplying only those who don't know any better (and probably soaking them for it at the same time)
Smart people want quality over quantity - 600 channels that all show the same shows and most of it "reality tv" crowded with repetitive insipid and loud commercials isn't my type of entertainment. I've moved on and I think there will be more and more doing the same in the future.
The last thing the CRTC should do is to try to change or mitigate or manage this transition to "protect" the cable companies - dinosaurs should be allowed to die naturally. I've found the future and I'm quite happy with it - please don't break it!

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 14:18 rjbeeth

I think that it is important to remember that the madate of the CRTC is to"ensure that... thebroadcastingsystems serve the Canadian public. The CRTC uses the objectives in the Broadcasting Act... to guide its policy decisions."
My understanding is that there are two basic principles in the Broadcasting Act:
1) That the airwave are public property
2) That there is limited spectrum available.
With those two principles, I can understand the rules and regulations that the CRTC has implemented. As well I understand that television services obtained over the internet or by some means other than over the limited public spectrum do NOT fall under the purview of the Commission ( or the Broadcasting Act). And I appaud the CRTC for realizing that. It make no more sense for the CRTC to get involved inregulating the Internet than for the CRTC to regulate video stores.
With the above in mind, my answers to your questions are:
1. We generally watch TV on a traditional set. We watch live TV shows and shows on PVR. The PVR is used to allow us to watch programs when convenient for us. We watch Live TV if a show is on when we are available to watch it. We also find that skipping past commercials saves a lot of time when watching shows we have PVR'd.
2. We subscribe to cable television. We are not at all satisfied with the way the channels are packaged. We would like to be able to order only the channels we want to watch. We do not believe that it is government or the CRTC's responsibility or right to force us to subscribe to any channel.We believe that EVERY channel, rgardless of its origin (domestic or foreign) should stand on its own merits. Having Canadian based channels that, for the most part, purchase foreign programming to broadcast here add nothing to the Canadian identity. The CRTC should stop protecting these channels. They should allow foreign broadcasters the right to offer their programming in Canada thereby forcing domestic broadcasters to provide uniquely Canadian programming good enough to draw audiences in this country. Canadian Broadcasters do not have a right to receivesubsidies from Canadians to produce their programming. They are businesses andthey should operate as such with viable business plans that do not require handouts.
3. We subscribe to Cable television services and to internet services such as NetFlix. As services such asNetFlix become more available, we will continue to reduce the number of packages we subscribe to wih Cable. We are more interested in the shows than the channels. Network television is becoming more and more irrelevant withhigh quality original programming available on servoces like NetFlix.
4. Within the next 5 to 10 years,I believe that Cable television, for all intents and purposes, will be a dinosaur. Services like NetFlix are now simple enough that even my 92 year old father can be comfortable with them with a smart TV. The ease, simplicity and technology will evolve to make this even easier. And in the unregulated area of the internet, government and government agencies will not have the ability to be the gate keepers. As the Commission has noted, it is hard to be a gate keeper when there is no gate.
To sum up, if the Commission expects any kind of BDU industry in the future, their only option is to eliminate all regulation and allow the businesses to sink or swim on their own. The system has evolved to the point where the BDUs are trying to compete with unregulated services. they are on an uneven playing field.The only option is to give the BDUs the flexibility to offer the services that people want in a manner that they want to purchase them. The market should be open so that competing entitiesahave the opportunity to compete with the few large BDUs. Since the Commission has allowed thoseBDUs control, collectively most of the channels available in this country, there should be no regulation requiring competing BDUs to carry those channels and no prohibitions an what channels the BDUs can carry. If for example, a BDU wishes tocarryonly US channels or only British channels, there should be no regulation to prohibit that.
Time re changing. Technology has already facilitated significant changes and more will be coming. Radical changes are also needed in the way our system is regulated.

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 22:54 jaxon60

1. I watch on a TV, and on a tablet. Most shows are either streamed or watched on a PVR. I rarely watch anything live, there's too many commercials and their too loud & obnoxious. Also with children it's hard to watch live, being able to pause and rewind is too valuable to give up.
2. Totally dissatisfied. The channel bundles seem specifically designed to make sure that you never want more than one channel in a bundle, so I get to pay for a bunch of channels I have no interest in whatsoever. Most of the channels air a few shows and endless reruns, of which you can find the same type of show on another channel. I'm paying mostly for content I don't want, and that makes the whole system absurdly overpriced. I should be allowed to pick the channels I want specifically, and if that doesn't happen soon I'll be cancelling my cable entirely in favor of something cheaper.
3. I have cable, through my phone company. Price and choice are the main things making me want to switch. It's too expensive for what I get, with too many channels I don't want. Cut all those out and the price would come down to the point that it'd be worth keeping.
4. Channels are going to become increasingly archaic. People want to subscribe to shows, not channels. That would be a good situation for the people who create shows, as the current artificial barriers that channels impose would disappear. I'd be very happy with that.
What I won't be happy with is if the status quo continues as is, with ever more worthless channels showing cheap "reality" content being shoved into ever more expensive packages that I don't want.

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 06:43 Tridus

1. How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on-demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
Most of my TV watching is on by living room big screen TV with surround sound. I have a couple of PVR’s and a BluRay connected to it. I have a smaller set in a bedroom used as a home office for when I am on-call for work.
99% of my programs are PVR’d and played back at a time suitable for me. I may watch the tail end of the local news or a Jets game I recorded live but that’s about it.
I’ll watch music videos on my computer. I also watch the SuperBowl commercials we are deprived of in Canada because of idiotic simultaneous substitution rules.
Netflix is something I’ll be looking into. I can get a limited number of local stations (CBC English and French, CKND) in HD on rabbit ears. CKY is not available, nor is CHMI. The US stations I really want are just too far away even if I had an outdoor antenna.

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
100 % dissatisfied, and trying not to go ballistic. I feel Canadian are being denied choices by the CRTC and the government because they bend over backwards for Bell, Rogers, and Shaw under the pretense of protecting Canadian culture.
You stated The CRTC requires distributors to provide their subscribers with more Canadian television channels overall than non-Canadian television channels. That is the problem with the Canadian system. We end up with a bunch of watered down version of US services, or mediocre ones like Space and CMT Canada (where’s the country music?) that prevent us from getting more desirable ones like SyFy and GAC (Great American Country).
The CW network has the best prime-time lineup (Arrow, The Tomorrow People, Supernatural, The Originals, Reign, Beauty and the Beast for 6 out of a possible 10 broadcast hours) of any of the broadcast networks. Unfortunately, the CRTC does not regard The CW as a network, and requires a subscription to a premium service as they still think it is a US superstation. The CRTC is slow to recognize new networks. I remember switching from cable to an antenna to get a fuzzy Fox station from Pembina ND back in the early 1990’s before the CRTC allowed it.
Canadian specialty channels works well in some cases like HGTV as home renovations need to keep in mind our climate.
I only watch TV in HD, so the SD channels are of no interest, so why do I have to care for them? It seems I have to take the SD packages or tiers to have the HD channels.
There are far too many CRTC-mandated mandatory carries. I never watch them, but I still have to pay for them. I won’t include a complete list, but here are some examples in no particular order:
– The Weather Network. It was good about 20 years ago, but I can get weather forecasts on the internet without watching a bunch of commercials and waiting for the local forecast to come on. The Weather Network would be better as an app for smart phones.
– APTN – no interest.
– Bravo – only watch when new Dallas episodes come on. I should be able to subscribe for a few weeks while that program is on.
– CMT – it used to be country videos, now it is mostly syndicated shows and other repeats.
– CNN – I rather get my CNN news online so don’t need this channel anymore. I don’t care about American politics.
– Showcase – used to be good with shows like The Trailer Park Boys. Now it seems to be heavy with repeats of previous seasons of NCIS and other programs from Global.
– DTOUR – this recently rebrand channel has programming also on HGTV. I support recycling, but not in my TV channels!
– French channels – I haven’t spoken French since Junior High back in 1980, so French channels are of no use to me. I can see leaving the French CBC in the lineup as it is an over-the-air channel.
There are some channels I would like, but are not available on Shaw in HD, including CBC Newsworld. Shaw finally added Hollywood Suite in HD, but never offered a free preview and didn’t even announce.
Premium movie services in Canada are a joke, thanks again to protectionism. HBO Canada is a watered down channel. There are a few shows I like such as True Blood and Real Time with Bill Maher. Problem is I have to subscribe to Movie Central to get this. Canadians should be able to subscribe to the full HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax lineups. Movie Central/The Movie Network and Superchannel could be all-Canadian premiums also available in the US.
3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
I am with Shaw. I am not really happy with them due to their price increases 2 to 3 times a year, but I am more or less stuck with them. It is that I have paid a lot of money for their PVR’s, flaky as they are. PVR’s are proprietary to each cableco, so I cannot use them with MTS, ShawDirect, or Bell. In addition, I would lose all my recordings because of DRM even if I was to upgrade to the gateway that Shaw offers.
I want to indicate once my existing hardware fails I will not bother with subscribing to Canadian BDU’s for TV. This is because of simsubs (simultaneous substitution) and a lack of American services that I desire.
I do not like Bell for their aggressive nation-wide simsub tactics and lack of respect for consumer privacy so they are out. Rogers TV not available in my market area, not that they are any better.
MTS would seem to be the most likely choice, but as I am too far from their head-end so I did not get good internet speeds when I was previously with them. I would like them to offer a better gateway as 500 GB isn’t much for HD recordings (they have no provisions for external drives). They still cannot offer the programming I want thanks to protectionism and those dratted simsubs. The same with Shaw Direct.

I would switch to DirecTV or Dish in a heartbeat if they became legal in Canada.

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
The present broadcasting regime is broken and not sustainable with the price increases several times a year, declining quality of programming, lack of access to better American services and the general contempt for Canadian viewers with respect to simultaneous substitution and lousy proprietary equipment. Expect the number of cord-cutters to grow every year. Politicians will notice a decrease in GST/PST/HST revenue. Maybe the only way to get decent TV in Canada is destroy the Canadian system so US services can march in to fill the void.
Rather than a doomsday scenario, the Canadian system must evolve to have about a dozen or so all-Canadian channels instead of a 100 watered down specialty channel universe like what we have now. The dozen would include CTV, Global, and City so they can no longer simsub and ruin the US networks. The new replacement channels could be carried on US and foreign cable/sat co’s to defray the cost. The Canadian programming would be moved off the specialty channels so we could get the proper ones from the US, and more Canadian programming would available to all without a cable or satellite subscription.
In other words, Shaw could offer the same choices as Time/Warner or DirecTV, but we would still be dealing with a Canadian company.
With radio, I just listen to the local info station (CJOB) to get news, traffic and sports scores. Since QX104 stopped carrying American Country Countdown, I no longer listen to that station. I found the program on several other stations. All my other music radio is live streaming over the internet commercial free. Eventually, this will happen to TV as well, the only thing preventing it now is the bandwidth required for SD let alone HD. Rights won’t be as big an issue as you might think. The catalyst will be studios or originating networks deciding it is more profitable to retain the rights for their programs and making them available for a subscription.
At any rate we will have a lot fewer specialty channels than we do now. A lot of Canadian ones exist solely to block American ones. They will be the first to go. Good riddance.

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 18:15 kcbrk32

I currently subscribe to satellite for TV and have access to some internet programming.
I would like the ability to use my home computer as a PVR (sattelite card, cable card etc).I like the flexibility, control and storage a my own home built system.
The US and Europe which have access to this technology but since it not mandatory to provide this to customers,the satellite and cable providers want to sell their own hardware.

