Ontario Government Wants To Regulate the Internet 184
An anonymous reader writes This afternoon, the Ontario government appeared before the CRTC as
part of its future of television hearing. Michael Geist reports
that it issued a clear call for new regulation of so-called new
media companies such as Netflix and Google. The government states: "In order to create a more level playing field, the ministry
recommends decreasing this regulatory imbalance. The ministry
believes the best way to accomplish this is to expand the
regulation of new media TV, rather than by lightening the current
regulation of traditional TV." What does the expansion of regulation involve? For the Ontario
government, it includes regulating
foreign online video services such as Google and Netflix, but
exempting Canadian services.
Government doesn't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Government doesn't get it. They don't control it. Sure, I would like to regulate the orbit of the planets but that is outside my realm. Likewise, the Canadian government is not just impotent but incompetent to think they could actually control foreign entities. Bozos.
Re: (Score:2)
Since broadcasting is pretty much a Federal power in Canada, I'm not sure, whatever the other flaws in Ontario's plans, whether they even have the constitutional right to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution says no, in black and white, but unfortunately Canadian courts like to make up the constitution as they go, so much so that they themselves have no idea what is constitutional and what is not.
Re: (Score:3)
It starts with a U, and ends with a nited States of America.
Wait, lets say the entire concept of a constitution as this iron clad protection of rights is a silly concept because the world doesn't work that way.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
I actually watched the hearing live - the CRTC (federal) asked the Ontario government representative (one presenter of many) "what are you going to do when the headlines read Ontario Government Wants To Regulate the Internet?". He of course tried to side step it as "just new media" but no one was really buying into what the Ontario rep was selling.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly wouldn't be "new media"? Does Flickr and the ilk count if they allow you to search what would otherwise be impossible with random hard copy photos? How about FB? If you start spending 4 hours a day reading your friends blog rather than watching TV does that become "new media"? Slippery slope. If they restrict it to precisely the areas of old media it is replacing, music, long format video maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly why nobody was buying what the rep was selling. CRTC's questions are usually rather passive but in this case they grilled the Ontario rep and poked so many holes in his presentation it was embarrassing.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you agree that a human right cannot be a right if it trumps some other human right?
Don't be fucking stupid, all human rights conflict other rights. My right to swing my fist is trumped by your right to not get punched in the head. my right of passage is trumped by your right to privacy.
One of the governments jobs is to balance rights. Whether it is restricting my right to swing my fist in favour of your right not to get punched or my right to make a living vs your right to exploit me.
From your viewpoint you should have the right to kick weaker people around. As a society we've decided you shouldn't have the right to kick weaker people around. I'm sorry that we're infringing on your right to kick people around but some of us don't like being kicked around.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, well personally I think that human rights exist irrespective of government and there are lots of things that I don't do because they interfere with others rights.
Some people don't believe in universal rights and the only reason they don't do certain things is from fear of punishment which is why we need some government. Even your privilege of owning property is only due to the government protecting your privilege.
If you really think not having a government around means more individual rights, there's l
Re: (Score:3)
By explicitly using the phrase "government," you are using a much different definition of human right than other people use. If a gang sweeps through the jungle with machetes to eliminate the Tutsis, the Tutsis' human rights are violated. If Boko Haram kidnaps a school-full of girls, those girls' human rights have been violated. Those rights are seen as inalienable, a right that you are entitled to just for being human. If the FBI violates your human rights, they are just as violated as if the local KKK do
Re: (Score:3)
For a start government creates the concept of ownership of property. All property is owned by the government, the people that create that government and that government just allots control of elements that it owns based upon rules created by the individuals that form that government. First and foremost is rule of self ownership a right right fought for with the deaths of millions for centuries and screw any asshat that puts property rights about personal rights. So the employee always takes precedence over
Re: (Score:2)
I know several white teenagers in the Eminem era that would disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever hit a "this service is not available in your country" message?
Not only can they control online services, they will
Obviously with a small effort most technically savvy people can find ways around roadblocks like this but not for the average user and not always legal. Which is what should piss people off.
There is nothing wrong with your television set. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – The Outer Limits.
Just a bit before their time.
Re: (Score:2)
Governements control people and entities made up of groups of pople by exerting punishments on them.
There are various ways a government can attempt to punish a corporation beyond their borders. For example they can order those within their borders to make efforts to block access to the corporations services. They can order those within their borders not to do buisness with the foriegn corporation (It's kinda hard to sell services to a market if you can't get paid easilly by people in that market) . They can
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't want to control foreign entities, they want to control the cultural inputs their subjects are exposed to. We're going to keep seeing more and more such efforts as the Internet threatens to create non-geographic groups for people to identify with, which in the extreme would make local powers into little more than regional managers.
After all, the idea that people owe allegiance to a distant capital rather than a particular city is relatively new one. Who's to say loyalty to a web forum couldn't end up outweighting loyalty to a nation?
Re: (Score:3)
Courts in the US, Canada, and the UK all disagree with your statement. Operating in a country does not require you to have a physical presence anymore, just "meaningful ties".
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
The British disagreed with their Empire breaking up, but it did anyway. Nor was Soviet leadership capable of keeping power through force despite controlling the military. Or perhaps we should as Gaddafi how it's going?
Nations are held together by a nebulous thing called legitimacy. Totalitarianism is a system where the state's legitimacy is absolute: it can do whatever it pleases. The other end of the spectrum is constitutionalism, where the state earns legitimacy by safeguarding the interests of its citizens. Nowadays we see an emergence of a third "pole", where a state's legitimacy depends from not just how it treats its citizens but also from how it behaves as a part of the international community. We are seeing the