Sunday, November 3, 2013 - 00:47 rbthor

1. I prefer watching TV at home on a large screen, currently this is a DLP projector. I watch recorded/on-demand programming and never watch live TV. I treat TV watching as a scheduled activity and want to watch the shows I want when I want to watch them without distractions or a less than ideal viewing environment. Also, I don’t tend to agree with network programming and by watching recorded shows I can do my own programming to match up shows that compliment one-another. As a bonus I get to skip through the majority of commercials I’ve already seen. I never leave the TV running in the background to some random show/channel.
2. I am not a subscriber but am familiar enough with the bundling to know that some of the bundling is just not fair. The amount of good content has not changed in 20-years but somehow the amount of channels has quadrupled. There are channels out there with 1 or 2 good shows but to be able to see those shows you have to subscribe to a 4-channel bundle, absolutely ridiculous. This is second-hand, I’ve heard many complain they have to pay extra to get their channels in HD, in this day if you are paying for television content I would assume you have an HD capable set so why have this as an extra cost?
3. I get channels over-the-air in an apartment building supplemented by Internet replay services provided by broadcasters. My PVR is a HTPC which can record and playback shows using a common computer hardware, it’s nice being able to build PC that can PVR, stream from the Internet, play video games and not have me locked into any specific service provider. I should mention that with the digital switchover I lost CTV2 and the French CBC channel is still analog, an acceptable loss for the significant increase in picture quality. Fortunately I get all the digital OTA channels I want with adequate signal strength with a small antenna that I was able to mount discretely outside on my balcony. Some apartment dwellers are not so lucky and it would be nice if apartment buildings would mount a common antenna and split out the signal to all units. I am unlikely switch from OTA anything soon as I like the savings from not having to subscribe to anything.
4. I think that in the next 5-10 years that we will be getting all my content off the Internet from services modelled after the music sitePandora. By Pandora I mean a smart service which will recommend new shows based on shows a viewer currently likes. Social media will play into as well with recommendations being made based what your friends are watching. I think the big obstacle for the future will be if ISPs (currently also the paid subscription TV providers) trying to implement unreasonable data caps or billing practices for Internet use.

Sunday, November 3, 2013 - 22:13 kaitou

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?

HD TV because of the HD quality and size of screen.

How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?

From a PVR or Streaming device because I don't like commercials and can stream whatever I like when I like.

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?

I subscribe to cable and hate it. All kinds of useless channels that you have to accept for the few that you want. If not for needing cable to access live sporting events I would drop it.

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?

I will drop cable the second I find a viable option to receive a quality sports feed online. The only way I would stay with a service provider like cable is if they went to a pick and pay system where you can access any program whenever you like without overpriced packages and fees.

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

Well if current trends and attitudes are any indication, many Canadians will be watching on internet sources because it's the only way they can be satisfied due to the restrictions of the Canadian laws on content and providers. I will be satisfied with any situation that allows me to access the content I want when I want, instead of having somebody tell me what I can or should be watching.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 02:52 trask

I hate the way our government is going, if the PC's win another election we won't even recognize Canada by the time 2020 rolls around. Back to topic, all I want is CHOICE and not this choose per channel crap I've been hearing about. Unless it's 5 channels cost the exact same no matter what channel they are with some exclusions. Meaning the Movie Network, Super Channels, HBO Canada and you know those "Naughty" channels, I name HBO and TMN just because they offer exclusive commercial free content and thus their profit model is different than other channels. I want to CHOOSE MY STUPID DIGITAL CABLE PROVIDER, don't give us and BS answers well only Cogeco's system work in your area? That is crap, I live in North Bay and I only use digital cable, have issues with Satelite. So I've lived in Brampton, Hamilton and now here in the Bay. I have been forced to use this joke of a company for my cable for years now. If anyone says "Just use the internet, TV is dead' I will say this, shut up you're uninformed and we live in CANADA not the U.S hypothetical dumbass. I'm not going to get a US thing or whatever to access to things I might want to watch on Netflix, we have no access to anything close to what I get via my cable, specialty channels and movies on demand. My problem is these little extras are available with say Rogers cable, and I know Rogers Wireless is the devil incarnate but... They have that special cable box that they have because theyinvested into their R & D, where they can record up to 4 things at once. I don't need that, but I do have scheduling conflicts often, basically I tape the hockey game and come down when I'm done work else where and say I'm taping Grimm at the same time, but I find something else I want to watch? Well simple, I'm screwed. Their internet is a joke, and like I said if we had the choice for our cable provider it would force these corrupt Cogeco types to either improve or die. Sorry unless you are directly involved with their business decisions, which would be completely corrupt then let US choose.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 09:24 frankgrimes78

1.How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
I watch on a TV and I use Over the air but if I miss a show I will use streaming from the network provider on my PC.
It is a mix of live and PVR

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
I don't subscribe to any paid service just free over the air and occasionaly streaming to my PC for missed shows

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
free over the air broadcast TV, yes I am mostly satisfied but it would be nice if Canadian networks would be allowed to use one extra real sub channel(different programming on the different sub unlike Global that here in Montreal wastes BW showing the same thing on both.) like most US channels I recieve

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

I am hoping a free over the air solution will still be available and will be allowed to grow.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 09:57 Anthony

1) I came from the TIVO world, and was extremely happy with my Series 2 box. Along came Shaw and forced me into their less than adequate PVR offerings. I would love to go back to TIVO, but none of the Cable Companies in Canada support CableCard. I would go back to TIVO in an instant, if CableCard was an option.
2) I agree with all the comments about the bundled packages. I would break it down further, forget about the channels and subscribe to individual shows. Streaming is the way of the future anyway, and the faster we support it, the better.
3) When I switched over to Shaw, their personal package with Phone, Internet and Cable was supposed to be clamped to the same rate for two years. It is now just over a year and it has already gone up $10 per month. There should be CTRC consequences for this.
4) Commercials are ruining TV. As the saying goes, TV is now "Commercials, with a little bit of Entertainment". That is why streaming will become the future of TV, as the Public will not subscribe unless it is relatively commercial free.
5) I disagree that Canadian content rules should be abolished. Contrary to some of the comments, we do produce some good shows in this Country. But, they should be competative. The only way to do that is to abolish the CBC and use the money to produce Canadian content and have it available via subscription. In that way, the people will decide, rather than the idiots who axed some terrific shows such as (eg's) "Intelligence" and "daVinci's Inquest" way before their time.

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 15:15 dlemare

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why
Answer 1 : I prefer to watch on a television set, even online tv shows I watch them on TV set. don't care if it's live or recorded on a PVR, except for Award Shows (sorry I am being Honest)
If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
Answer 2 : Just one example TELUS is now just one big mess all over it's packages!! repeated TV channels all over their 10,000 spectrum of options......why having HD TV channels are there still non HD TV channels?.....I assume by now pretty much nobody watches non HD channels.....right???
What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Answer 3 : I subscribe to Cable TV and waiting to see if this cable provider will ever provide Spanish/Latin TV Package.......and of course I would stay with them if they ever LISTEN!! or gladly will switch to whoever offers a better choice. I also wish CRTC would allow Cable providers from the U.S., Europe or Latin America!.....Technology is there, the sky is the limit...!!
How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Answer 4 : I think everything will be interconnected Internet and cable to provide a better quality,diversity that will enhance the cultural fabric of Canada

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 03:16 Carlitos

1. I will watch television on any device. I'm not fussy. If a device will provide me with the television content that I want, I'll use it. At home I watch old CRT TV sets, my desktop computer monitor, my mobile phone, my tablet, my netbook and my portable digital OTA television when in the kitchen or the yard. I watch live over-the-air (OTA) digital television in urban areas, live over-the-air (OTA) analog television in rural areas (if there's a signal). I also have an NTSC/ATSC USB tuner/dongle that allows me to watch OTA TV on any computer with a USB port. I use my home cable Internet (Ethernet and Wi-Fi) to watch streamed/OTT (over-the-top) TV and downloaded TV programs on my computer, netbook, mobile phone and tablet. I watch streamed TV on my mobile phone using 3.5G/4G service and public Wi-Fi when outside the home. I wish Canadian broadcasters used ATSC MDTV so I could watch live TV on my portable MDTV-ready TV set when in the car/train. I wish my mobile phone had an ATSC MDTV chip in it. I record on VHS. I watch DVDs/Blu-rays from the public library. I don't use On Demand services that require a fee or a PVR. I would likely use a PVR if I had one. I'd also likely record live TV to DVD if I had such a recorder. I watch satellite TV when at my parents' place in the woods via Shaw's "free" LTSS program. Whenever the Shaw satellite goes down at their place, such as during rainstorms, I watch the single analog OTA TV station in their area or a TV program previously recorded to VHS or DVD.
2. N/A.
3. N/A.
4. I suspect Canadians near the US border will continue to watch over-the-air HDTV/DTV signals coming from the United States. Canadians in major urban centres will likely still have access to some OTA DTV, providing other broadcasters don't pull a Sun News Network and walk away from their OTA signal/spectrum slot. Other Canadians will be forced to stay with/sign up to cable or IPTV. Canadians without access to OTA TV, cable or IPTV (because their community does not have such services) will be forced onto satellite TV. Otherwise, those Canadians with fair access to broadband Internet (the price is fair, the speed is fair, geo-blocking and other blocking does not occur), will watch their TV online using a computer (small, big, mobile) or TV sets that can "go online" and they will turn to Netflix-type services, Bit-Torrent services, YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, Twitter and/or the Next Twitter. Walled-garden services like Apple TV will likely still exist but most TV viewing will be outside such walled viewing. User-generated TV that is produced and shared online by average citizens will continue to grow in popularity, I suspect. Canadians will probably also watch local mainstream TV content that BDUs decide to share online (without charging a fee) but otherwise Canadians will go elsewhere online for their TV (provided they have fair access to broadband Internet).

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 07:36 DTV2011

p.s. Regarding Question 3, I sometimes subcribe to Netflix.ca for a spell but then I unsubscribe for months at a time while waiting for new content.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 07:53 DTV2011

I have a multiple televisions (hd) in my home.My provider is Bell satellite.As a long time cutomer of Bell,I can honestly say that the Canadian market needs to re-vamp the entire broadcasting policy.In the past year I have seen by Bell invoice nearly double for the same services.Dealing with customer services is nothing short of an hour on the phone.I want to talk with a canadian service rep..which sometimes is near impossible.The NHL package was placed on my programming last year..and I never requested it..took two months to clear the over charges from my billing.In recent months,the Federal Government was allowing foreign bids on wireless bands.The Canadian companies went ballistic...radio adds,tv adds..they tried everything to stop Verizon from coming to the Canadian market.What was the out come?..Wireless service providers dropped pricing,increased services,and basically..woke up.
This is what our Broadcasting Indusrty needs.We need to be able to have a choice form providers out-side of the Canadian market.I'm sick and tired of watchin Canadian Tire commercials and the canadian feed interupting the US broadcasts.The rules and polices formed years ago..are no obsolete.If a broadcasting corporation is meant to survive..it will on it's programming,it's services and it's cutomer care.
I for one would like to see the CRTC allow Direct TV and other companies to compete in the Canadian markets.Look at what what happened when Verizon nearly entered the market.
A while ago there were disussions on why cars are much cheaper in the US market compared with the Canadian market..the answer was because we can charge whatever we want..where else will the Canadian public go?..This is the self serving attitude of our monopolies

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - 10:49 about choice

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
Traditional TV either live or PVR I watch mainly sports on TV and use the PVR to avoid the barrage of commercials during NFL football games

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
I just find it very expensive I am not sure the solution is pick and pay as many are suggesting but its a step in the right direction possibly. THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO ALLOW MORE COMPETITION FROM THE USA. I get it that a country 10 times our size creates efficiencies we cant possibly acheive but allow us to share in those benefits. For the millions of Canadians who are sports fans lets allow DIRECT TV or others to come north of the border. Maybe in the future we have more than one provider offering us monthly services.

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Have Cable currently its the only way I can get sports content from the USA yet get some local news and Canadian Content (namely hockey games and national news)

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Hard to say but it has to be with more competitiom om Canada. As some of my friends who have moved to the US have noted....didnt realize how expensive cable, internet and phone was until I had choices

Monday, November 11, 2013 - 00:26 cray harris

1. The majority of my tv watching is the old-fashioned way - on tv when it is scheduled to be aired. This particular television year 2012-13 has been so good for my particular tastes that I very often must record the shows I'm missing that air the same time I'm watching something else. And now, I watch catch up episodes (only 1 recording device vs the occasional tri-scheduled good shows) on-line via iPad. Wonderful to have such selection. Some nights are dead to me (nothing matching my tastes) so I have good shows ready to be viewed whenever I want ... turns a potentially horrible evening into something pleasant.
2. Having access to a set of channels chosen by someone else is probably no longer necessary today. When physical manipulation of switches and so on was necessary to change bundles that was probably the most economic way of serving the most people. But today, with digital switching, there should be NO NEED for anyone to pay for access to channels they don't want - especially at the prices we have to pay.
The trade off for the cable companies giving us only those channels we want is that the networks will learn which channels are financially feasible on their own - via the marketplace - and more money will be spent on improving the quality of production on those channels that are truly valued by customers. This means the cable companies will be better serving their customers and providing more perceived value for the dollar.
3. I currently subscribe to cable via Shaw. My neighbours to both sides use satellite dishes. Frankly, services like Netflix are making it increasingly likely I'll give up my cable for them. If Shaw allowed me access to those channels I value and no others at the same cost as Netflix, I would stay with cable.
4. In the next 5 to 10 years I don't think things will change too much except for services lke Netflix becoming more popular if cable companies don't adjust their options for customers. We live in a consumer market of choice that keeps growing. Cable companies cannot maintain price increases for decreasing options (and only standard quality) while others offer tailor-made choices for smaller prices - simply doesn't make sense.

Monday, November 11, 2013 - 14:05 Gartner Entertainment

1. How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
Our family has vastly changed our way of watching television since returning back to Canada after living abroad for several years. We became spoiled living in the UK where the television channels of the BBC are commercial free. With the advent of podcasting, iTV and Netflix, we very rarely watch television shows on TV (less than once a month). Readers will laugh when they learn that our TV is an Electrohome from 1975, still working very well! Yes, we are sentimental and can't bear to get rid of it... We have been waffling over the past year: do we finally cancel cable (with Rogers) or keep it? We now watch programmes on our laptops and iPad, mostly because we can choose the place, time and day to watch these shows. We can pause and revisit programmes at our leisure. We watch programmes on demand. We also use private internet access (a service we pay for) which allows us to enjoy programmes from around the world. Because each of us in our family of 3 has our own computer device, we can watch what we want, when we want, or together if there is a programme or movie we all want to watch as a family.
2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
We subscribe to Roger's basic cable. We are only mildly satisfied with our cable service. We would be happy to have a basic cable service that only provides Canadian channels, rather than so many American channels. Annoyingly, our Rogers package does not include TSN, which carries many of the traditionally Canadian sports such as curling and the Grey Cup. Although we are not big sports people, we do enjoy watching a few choice Canadian sporting events, but can no longer do so because TSN is only available if we purchase a package with other channels that we have no interest in. Personally, we feel that Canadian sports should be broadcast on the CBC, available in basic cable packages to all people across the country to watch.
3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
Currently we subscribe to Rogers basic cable package because that is the only provider available in our area. We also pay for a private internet access service which provides global television access. We are teetering on the brink of cancelling our Rogers cable service - not sure why we haven't made that leap yet, but it's coming soon! We never have the television on any more, as we watch all our shows on our computer devices. We also subscribe to Netflix. One of our main reasons for not watching traditional television any longer is that we can't stand the commercials. We also donate to TVO and enjoy the programmes it provides, but again, many TVO programmes are available on their video iPlayer on-line. If the major broadcasters, CBC, CTV and Global provided commercial-free television, we might consider watching it more. But at this point, we are moving away from traditional TV watching and basing our entire entertainment experience on on-line programming, commerical free. We also tend to view only Canadian programming or programmes from the UK or other European countries. We do not watch any American programming.
4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
Our family does not watch mainstream junky American television, and we will continue to watch high quality, Canadian, British or European programming on-line without commercials. As technology becomes more accessible to everyone, the way we are entertained will only improve with more on-line programming, on demand programmes, podcasting and internet-TV. Canadians have no idea how bilked they are with only two or three cable providers who can then charge outrageous prices for cable delivery. There needs to be more selection of cable providers in order to break the monopoly that currently exists. (The UK has a huge selection of cable providers for TV and broadband - Virgin, BT, Sky, TalkTalk, EE, PlusNet, even Tesco, the grocery chain, to name a few). Canadians are moving toward being more selective with the programming they want, which means having more options for cable providers, which channels to choose, and when and where they want to watch these programmes. However, we do feel that there must be a national broadcaster, the CBC, available to all Canadians in all areas, commercial free. We also feel that the CRTC must continue to maintain objective monitoring of all programming in Canada, particularly accountability and integrity in providing more Canadian content. The federal government must continue to increase the budget of the CBC in order to ensure that high quality, Canadian programming is provided to all: drama, arts, comedy, sports, documentaries, films, and other features that guarantee our national identity thrives and unifies us as Canadians, rather than being overshadowed by crap American television which serves to homogenise.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 10:23 LJM

You forget to mention that in order for the BBC to be commercial free Brits have to pay a very expensive license for each TV set they own. Are we willing to do this in Canada?

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 02:59 JF Bérubé

Yes, I mentioned the TV license in my post on the first discussion question. But I will re-post what I wrote in another reply:
Actually, we used to live in the UK and happily paid for our TV license. All of our friends there, and we had many, agreed that the TV license was totally worth it because of the calibre of commerical-free programming. Currently the TV license costs 145.50 which covers all the BBC TV channels: BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, CBBC (youth), CBeebies (children), BBC Parliament, BBC News and BBC Alba (Scottish Gaelic channel), as well as the "red button" which allows for up to 4 more stations as well as recording!!! We were in heaven watching the Turin Olympics - sometimes 4 different events at the same time, all without commericals. Plus there are 11 BBC radio stations as well as a local radio station (we listened to BBC Essex). Not to mention all the fantastic documentaries, entertainment programmes, news features and dramas that the BBC produces. AND, almost everything is also available on-line. AND, it's ALL commerical free. Folks in the UK sure aren't screaming. They scream when they travel to the US or Canada and have to put up with all the commercials and lousy American telly.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 12:51 LJM

I’ll bet you a half sack that none of you really know what shows on what channel. I come home and just like everyone else in this country pick up my remote and flip through the channels. I dont care what channels its on, I’m gonna watch whatever looks good.
And for you guys in Ottawa thinking you know best, how is anyone suppose to know what shows on what when they always change . turn on a TV at night before you start calling the shots and figuring out a way to spend my tax dollars policing something completely irrelevant.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 11:57 FortChris

I have long been frustrated with how we receive our television services. I am most bothered by the fact that I am forced to use proprietary hardware (receiver or cable box) that is expensive, yet only works with that provider. I recognize that I could lease/rent the box however it is prohibitively expensive to do so in the long run. Cable cards are used in the US and allow consumers to change providers more freely, encouraging competition and choice. I'm so tired of the shabby hardware interfaces and barriers to move to new providers that I've recently cut my cable entirely, in favour of an antenna.
Now I watch all I need online or over the air.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 16:49 rupaa

I heard the government is going to make us pay for each and every channel.... thats going to be ridiculous. Already having to pay for my italian channels one by one costs a fortune.Same thing to get the movie channel. It just kept adding up. Do the math. If we have to pay for each channel by themselves its gonna cost more than what you pay right now. Its like going to buy your groceries in bulk at Costco instead of buying each thing one at a time. Hopefully they at least let me keep what i already have.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 13:14 Ger123

1) I opted not to get cable when I moved and only use Netflix. For a bit, it was fine, but it gets pretty stale. Some of its good stuff just like on TV but you end up wanting more choice too. I ended up caving and getting basic cable. I never knew how much i missed actually watching hockey live and catch the weather forecasts on the news.

2) Basic is... basic! Would love to have more channels included in basic, but not if its going to be way more expensive. I don’t want to pay that much more.

3) Cable TV. I’ll subscribe to whatever gives me what I want at the cheapest price. Cable is not a necessity, its nice to have, its all about getting the best bang for my buck.

4) Its only a matter of time that I can pay for one subscription but watch TV anywhere. Thats one of the reasons I bought Netflix when i moved.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 14:54 EastCoaster

Here's my view.
I propse a middle ground: we, as conusmers, can purchase channels in bundles of five (for example) and can choose which channels we want included in the bundle.
This alleviates some of the issues which come with completely unbundling channels, which could potentially be an industry-breaking measure. It's not going to be as easy on our wallets as most people believe, and could in fact cost more in the long run.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 12:01 JMan18

My daughter and son, 6 and 12, their TV tastes couldn’t be more different. My husband who loves sports and crime shows and has definitely been guilty of watching Duck Dynasty lol. As for me, I love channels like W and OWN. Can you imagine trying to sit down and figure out all the different channels we would have to order? We can barely sit down for family dinners. I’d prefer to just keep it the way it is instead of changing everything and it ends up costing us more.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 16:57 Christina

Here's a few gripes of mine accumulated over years of watching and working in television.
Why do Canadian channels get to refer to programming they buy in the possessive? They had nothng to do with the creation, programming or marketing of the thing. They're just a consumer and reseller of it yet they somehow have the arrogance to speak of these programs as "theirs". It's fraudulent representation.
Why doesn't the CRTC have any teeth when it comes to Canadian programming. Here's an idea - if Canadian networks don't produce exactly the kind of Canadian programming they promised to they should have their ability to re-sell advertising time on the US based programs they buy restricted. If they reneg on enough of their promises they can have dead air or they show the US advertising.
Why are the cable companies allowed to take the digital signals they receive from the networks, convert them to analog and then force us to buy equipment in order to watch the originally broadcast digital signal? The television set in my living room is capable of receiving and displaying either a digital or an analog signal. If I don't buy or rent the cable company's box the signal I can receive and display is analog, even though all networks now broadcast only a digital signal and my television is perfectly capable of receiving and displaying the digital signal the networks broadcast. Why are the cable companies allowed to highjack the signal from the network and force us to buy yet more uneccesary equipment?
Why does the CRTC allow Shaw to get away with buying perfectly good channels like TLC, A&E, Discovery, History for example and turn them into repositories for garbage programming? Why is that? And then why do you allow them to use the fact that they know full well that if those channels were unbundled only a few hundred people would subscribe as a threat about reduced channels? Does the CRTC operate in a climate of fear of the cable companies or what?
I don't expect the CRTC to look after the interests of Canadian consumers anymore. The Commission has been a classic example of a captive regulatory body for a long while now. It is nice however that you're at least pretending.

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 17:09 Carmichael

Much like our service providers for cell phones (often the same company e.g. Bell or Videotron). The "bundles" they offer do not have any flexibility. While they offer yes a good value for the number of programs/stations we receive there is little choice. As well, the programming screen lists ALL the service providers channels, making it one of the most user-unfriendly method of having to scroll endlessly all kinds of channels I do not subscribe to to locate my own. Grrrrr. Who designed Bell's system? At least make it user friendly so that I just see channels I subscribed to not all the hundreds you offer. I resent the fact that if you choose your own channels/programs one by one, then you are paying much more than the bundle they offer. They force you into the bundle package because of this. I am sure viewers would choose far more channels than even what a buncle package offers if only the cost for each channel would be a real value!!

Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 21:09 Maria

Nothing bothers me that to HAVE to get certain chanels whether we want or not. Why not just pay for what we want?

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 18:15 frosty1

It is time for the crtc to change how we are being ripped off on choosng channels to watch.
I am with Bell Fibe and with most of the packages I might like only one channel but must pay for the bundle.
Time to change now.

Friday, November 15, 2013 - 21:43 Arrybai

I am tired of subsidizing channels I have no interest in watching, if they can't attract viewers on their own let them go bankrupt.

Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 13:58 Ronald MacDonald

TV as a method of delivery is insanely outdated. In ten years time, this won't be a discussion, and broadcast television will be a memory. Everything is moving online. Debating methods of optimizing cable packages is as ludicrous as arguing about how to make everyone's horse go faster thirty years after the introduction of the automobile. Companies like Rogers and Shaw are fighting to hold on to a dead cash cow, and should instead be concentrating on optimizing customer satisfaction so we don't all jump ship when Verizon hits the scene next year.

Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 19:24 Virtua Sinner

Bottom line: Canadians should be free to watch whatever they want, a la carte, on whatever device they wish.
Technology should be embraced that offers choice and the internet needs to remain open and neutral. Geoblocking should be abolished and makes little sense if Canadians are willing to pay for those american services.
Answers to questions:
1. My family and I prefer to watch TV on a large screen with surround sound. However, from time to time we watch it on our tablets, laptops, or our smart phones. We love services such as Netflix (would love Hulu which is blocked here and needs to be unblocked). We love these types of services because we can watch whatever we want, on demand, pause it, come back to it, etc.. For Canadian consumers it should all be about flexibility, convenience and choice.
2. We do not subscribe to cable TV any longer. It was too expensive, required us to pay for too many channels that we didn't want (or perhaps a channel with only one show we care about) and the picture/sound quality was subpar at times.
3. We have already switched over to online services. Netflix and other "apps" for smart TV's, smart phones, game consoles, etc. So far, we feel like we're not missing much of anything that cable/satellite provides.
4. I would hope that the future of programming is on demand, over the internet, from across the globe. I would be extremely happy with this, as it gives Canadians the most choice, as well as forces Canadian content to compete on a global level. Hopefully raising the quality of Canadian content and also having more people outside of Canada watching our content.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:43 jdbethun

TV is another Internet application.

Rural residents in the U.K. funding and running their own 1Gbps symmetric fibre networks:

Cities can bypass ISPs and connect to the Internet directly:

Infrastructure like ultra high-speed Internet can be funded by a zero or low-cost overhead crowdfunding platform through mini-bonds (e.g. $25 bonds).
Canada’s crowdfunding laws can be updated to allow for a crowdfunding platform for city and Provincial governments to fund revenue-generating infrastructure by selling mini-bonds to individual investors directly to reduce financing costs.
The U.K. has updated their crowdfunding laws.
Currently, bonds are sold in large blocks putting them out of reach of the population.
Crowdfunding with mini-bonds would allow people to invest in infrastructure with part of every paycheck. Those most motivated to invest in Canada are those who live there.

Software defined radio will be a way to deliver mobile broadband.

Apple has already updated to Multipath TCP:

In the U.S., Amazon’s publishing service allows independent content producers to deliver TV programming and other media.
This could be extended to independent movie distribution either by delivering hard drives for 4K resolution movies to theaters or digital distribution.

In the U.S., Roku and their technology partners allow people to create their own TV channels.

In Canada, services similar to CreateSpace and Roku would make it possible to reduce the costs for independent Canadian TV and film producers to provide content for the Canadian TV and movie consumers.
Independent Canadian artists currently creating content for Youtube and other U.S. platforms could then create and deliver programming for Canadian televisions and movie theaters.

Thanks to NAFTA, Canadian artists can already use these U.S. platforms (e.g. CreateSpace, TuneCore, etc.) to deliver content to U.S. audiences. They need similar Canadian platforms for doing the same for Canadian TV and film audiences.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 12:22 renes

I prefer to watch tv online and via mobile. When I say online I also just stream my content from my computer to my tv because there is no way to do this now. I do not prefer pvr's and managing content in that sense. If content is on demand (both mobile and web) then there is no need to record anything.
I am subscribed to cable TV just for lives sports but I will be cancelling regardless. I do not want to watch tv over traditional cable tv services. I want to watch tv with content coming from the web that is on demand. I want the web content to also contain live sports and also not be restricted in any way due to region or country.
I prefer to watch my television with IPTV. Currently I use set top boxes to stream content from my computer, or apps that get content from the web. I do not like traditional cable services because of all the channel bundling. I want to be able to watch live sports on my tv in HD coming from the internet. Same with all my shows and movies. I want the freedom to watch that same conent on mobile or on my computer via websites or apps.
I sincerely hope that Canada can be ahead of the curve and embrace the internet! In 5-10 years there will be no need for cable AND internet to homes. There should just be internet where consumers can use that for watching all there content on their tv's, computers, and mobile devices. The same way soon wireless carriers in this country should embrace mobile internet data over traditional cellular services to make calls and send messages, Canadian television should look to make rich and consistent experiences using internet content for any device used for viewing especially TV's.
Also do not restrict internet subscriptions with content providers with clauses that they must also have the equivelent TV package. For example HBO GO, NFL mobile all require that you pay for the TV package AND get your content on mobile.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 15:51 Peter

As we keep up with changing technologies in broadcasting, it is most important to have regulations remain inclusive. No matter how content is streamed, it should be subject to the same media fund regulations as current broadcasters. Protecting our culture means protecting the funding sources for content creation.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 20:14 Talia Pura

So the reality of this is: we will further our use of the internet more an more in the coming years like we have in the past years. Streaming channels is everyones preffered method of choice, the landscape of how we chose to recieve our media has changed since the introduction of smart devices like TV, Tablets, Phones.
The Big compaines should offer all there services over Apps that we can download to said devices. And it should be pay per use or pay for channel.
Currently i dont have cable because of streaming services.... Netflix is my main source and with there introduction of Original series it just keeps getting better... also i have NHL Game Center for all my Hockey needs and CBC has HNIC streaming on there Site every saturday...
If these compaines dont get there shit together and offer a streaming channel before the indivdual compaines like CBS, NBC ABC etc... then your going to be left behind with 0 Profit.... Anyone can figure out how to get an American IP to get all this now as it is.
Get Your act together BIG THREE before its to late.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 13:34 gpynn

Break 'em Up! Open it Up!
Companies that produce or acquire content shall be expressly forbidden from owning the means of distributing said content.
Vertical integration creates to many moral harard temptations for companies leverage content or access to the content to extract more $$ from consumers.
Also, our system would benefit from foreign telecomm competition in terms of price to consumers and underlying technology.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 16:00 MrDGWells

1. How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?

I will watch television anywhere that’s convenient for me when I feel up to watching something. For the last few years I have watched TV more often than not on my computer, just because it is where I spend most of my time when I am at home. I rarely watch shows live, unless it’s Sports. In fact I can’t remember the last time I watched a show, that wasn’t a sports event, live. As for why? I want to be able to watch the shows I want when I want in the order I want.

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?

Unfortunately, this not being a proper forum to swear, it is hard for me to describe my utter contempt at the current system for subscribing to cable or satellite TV. I hate that as a consumer I am forced to pay for content I will never watch, and frankly would rather not support! For well over a decade now I have railed against a system that doesn’t let me chose the exact channels I want and nothing more.

3. What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?

I am currently subscribed to Cable TV, and as soon as I can find an option that will allow me to pay for only the channels or even content I want, at a reasonable price, I will jump ship. I am tired of watching these companies make billions of dollars off of us consumers by packaging their content in such a way that for every 1 channel you wish to have you must pay for 4 more you will never watch.

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Television just become a part of the internet, and it was no longer two separate things you subscribed to. Content would be purchased on a subscription or per episode basis just like the music industry is today. I would probably be much happier with that situation, because than I would have more control over what I paid for.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 18:51 gaald

Responses posted under each answer:
How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?
I think the term "television" needs to go. It is outdated just like the term "telephone". Adding "smart" in front of the word "TV" or "phone" is not sustainable either as new better models are released. All there is these days are screens (of different sizes) connected to the internet. I use my large screen in the basement to relax on a comfy couch, put my legs up and typically watch movies or on-demand tv shows 90% of which come from Netflix, TMN or HBO. The only time I watch non on-demand programs is for live events (such as sports). I use my PVR to record the occasional SNL or new episode of an HBO/TMN show that is not available on-demand yet. I use my tablet screen to catch up on news videos and/or finish watching the occasional Netflix show I started in the basement. I also use it to watch LiveLeak, YouTube, etc.... I use my smartphone for quick videos (of any kind) on the go, when my tablet is not easily accessible. I don't watch movies on my smartphone as I prefer the hi-fi experience I have in my basement (I am an audiophile and colour optimization geek).
If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
Packaging is dead. DEAD. Individual selection (i.e. unbundling) is the only way for cable companies to survive.
What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
I subscribe to cable TV (with the TMN and HBO movie package) as well as Netflix. The only reason I still subscribe to cable is for HBO and TMN and the occasional live event that I want to watch in the full hi-fi experience. I do not plan to stay with my cable provider if they don't unbundle channels within the next year. I'm also waiting for residential internet connection wiring to improve (horrendously out of date in most areas).

How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
The optimist in me says that cable companies will wake up and offer each channel in IPTV form avialable for indivdual (unbundled) subscription in addition to unbundling their cable offering. It would be nice to have 1080p content as well instead of just 1080i (especailly since 4K is already on the market). I would be satisified with this situation. Although 5 years from now we should all be on fibre optic connections , have open-wifi across entire cities and the discussion will really be about content anywhere anytime as wearable tech takes over (i.e. Google glass, etc..)

Thank you CRTC for engaging us!

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 19:22 Mike Kujawski

Television is changing and the way we watch it is changing too. There is however a cost prohibitive factor to watching television on cable and satellite. One pays a lot of money for stations you don't want and would never view. To para-phase the song, there are 100 stations with nothing on. The viewer is now able to watch the same show /episode 24 hours a day. This is not an added value and does not provide the viewer with a true service. Cable and satelite signal suppliers are monopolizing the the viewers and there is not enough competition in areas. It is similar to the monopoly seen in the cell phone area.
The change from analog to digital over air service has greatly diminished the number of stations one can view for free. More stations should be made available for free, as in over the air, including all of the national carriers otherwise they should lose their status as national carriers. These stations are inundated with commercials and that should be sufficient income stream to support the station. Cable companies who provide their "local" signal to cable subscribers only are not true local providers.
I have subscribed to cable service but found that the costs were too high and the the stations available to me on a basic package were too limited. Bundles did not provide me with the stations I was interested in. I returned to over air service as a result. I am not a avid television watcher as I find most of the programmes to be lame and an insult to a thinking person. There are some fine programmes out there. It is more economical to rent the season of a particular programme on dvd than to pay the high cable/satellite costs.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 20:59 vivienne3

I have ditched satellite due to the high cost, restrictive channel selection, lack of competition amongst providers and the constant price increases on their ridiculous over-the-top fees (i.e. "digital fees" and "timeshifting fees").
I now watch 90% of my TV using over-the-air digital broadcasts (I receive 26 Canadian and US channels in all) and use streaming services (Netflix) for the remaining 10%. With the oney I saved, I actually own an over-the-air PVR, the CM7000PAL and use an HDHomerun to watch TV programming from my antenna on my home netwrok connected devices. It's like having a whole home PVR.
The number of digital antennas going up on my block is incredible, I've counted at least 12 in the past 6 months, and I see evne more products are coming out for over-the-air recording and streaming to WiFi devices (Simple.TV and Tablo)
While I love the picture quality and signal clarity of DTV signals, there are two issues I would like addressed by the CRTC and/or Industry Canada.
1) I do not understand why multicasting is not available in Canada. The PBS station south of the border streams 3 subchannels of quality programming, be in children's, cultural or educational. The NBC affiliate has a subchannel as well. DTV multicasting helps provide more programming choices and revenue for broadcasters. Also, let's not forget not everyone in our society can afford to pay monthly for TV. They cannot be forgotten.
2) Canada's regulation of DTV guide info (PSIP) is ridiculous. Almost 3 years after the digital transition some stations don't even have program info available through their DTV ATSC signals, and/or incorrect time info. There should be a minimum set like the FCC does in the US as this causes confusion for the user and even equipment malfunctions (DVRs)
Broadcast is back, let's hope the CRTC doesn't turn a blind eye.

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 14:39 @MontrealOTA

I am a cable subscriber and watch almost all of my TV on my TV, either live or on-demand if I miss an episode. I am extremely loyal to the shows I watch and wish that my cable company be more pro-active in making it easier for me to watch "catch-up" episodes through their on-demand service - it's important for me to watch drama series IN ORDER and when the most recent episode isn't available on-demand before the next episode airs, it defeats the purpose of having on-demand. I understand that might be a rights issue but it annoys me.
The biggest reason I watch TV this way is because I am a lazy audience member - I prefer to have programming delivered to me, in a way that is easy for me to find. However, when something is important to me, I will seek it out online. I only do this through legitimate services and I won't spook my IP address or use a VPN so I can access something that isn't available in Canada - but if I can't catch up on a series through a legal online source, I am likely to stop watching it altogether. Broadcasters and distributors need to sort out their rights acquisition so that audiences get what they want and the creators are being appropriately compensated. Not an easy task (and largely outside of the CRTC's domain) - but important if they are going to be able to keep audiences and watching.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 10:44 LawStudent

I would like to see full unbundling of TV channels at Reasonable prices for each individual TV channel. This would support pure competition. Letting the channels that have poor content and low viewers fold, and allow for the better channels with great content to increase viewers.I would love to buy Leafs TV in market (with out even having a basic cable subscription) which would allow me to watch the LEAFS on any device anywhere in market. The power of on On-Demand viewing, on any device, with per channel pricing. This is the way we should go! IMO

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 11:20 Chris G

Any distributor of content to Canadian consumers - regardless of the format - MUST make a contribution to support the system. A strong regulatory regime that balances the needs of consumer choice and cost with support for stories by/for/about Canadians is critical to protecting and growing our sector. Let's make sure we see Canadian stories in all our diversity!

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 12:18 suemilling

About 6 months ago I cancelled my cable with Bell to use ITunes, Netflix and NHL GameCenter Live for all my TV watching. First off Bell was bordering on what I would call harrassment trying to keep my business. They offered to change my price to half of what they used charge me for my cable $100 down to $50/month and no contract. All of a sudden I was a very special customer when I asked why didn't I get offered this price before. When I asked to have the new offer emailed to me before I would say yes the rep said she could not do that because this price was for special customers only. So I said forget it. This is infuriating! I just want to pay only for channels I want and at a fair price. We should be getting a quantity discount. The other thing is Canadians have no idea what a fair price is. Perhaps the CRTC could publish what would be considered a fair price.
So now that I have switched to the internet I must say it's not quite there yet. I miss watching live sports and events and have to use a VPN to get around blacked out content on NetFlix and NHL Gamecenter. The video quality is not there yet and you have to have unlimited internet.
I think eventually everything is going to be broadcast via the internet and the content is going to come from all over the world. But what is that going to do for the price of internet when there are only two legitimate sources to provide it? As far as I'm concerned there really only is one company because their offerings are essentially the same. Maybe Canadians should be given a tax write off for part of their telecom spending and send the tax bill to Rogers and Bell. I'd much rather be putting my money into other things to get the economy going than being overcharged by Rogers or Bell.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 17:01 schoolboy1752

Imagine the next time you go to the grocery store and all you want is a jar of pasta sauce but when you get to the checkout they say sorry you also have to buy a grapefruit, a large package of diapers, container of ice cream, loaf of garlic bread and a bottle of prune juice. Sounds ludicrous but that is what Canadian television consumers are forced to put up with. Canada will never have 6 or 7 legitimate choices for their television viewing. Rogers and Bell have been given a cash cow and I believe they are using it to their full and unfair advantage. The CRTC must put in place regulations that doesn't allow this oligopoly to exist. I don't believe in the government setting prices but I do believe in consumers being allowed vote with their money. I don't believe any contracts should be allowed and I also believe that consumers should also be able to choose only the channels they want. A complete culture change has to happen. Rogers and Bell are going to have to find other revenue streams and not by selling our private information.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 13:37 schoolboy1752

We have cable but we are contemplating cancelling our service.
I want to watch television on any device of my choosing. I would prefer to watch on a bigger screen when I can but I will watch catch-up viewing on other devices such as laptop or tablet.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:42 Square Eyes

Technology: What do you think about how you receive television programming?
Its antiquated and will be undergoing dramatic changes in the near future.
From a consumer’s perspective I recently had to switch from Rogers due to unexpected cost overruns on my bill, so I am currently in a state of TV transition. I imagine I will sign up with a Rogers competitor, but in downtown Toronto there aren’t very many that I’m aware of.
This lack of competition concerns me not only from a consumer’s perspective but one of safety.
Ensuring public communication through mobile channels, can save hundreds if not thousands of lives, depending on the circumstance. TV is excellent at relaying information in a constructive and filtered manner and as it becomes more available on mobile its potential to do good increases exponentially.
With the recent Rogers outage in Toronto, I was reminded on my dependency on my cellphone for connectivity, not only because I’m a father of 2 but I immediately looked to my phone for answers and of course it couldn’t provide any. Then I remembered i wasn't with Rogers but CHATR (which little did I know was also owned by Rogers) and even companies who aren't owned by Rogers were down because they rent access from Rogers. This only caused my concern to grow and made me question how one could protect themselves from a similar occurrence. The only answer I’ve been able to come up with is competition.
More points of access and a stronger technological infrastructure are the only way to ensure that should we have a large unexpected storm or event; connectivity can be maintained for as long as possible and thus potentially save lives.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to reach out, and though I found the log in/sign up process problematic, I appreciate your growing technological advancement illustrated through your outreach on Twitter (which reminded me of this btw: )

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 17:08 Wyeth

I believe it is of utmost importance to continue to exclude cultural content from the free trade deals. The CBC, provincial programming such as TVO, CPAC, Discovery, French programming and local programming are necessary components of a basic cable channel bundle. These choices should available in every cable subscription in the country. They should also be available by antenna.
Equality of opportunity for all Canadian children requires that basic cable programmes are of high quality and provide ready access to Canadian culture. This, in turn, requires a large volume of subscription with low rates. Basic cable packages should include diverse channels so that light entertainment and informative programmes are equally available. Every basic cable bundle should include one optional channel for the consumer to choose. Regulation is required.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:36 L. Kaye

How do you prefer to watch televisionon a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.?
All the above, but I'm most comfortable watching it from the couch, on a large monitor, using remotes to switch between cable, DVR, AppleTV, tablet and computer, with my smartphone in hand, of course.
The couch is the most comfortable spot in my home and I can fall asleep if I get bored.
How do you usually watch television programslive, on demand, recorded on a PVR, other?
Depends on what I'm watching. News, mostly live. Dramas and movies and shows that are on when I'm not home on a PVR. Everythng else on AppleTV/Netflix/tablet/phone.
Not sure, but different broadcasts seem to be better on different devices and at different times.

If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?
Not at all satisfied with the selection or the packaging. The only reason i'm still subscribing is convenience.

What type of television service do you subscribe tocable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other?
Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?
No. Will probably cancel cable and switch to just over the air (if I move to where I can pick up a signal) and the internet. Will subscribe to channels available over the internet as they become available. I would definitely stay with my provider if they broadcast all BBC channels, and a few other European ones, live and direct.
How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
It will be internet-based and more open. I'll be satisfied only if the bandwidth to my home improves and pricing is reasonable.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:36 polishtheday

I'd like to see pick and pay.But perhaps we need to consider keeping percentages of canadian channels in a pick and pay package? But then the CRTC will have to make sure to enforce Cdn content levels on each cdn channel.

I'd also like to see OTT be included in the support of cdn content productions. Perhaps it means inviting them in to help support the CMF and as well draw down out of it to produce cdn content dramas and comedies and docs?

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:52 davidcormican

Free Over the Air television! Please keep funding CBC to broadcast by free over the air transmission. This is AMAZING, all in HD, absolutely free from an antenaa in my attic. I wish I discovered this sooner.
The CRTC should join the modern age and open broadcasting up to global competition. Why force providers to have canadian content? Is the CRTC the keepers of culture? Maybe they are, but the world is changing despite.
Internet television from Netflix/Hulu/Amazon is the future. Do not stand in the way of progress for reasons that do not make any sense to consumers. Why is Hulu & Amazon not allowed to Canadians. Does this make any sense at all in modern world of global access? Why is Canadian Netflix 1/10th the # of shows available as American Netflx? Why? We want TV, they sell TV, why do you have to be the gate geeper? Open the flood gates, join the modern world.. global access to a global client.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 19:11 slloyd

Viewer toolkit: Do you have enough information to make informed choices and seek solutions if you’re not satisfied?

View comments

I appreciate the CTRC's view on establishing a delicate balance between freedom of expression and a respect for community standards. But I view freedom of expression to be more important. Rather then censoring a broadcast, I would prefer that the content be noted at the beginning so that children and those with less tolerance for foul language or nudity be warned beforehand. Self-censorship is always preferable to state-censorship.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:33 Dennis_C

In an urban area, there are no real barriers thatthat prevent one from changing television packages or switching to another television distributor. This is not true in rural areas where satellite may be the only way of receiving programs.
Most people probably do not know that they can complain to the CRTC abouttelevision content, television services and bills. Perhaps consideration should be given to pamphlets in Service Canada offices or the occasional ads in newspapers. and a mandatory notice in newspaper TV Guides.
Viewers should be able to make their own content choices now and in the next 5 to 10 years. Those choices will be made with their wallets. I view the roll of the CRTC as one of ensuring that Canadian content and variety s provided on basic services but not one of being a state censor.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:53 Dennis_C

People should be able to pay for single television stations without paying for anything else, including basic cable.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 20:52 canadians

How can customer service improve for cable companies? I have heard nothing but long waiting times to even get a live person to deal with an account and when a request is made, the minimal amount of information is provided to give customers what they need. One CSR says this the other department is handling it, but it never gets done. I want my service cancelled but it will be done on one of the next three billing cycles. Surely uncertainties like this can only rile up feelings of consternation.
As for content, I am appauled by the allowed language we are broadcasting these days. B*stard, H*ll, a$$ are just some to name a few that were clearly banned maybe 15 years ago. We had to rent a movie to get those, although you had a chance of being IDed at the counter, and they did contain warnings on the back. And no I have no idea who to complain to.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 21:56 elmsley

A decade from now what country you're in will have no relevance. Eventually studios will insist that their product be released to the entire world to make more money. And the people won't want to wait to see something they like. Anybody who can't provide, will be eliminated by obsolecence. The CRTC is walking that line today.

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 23:09 smvoxx

I agree. The role of the CRTC is to help with the transition, exploring ways to fulfill their mandate and maybe even question if it's still relevant.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:52 polishtheday

I am mostly satisfied with the information supplied to me by Rogers. I have full comprehension of their service options, packages and pricing. I believe Rogers could make things easier though, not for me, but for others.
The biggest barrier I experience which prevents me from changing television packages is the fact that I have to subscribe to so much, in order to watch so little. It's unfair, because I don't want to take hundreds of mediocre (or less than) channels in order to get the 5 or 10 good channels.
The biggest barrier I experience which prevents me from changing providers is the fact that the alternatives suck. Changing from Rogers to Bell is not even an option. I am already with the better of the two, but that's not saying much. If I had another choice, say... if my ISP Start Communications began offering a-la-carte IPTV, I'd drop Rogers in a heartbeat. I would actually be willing to give up the nearly $1100.00 in Rogers NextBox 2.0 and 3.0 digital boxes our house owns, plus purchase a few new PC's to serve IPTV to each television. While this is a great expense for us, it pales to the amount we're overpaying to Rogers.

I am satisfied that Rogers has supplied the info I need to make informed choices about inappropriate content.
I do not have any visual or hearing impairment.
I do know where I can voice my concerns. Unfortunately, Rogers is staffed by people who are generally unwilling to escalate problems, because they know very well it puts their necks on the line. I had to ask not once, but four times for escalation, and was supposed to hear from the office of the president of Rogers, and never received that call. I don't feel it's worth complaining to the CRTC about things like this, because I feel the CRTC has no teeth. Evidence is seen everywhere, in how Rogers is allowed to continually do this, and get away with it.
Canadians are going to slowly ditch cable and satellite TV service where possible (towns and cities mostly), and migrate further into internet entertainment. They don't have much choice, as the prices continue to skyrocket for TV programming, and the quality of that programming continues to erode. Just look at what Bell has done to the Space channel. They took it from being a fantastic channel, to being a crap channel. How else are Canadians supposed to get their SciFi?
In 5 to 10 years, Bell and Rogers will hopefully be relagated to dumb pipes - internet service providers which would love to offer rich services, but who's customers circumvent their proxies and DNS servers, and encrypt their traffic and tunnel through VPN's in order to watch content sourced elsewhere. Even telephone service is going to see mass-exodus. There's little point to a landline in a future where the government will know exactly where you are, merely by spying on your cellphone, and will allow 911 service access to that data.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 01:00 Tristan Young

The major complaint I have heard about cable and satellite providers is that customer service is, for all intents and purposes, non existent. Lengthy waits to speak to a human, interrupted by statements about how they value your custom and are experiencing a high volume of calls which really means" we're too cheap to properly staff out call centre, are unacceptable.
Not so long ago I shifted my wireless service because of poor customer service only to find that the competition was just as bad.
These large corporations just don't care about the folks who pay their bills. They just keep increasing charges and the only way to get a better rate is to spend hours on the phone and to raise a little hell. These days I don't bother calling I just e-mail the CEO and tell him I'm going to cancel all three services I have with him. Only the do I get a response and a much better rate.
It shouldn't be necessary to have to fight each and every time you have a problem.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:34 brumas

The foremost problem here is the CRTC's premise that Canadians are to stupid to make their own choices, and that it is the responsibility of the State to determine what Canadians can and should watch. The CRTC claims they are all for freedom of expression, yet they are the ones that mandate we pay for sub-standard, Canadian content and a biased State owned, agenda driven Broadcaster, all while "protecting" us from the nasty, evil U.S.A. How can they seek to solve the problem when it is the CRTC that is the problem, not free thinking Canadians.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:57 hcamper

Q: "How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to understand your service options, including packaging and pricing?"
A: That is a question that should come from my service provider, not the government. My answer is provided via the market.

Q: "Are you experiencing barriers that prevent you from changing your television packages or switching to another television distributor? If so, what are those barriers?"
A: The biggest impediment I come across is that my state-enforced regulator judges the viability of available channels.

Q: "How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to make informed choices about programming that you may consider inappropriate for you or your family?"
A: This is none of your business. I am not a child, I can decide if I don't have enough information, and I can ask for it.

Q: "Do you have a visual or hearing impairment? If so, how satisfied are you with the tools available to enable you to share in our television culture?"
This is none of your business.
Q: "Do you know where you can voice your concerns over television content, your television services and bills?"
A: I am not a child and resent being asked this question.

Q: "How do you think we will make informed content choices as program viewers and consumers in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?"
A: I will likely make the same informed choices as I do today. If the gods are just, the CRTC will be abolished in 5 to 10 years, and so I will have even more opportunity to make my own decisions then.

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:40 Rob Huck

Hi everyone,
Sarah from the Rogers Social Media team here.
Rogers fully supports changes to the current TV model.
We're also listening to your suggestions here, so keep them coming!

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 17:07 Rogers Sarah

Changes to the current TV model will now include an antenna and high-speed internet from TekSavvy for a fraction of the price charged by Rogers. Specialty channels have never been focussed or concerned with quality programming because they have always made their money by being bundled with other channels and the Cable TV industry facilitated this rip-off. There's a reason why Canadians are cancelling their Cable TV and now streaming or downloading content. Rogers has historically been part of the problem.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 10:44 ProudCanadian

Hi Proud Canadian,
Thanks for your reply. Can I ask you why you say "Rogers has historically been part of the problem"?

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 16:36 Rogers Sarah

I'll give my thoughts why Rogers is part of the problem. I only want HD. HD included with your $40, <200 channel digital TV service is some 50 HD channels, including things like a Fireplace and a Sunset. For those that want these, let them pay for it. You include Sportsnet, OMNI, The Shopping Channel (Roger's owned) with basic. I understand Vertical Integration, maybe I don't want Sportsnet, OMNI or Shopping or Galaxie or FM stations or Vision or Joy or AM radio or OWN or etc....
The basic package, if there is such a thing, should be Canadian networks (including the Rogers owned City) and the US networks. Everything else a la cart - makes your life difficult, but that is just business.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 13:11 Skiddy

Thanks for your feedback, Skiddy.
Rogers agrees there should be more choice and flexibility for consumers and has been advocating for change for several years so we can deliver what customers want. In order of us to offer the flexibility our customers want, the system has to evolve.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 11:26 Rogers Sarah

We should be allowed to legitimately rent USA satellite service, they have much better deals than we do. Most of the content is from the USA anyway, which is way better than Canadian Tv.

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 22:49 Shelley354

The newest technology would suggest that Cable is on the way out. Cable Companies were too restrictive in their customer support. Bundling of channels which forced consumers to take a pile of low quality items with one or two you wanted will be Cables undoing.
The monopolizing of News Channels by Cable Companies that also own TV companies by restricting competing channels should be guarded against by the CRTC. Otherwise we do not need a regulator.
Canadian viewers are very much treated like mushrooms. Where are the news reports on the situation in New Brunswick? Not on my local news. Hello Global!

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 00:43 amori

Broadcast distribution undertakings (cable and sat) are also broadcasters. They bundle their owned channels forcing customers to take channels we don't want. These BDUs continue to release new specialty stations in an attempt to maintain market share.
Consumers are demanding choice and expect their monthly cost to reflect that choice.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 12:21 Skiddy

The experience I've had with my cable provider leave me helpless. No matter which cable provider it is they all say customer service is of primary importance to them. As it applies to choice this is an empty phrase. I've asked for choice and I can't even discuss it in depth. To summarize the discussion with them: "Tough, this is what we offer." Why is it that other companies who want to earn my business are earnest in being helpful and my cable provider ignores me completely.
I can buy individual channels, so it tells me that technically the cable companies can provide a personalized offering, but they refuse. You have to first buy the package and then you get to buy individual channels. All told I watch no more than twenty channels. I don't need or want Treehouse, YTV, Teletoon, Slice, OWN, etc.
Recently the west coast time-shifting channels were taken away and made into a package - something I paid for previously - taken away and now I have to "buy it." I was told by my cable company that "we can do it, it's in the contract." So I'm minus something I watched regularly and now I have pay an additional cost to get it back. Sounds like blackmail to me. Plus, I don't get a discount for those channels taken away.
I want choice. I understand there are rules that demand I have CBC and French channels, okay I've got to have them. I don't mind paying up to $5.00 per channel, but I want choice.
Cable companies quite rightly want to make money, but technology is catching up to them and the hand full of providers in Canada want to control the price and block the way we use technology. There was change in the recording and publishing industries because of technology, cable is not immune to this wave.
It seems to me the CRTC has closer relationships with cable companies but keeps a distance from the consumers , but that's for another time.
Technology can provide choice. I'm a customer and I simply want choice.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 10:31 Litski

My costs for service continually increase at rates far above
inflation. Meanwhile the service provided often decreases in usability
and quality. There is next to no choice to alter costs and there is no
indication as to why the costs increase. Pricing on my bill rarely
matches the information available on the website.

As nearly all providers require some hardware device sourced from them
to be utilized, it can often be costly to change providers or even to
remain with the provider. Equipment has to be purchased or rented from
the provider at non-competitive rates. Purchased equipment becomes
obsolete and new equipment must be purchased over time. Providers
often limit or stone wall their equipment trading on secondary markets. The equipment
often has very limited compatibility with other equipment you already
own and it may even be impossible to continue using your own
equipment incurring additional costs or limitations.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 12:29 ertyu

1. Satisfied
2.My largest barrier is, according to my service provider, the rules of the CRTC. I subscribe to BBCcanada and am forced to have Mike Holmes on during early afternoon and evening. Shaw tells me this is due to Canadian content rules. In my opinion Canadian television producers, actors, etc. would be much better off if they were forced to compete against the world in their home market. I have seen world class Canadian programming but there is a lot of pure crap that is only there due to Cancon rules and subsidization from every level of government.
3. I make choices and my family makes choices that do not need any help from anybody else. Rating systems are closet censorship.
4. No comment. This very question is an invasion of personal privacy.
5. I know where to voice concerns but I get the impression from regulators, from providers and from MP's that they are powerless to do anything about it.
6. We will make informed content choices in the future just like we do today; We will pick up the remote, check out what is on and pick a program we like. I will be satisfied if I can actually get the programming I want from the channels I subscribe to. If I don't I will either wait until the entire program is released on DVD or purchase a subscription to a content provider outside the old model. I won't be entirely satisfied because I like the premise of the watercooler discussion about the new episode the next morning, but it won't break my heart.
My basic point here is this; the old models, developed in the 70's, are broken and fresh new thinking is needed. We live in an interconnected WORLD and the Canadian Broadcasting System as it sits needs to connect to that WORLD. Get rid of Cancon, get rid of inefficient protectionist monopolies, and let the Canadian Television and Movie industry fly or die.

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 21:04 lbt123

This comment is around television content and changes:
I was a subscriber of Rogers’ digital basic television. For your convenience, I’ve included in Annex A a screenshot of the long list of channels available with this television package. As you can see, for francophone subscribers in Ontario, Rogers clearly advertises that TV5 is included as part of their package. This same statement is also reflected in their Rogers store brochures in the Ottawa area as of the date of this letter.
In September 2011 of this year, TV5 disappeared from my channel offering. The system suggested that this channel was no longer available and I had to call Rogers to subscribe to it.
Initially, Rogers tech support indicated that this was a technical issue (signal problem). But I’ve had further calls with them (and escalated this through their customer service organization) and now Rogers indicated to me that I was never entitled to receive this channel because it was not part of the digital basic television package in my region. This statement is clearly in direct contradiction with their advertised list (showcased in Annex A). I also asked them to provide me with a copy of any document that they sent to their customers that contained the exact list of channels I was entitled to, which they refused to do (at this stage I believe such a document doesn’t exist).
Rogers indicated that I would have to subscribe to a more expensive bolt on plan called Rogers Digital Cable Plus, which includes several channels that I don’t need. Rogers also indicated that I could not simply subscribe to TV5 as a single channel bolt on to my current subscription.
I’m signed up to a fixed discount contract with Rogers. This type of contract locked me in, using an Early Cancellation Fee (ECF) obligation, for one year with 30% discount, followed by one year with 20% discount on all of my Rogers services.
As per the Terms of Service (ToS), these types of contracts oblige Rogers to notify me of any changes (price and service) Rogers intends to implement. I’ve included the relevant section of the ToS below for your convenience:
"Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any
time, any charges, features, content, programming, structure or any other
aspects of the Services, as well as any term or provision of the Service
Agreement, upon notice to you. If you do not accept a change to the Services,
your sole remedy is to terminate the Service Agreement and the Services provided
under the Service Agreement, within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of
change to the Services (unless we specify a different notice period), by providing
us with advance notice of termination pursuant to Section 31. If you do not
accept a change to these Terms, your sole remedy is to retain the existing Terms
unchanged for the duration of the Commitment Period (as defined below), upon
notice to us within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change in the Terms."
As I stated before, Rogers removed a channel from my selection without notifying me of the change. Therefore this change breaks the terms that we both agreed to when I signed up to this contract. I also raised this point with the Rogers representatives, that they implemented a change without providing me with any notification or without any consideration (refund, discount or waiver of my ECF obligations). I requested to contact their legal department as the Rogers employee did not want to discuss this point further, but they declined.
Because of the decision from the CRTC to move TV5 (that generates a significant amount of Canadian and Francophone content) to a must-carry from dual-status designation, Rogers believes that they are not in the obligation to compensate me (or even notify me) for this change in my channels. As you can see from Rogers’ own customer forums (Annex B), I am not the only subscriber impacted by this (http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/PVR_...).
Now, if there was true TV and Cable service competition in Ottawa, I would simply wait out the contract and switch providers, however I can’t get any wired television services from any other provider than Rogers (living in a condo prevents me from using satellite TV) and Bell still doesn’t provide IPTV services to my city. So unfortunately, I only have one option of disconnecting my cable or tolerating this behaviour from a TV service monopoly.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 11:50 enivid

This comment is on fixed discount contracts at Rogers:

In early 2010, I signed up to a fixed discount contract with Rogers. This type of contract locked me in, using an Early Cancellation Fee (ECF) obligation, for one year with 30% discount, followed by one year with 20% discount on all of my Rogers services.
Early this year, I received a letter from Rogers indicating an increase of the rates to both my television service and my internet service. I was a little confused by this letter because I had signed up to a contract with Rogers and I concluded that it had been sent to me in error because it did not clearly indicate that the changes (increases) applied to fixed discount contracts.
To my surprise Rogers implemented the price increase on my account. Following the clause defined in my Terms of Service (ToS) (see below), I indicated to Rogers that I did not understand why I was subject to an increase. The Rogers representative refused to revert my fees to their original agreed cost and did not provide an explanation justifying the increase.
"Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any
time, any charges, features, content, programming, structure or any other
aspects of the Services, as well as any term or provision of the Service
Agreement, upon notice to you. If you do not accept a change to the Services,
your sole remedy is to terminate the Service Agreement and the Services provided
under the Service Agreement, within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of
change to the Services (unless we specify a different notice period), by providing
us with advance notice of termination pursuant to Section 31. If you do not
accept a change to these Terms, your sole remedy is to retain the existing Terms
unchanged for the duration of the Commitment Period (as defined below), upon
notice to us within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change in the Terms."
I then asked the Rogers representative if my Early Cancellation Fee obligations (ECF) were now waived because of this change, allowing me to disconnect my Rogers account without penalty.
At this point of the call the Rogers representative stated that I was still bound to my ECF obligations even if Rogers chose to increase my charges. She also indicated that this was clearly stated in my ToS but refused to give me the exact clause and page number. In my opinion this is in direct contradiction with fixed rate contracts where Rogers has the obligation to never increase prices while the subscriber still has the obligation of paying out an early cancellation fee.
I also disagree with the Rogers representative's statement that this was clearly stated in the ToS as the terms describing my ECF obligations are worded very broadly as you can see:
"Unless otherwise set out in the Materials, if you agree to subscribe to one
of our plans or Services for a committed period of time (the Commitment
Period), you may be subject to an early cancellation fee (ECF) for each
Service. Any decrease in your Commitment Period may be subject to a fee.
If your Service is terminated prior to the end of the Commitment
Period, you will pay us an ECF as specified in the Service Agreement,
plus taxes."
For completeness, the ToS references, and was also accompanied by the following Service Agreement Terms:
"Feb 3 2010 - Feb 2 2011
An Early Cancellation Fee (ECF) applies if, for any reason, your Service is terminated prior to the end of the Service Agreement Term.
The ECF is $20 per month remaining in the Service Agreement Term, to a maximum of $200 (plus applicable taxes) for a 12-month
term commitment, or a maximum of $400 (plus applicable taxes) for a 24-month term commitment, and applies to each Service that is
terminated. Rogers may allow for the cancellation of your Service without any ECF if cancellation is requested within 30 days from
date of activation.
20% off Rogers Hi-Speed Internet Lite or Express for 6 months+ Free
Professional Installation – 12-month Service Agreement Term"

There appears to be inequitable treatment for subscribers like myself who are on a "fixed discount contracts" versus customers on fixed price contracts. This inequity has also been commented by University of Ottawa Law Professor Anthony Daimsis in this CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/05/rogers-contracts-marketpl....
Now if there was true TV and Cable service competition in Ottawa, I would simply wait out the contact and switch providers, however I can’t get any wired television services from any other provider than Rogers (living in a condo prevents me from using satellite TV) and Bell still doesn’t provide IPTV services to my city. So unfortunately, I only have one option of disconnecting my cable or tolerating this behaviour from a TV service monopoly.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 11:51 enivid

1. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to understand your service options, including packaging and pricing?
It is good that Shaw now has a discussion forum. Digital Home Canada is another good place to get information independent of Shaw. I went to Shaw’s website to see if there are better packages. It turns out I’m in a grandfathered package so it is better to stay status quo until such time I can drop unwanted channels under a la carte as indicated in the recent Throne Speech.

2. Are you experiencing barriers that prevent you from changing your television packages or switching to another television distributor? If so, what are those barriers?
Yes, I alluded to this in the questions for Theme 2 but here are a few more details.
I have considered going to the gateway system offered by Shaw. I bought my 3 PVR’s 3 to 7 years ago (prior to digital transition) so I realize I won’t get what I paid for them but I do expect some credit against the new system. (Rental is an option, but you get locked into a contract and don’t really save anything.)
The other barrier within Shaw is the DRM encryption on the PVRs which prevent me from saving my recordings to a computer or even move them to another PVR from Shaw. This isn’t entirely Shaw’s fault as they get the hardware from Motorola. Still, it means I can only make a switch in the summer when I watched all the programs from the preceding season. They may not want to give the customers the ability to move programming from device to device due to copyright concerns, but this should be something a technician can do with purchase of new equipment.
Shaw, MTS and other companies need to come up with a better solution:
- not requiring a PVR (connect directly to TV) if you just want local HD channels, like what was done for years before the digital transition.
- My TV and PVR has a CableCard slot, why not use this as done in the States?
- Offer some sort of intermediate box so I record HD right to a computer hard drive. Even a cheap laptop computer has a lot more flexibility than the overpriced crappy equipment that Motorola produces. Case in point: I record both the local and time-shift US signals for a program on separate PVRs as sure enough one will decide to act like Windows 95 and hang during the program.
- Offer some way to access your PVR away from home by smart phone or another device. I believe DirecTV offers this, called the Hopper.
- Old PVRs do not support MPEG4 used on some of the new channels offered. I realize Shaw has to do this because of limited bandwidth in their system. They should offer an exchange on old equipment.
Lack of desired American services is another barrier described at length in my Theme 2 comments.
Simultaneous/signal substitution is the main barrier for subscribing to a new service and is the main reason for eventually dropping my existing service when my hardware fails or is no longer supported. I am sick and tired of the spiel about broadcasters paying a lot of money for programming. I am paying a LOT of money for cable so I am morally entitled to watch US commercials during the Superbowl (and any other program for that matter). If signal substitution is required because of the Broadcast Act, then advise the Minister which oversees the CRTC to get the Act amended pronto. If it is a CRTC policy, then it should be a no-brainer to change the policy.
(Simultaneous substitution might have been justified in era when most television stations were independents or network affiliates. Now they are part of the same companies we pay excessive amounts of money to subscribe to. In other words we are paying them to ruin our programs. It is still much cheaper to buy programming than create it. As long as the simultaneous substitution regime or the ability to black out programming exists there will not be viable competitive Canadian content as there is no incentive to produce it other than a quota.)
Environment levies and the increased sales tax in Manitoba are just another reason to not get new hardware.
3. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to make informed choices about programming that you may consider inappropriate for you or your family?
Outside of programming intended for children, I think the opposite should apply – warn if the program has been edited in any way from the original so I don’t waste any time watching it. My remote has a fast forward key if there is anything I don’t want to see, like torture or cruelty to animals.

4. Do you have a visual or hearing impairment? If so, how satisfied are you with the tools available to enable you to share in our television culture?
I find City (CHMI) does a poor job with their closed captioning. The text is often out of phase with what is going on. I end up watching the US west coast version without simsubs.
Since the CRTC mandated switch from Seattle to Spokane, the CBS station often has glitchy or missing closed captioning. (Why the switch in the first place, it seems like more unnecessary meddling on the part of the CRTC?)
Why is it so hard to get a PVR to show closed captioning? You have to turn the PVR off, press certain buttons together, almost hold your mouth in a certain position to get it to work. Why can’t it be like the TV where a remote button turns closed captioning on or off? It should be noted people without a hearing impairment use closed captioning too if they want to watch TV late at night without disturbing other people.

5. Do you know where you can voice your concerns over television content, your television services and bills?
Yes, but it doesn’t seem to do any good. I think the Federal government, the CRTC, and four horsemen (Shaw, Rogers, Bell, Corus) of the Canadian TV apocalypse are in a conspiracy to ruin television for Canadians.
I complained to my Member of Parliament a few years ago, but got a lecture that the CRTC is at arm’s length and he could not get involved. (This was about 20 years when a certain regulatory body in its infinite wisdom forced cable co’s to drop a bunch of specialty channels in favor of inferior watered-down Canadian ones.) I contacted my current MP back when the Fee for Carriage fiasco was an issue. My MP agreed with my opposition to FFC but ignored my suggestion to change the Broadcast Act to disallow simultaneous substitution and allow American services into Canada.
I have made numerous submissions to the CRTC over the years. I’ll continue to do so.
I have contacted Shaw about simultaneous substitution problems but got the usual spiel. What is the point of complaining? It already ruined the evening. The offenders just get a finger wag from the CRTC if that. There needs to be a significant fine for offenses such that the broadcaster questions if it is worth making the request. These violations and penalties should be posted on the CRTC’s website.

6. How do you think we will make informed content choices as program viewers and consumers in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
It is evolving from the old phone-a-help-line to self-serve. Still need the help line if internet service is down, but user forums, FAQs, and chat lines are a big improvement. They sure beat that infamous Your call is important to us... message. The internet resources were especially helpful when my Shaw phone service stopped working. I found a support article about pulling the power cord and removing battery to force a reset. That worked.
I now check ratings sites to see if a show is likely to be cancelled before I start watching. If a show appears doomed, I just delete the episodes from my PVRs.

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 18:38 kcbrk32

1. The only time I recall being given information on channel packaging is when I was contemplating changing my cable service. Once one is signed up, the information no longer flows except to try to sell you more pay per views or vod's. The information is available online anytime I need to know something.
2. There appear to be very few competitors of the same nature in a single marketplace. That is - I think Shaw is the only cable provider in my area ... I do have other online choices for watching programming, but to my knowledge, if I want cable where I live there is only the one provider.
3. Shaw is not good at accurate programming listing on the program guide channels both basic cable and digital cable. The basic cable program guide is incorrect more times than correct and the digital cable program guide, while being considerably better, still has incorrect or incomplete information. If that was my record I'd be embarrassed.
4. Thus far my senses remain intact, so the accessibility options are not applicable.
5. I see the CRTC keeps allowing cable companies to increase their rates with little or no discernable difference in quality to the consumer ... and then various record setting profits making the news. Who is on the consumer's side in this issue? I can't think of anything or anyone who would be in a position to reverse things being imposed on me in this regard. On occasion one sees the notice for CAB - usually in the months preceding a channel's application for license renewal - but this is a self-regulated body, no? Never a good thing.
6. I think web content will be the driving factor in informed content consumption in future. People will find out online which shows are available to be watched.

Monday, November 11, 2013 - 14:25 Gartner Entertainment

1. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to understand your service options, including packaging and pricing?
We subscribe to Rogers cable and any information we require about our service is available on-line. If there are problems, we can always call them on the telephone.
2. Are you experiencing barriers that prevent you from changing your television packages or switching to another television distributor? If so, what are those barriers?
"Packages" is the operative word here. That is the barrier. The fact that after getting basic cable, consumers are then restricted with what packages are available is a HUGE barrier to our television experience. As noted in an earlier post, although we don't watch a lot of sports, we do like watching Canadian sporting events, such as curling or the CFL and the Grey Cup. However, those are only available on TSN which we can only watch if we subscribe to it through a package that includes other channels we are not at all interested in. Not having Canadian curling events available on the CBC or at least, on the basic cable channel, is a travesty and serves to only weaken our Canadian culture.
We are also bound by a contract that lasts a certain number of months - called "bundling". If we decide to cancel part of our contract, for example, cancel our cable TV, we will be penalised as well as losing the bundle discount.
Another barrier is the fact that our area is only serviced by Rogers Cable TV. Bell TV is available, but only by satellite. We are unable to change our TV cable provider because there isn't another alternative.
3. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to make informed choices about programming that you may consider inappropriate for you or your family?
Somewhat unsatisfied. Unless you search for the programme information on-line (we use the TV listing called Zap-2-it: www.affliliate.zap2it.com), Rogers does not easily provide information about the programmes on the telly. Some people may still read the TV directory that comes in a weekly newspaper. We are also aware of any warnings that appear before the programme starts televising (eg. "Warning: the following programme contains mature subject matter.").
4. Do you have a visual or hearing impairment? If so, how satisfied are you with the tools available to enable you to share in our television culture?
No, we are neither visually or hearing impaired at this time, but possibly as we age we will require the services such as closed captioning. Under the Ontario Disabilities Act, these services will soon be law.
5. Do you know where you can voice your concerns over television content, your television services and bills?
Yes, there are many options: complaining directly to the broadcasters, to the cable service provider (in our case, it's Rogers), to the CRTC or to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage of which the CRTC is an arms-length branch, or contacting our MP. One can also write letters to newspapers.
6. How do you think we will make informed content choices as program viewers and consumers in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?
I have answered this question in the two previous discussion groups. My response has not changed.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 10:57 LJM

1. Honestly, we set it up awhile back and have been happy ever since. No one in our house feels like their missing out on anything. And if we are, its usually because we dont get channels like USA and STARZ in Canada.
2. Theres no real barriers other than actually doing it. Were not on contract and the equipment is all rented. So in theory, I can jsut give it back and change to another company. I probably wont because I get a discount with have internet and home phone.
3. TV is easy. I have parental locks set up anyways. Now the internet.... based on the browser history either I have a very curious 12 year old son, or an even more curious husband.
4. N/A
5. I usually just call in and complain if theres an issue. Sometimes I end up being on hold for awhile and have to talk to more than one person but usually everything gets sorted out... eventually (with a lot of patience)...
6. Most likely shows will focus on marketing on facebook even more than they do now.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 14:13 Christina

1. The guys in the store make it pretty easy to understand the packages, their a real lifesaver!
2. Theres always deals to switch to but i know how mine works and its a good deal for what i get
3. I guess pretty easy. I just have to press the Guide button on the clicker to get all the information i need
4. No
5. Like i said, i go to the store and they always help me out. They gave me their business card so i can call them if i have problems
6. 5, 10, 15 years from now, people still need jobs, so theres still going to be the stores. I’ll just keep going back to the store. They do a great job of putting everything together really easy to understand

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 13:18 Ger123

The only issue I have is that if we want to watch one program such as TSN to watch such sporting programs as curling, we have to purchase the package (Bell TV) which makes it very expensive. Plus I also wanted to mention how TV companies are allowed to increase their rates twice in one year with no improvement in their services.


Monday, November 18, 2013 - 02:07 sanmos

Bottom line: regulations and things such as geoblocking are only hurting Canadians in terms of choice and price.
Services such as Hulu and Vudu are fantastic services enjoyed by millions of Americans while Canadians are left with no equivalent. Even Netflix is vastly superiour in the United States. For $8/month Hulu would give the average Canadian everything they cared to watch that they are currently being forced to pay $60/month in a cable package. Canadians deserve much better.
Answers to questions:
1. N/A ... we no longer use cable/satellite packages. We switched to online services such as Netflix and won't be going back.
2. The only barrier we run into is geoblocking. Content that is available in the United States should be available here, and vice versa. If Canadians are willing to pay for those services, why stop them? And vice versa?
3. N/A ... we no longer use cable/satellite provider. However, I feel like it's up to parents to research and implement tools to limit access to inappropriate programming. Smart TV's, smart phone apps, and game consoles all have parental tools and it's up to us to learn how to use them.
4. No we do not have a visual impairment .
5. We know where we can voice our concerns, but rarely are our voices ever heard. Thank you for this forum and I sincerely hope you read all of these entries.
6. Informed content choices will come from reviews, social media buzz, and ratings systems. This is how it should be and not any particular program that is forced down the throats of Canadian consumers. Technology should aid Canadian consumer choices and not impede them.

Monday, November 18, 2013 - 17:58 jdbethun

Packaging and pricing is clear, just not fair. Also Canadians DO NOT want to have content blocked in Canada. Do not restrict content/apps/websites to be restricted in Canada. Hulu, Netflix (full library), Google Music, all these things should not be restricted in Canada. Instead we are force to bundle our tv channels and pay more for content that we dont even want just to watch live sports.
The barriers are there is an ogolopy between service providers in Canada and the choices and prices are ultimately the same across the big three. There should also be no contracts for TV.
TV ratings in Canada could be a little more strict. I feel offensive language and adult content are not rated for the appropriate age groups.
Right now this forum seems like the FIRST and ONLY outlet for Canadian consumers to voice their frustrations about watching TV in Canada. There seems to be no way to see change or be heard as a group which is extremely frustrating. Canadians should be able to watch their content across any device with the same quality experience and it should all be delivered over the web in the next 5-10 years. Also the Canadian government needs to have a better ear to the ground towards the Canadian satisfaciton level when it comes to content in Canada.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 16:04 Peter

It is extremely important that small Canadian broadcasters are not lost in the bid to unbundle cable offerings. Part of protecting our culture is keeping the stations that play our stories.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 20:08 Talia Pura

Cable services in Canada are far to monopolized. I am a Rogers cable subscriber and I HATE them. They are overpriced and love to hide things. They offer free services to new customers yet those who have spent a lifetime of money with them get no incentives or breaks. I have currently downgraded to basic services bundled with my telephone and internet. I asked the representative what channels were included in the basic package and she did not even know. I still pay through the teeth. I have television stations we never watch yet I have to pay for them. I cannot have 1 channel I would like unless I pay an additional $70 per month and take a package of stations I again do not want. We have decided that after Christmas we are going to cancel our cable tv services as well as our telephone. We are going to a Magic jack and internet only. I cannot argue with the cable company any more about their immoral practices nor do I want to. I will also be looking for alternate internet services just to get completely away from this horrible company and the disgusting cost. I was paying more for cable services than Iwasfor hydro. It's our money and as consumers we should be allowed to choose where it is spent when it comes to entertainment services. The company does not care one bit about customers-all they care about is the almighty dollar.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 19:20 Summer

I neglected to mention I also currently rent one of the first PVR's on the market. Rogers charges me $20 per month. Both my Dad and my cousin were given free PVR's for switching their services from Bell to Rogers. I even encouraged them to do so. Feeling I have paid more than enough in rental fees over the years for my PVR I called and asked for that charge to be eliminated. I was told absolutely not. At this point it doesn't work properly anymore and I will be returning it in the next few days-cost eliminated. Finally, my son has his cell phone package with Rogers as well. He has a My 5 package that we have been told is no longer available to customers. They would like him to switch to a contract package. The package he has now is controllable and perfect for him. Rogers continues to harass him with phone calls requesting he make this change even though he has told them no. My son is autistic and this is the last thing I need causing him anxiety in his life. Once again, showing only care for the money they will make. I have actually thought about calling my lawyer in regard to this issue. I don't expect my comments to make a single bit of difference. Money makes the world go round.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 20:08 Summer

My service provider (Rogers) does a bad job at informing me. They do send notices of increased rates but they did not do a good job of informing me of changes of service in my package, nor a great job of changes in channel placement or the switch from analog to digital. I feel highly suspicious of their motives and that I have very little choice. I would like to remain on analgo cable and there is no information on those packages on the website (or it is extremely hard to find). I am an educated consumer and would try other services such as Fibe but I am unwilling to sign a 2 year contract. It is unfair that I should be committed to pay for a service if I am dissatisfied with the quality. I am considering swtiching to OTA.

I am sure that many people feel this way. My elderly parents are considering cancelling their cable service as well.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 14:46 Square Eyes

I've gotten cable from Telus, Rogers, Shaw, Bell and Videotron. All provided adequate support and information. Telus was the best. It's too late to do anything now, but I think it was a big mistake to let a single cable company hold a monopoly in a geographic area. There was no competition.
Canadian broadcasting is slow to react to technological changes. I remember living in a northern community where one, sometimes two (when the TV gods were angry we got something they used to call "snow" instead of a broadcast), over-the-air channels were available. A cable company came to town around the time that satellite dishes appeared for sale. Like about a quarter of the area residents, we lived on the outskirts of town where it was too expensive to lay cable, so we were out of luck until a group of local businessmen put up a satellite dish and made the broadcasts available for free to everyone. We were in heaven, stumbling into work on three hours sleep because we could finally watch movie channels. Then the government said it was illegal and made them take it down and it was back to the one, sometimes two, OTA station. This time it's a bit more complicated with content providers, distributors, broadcasters and many others involved. It would help if the CRTC, or the others themselves, explained all the regulation and how they affect us and what we can do about it.

Friday, November 22, 2013 - 18:49 polishtheday
Date modified: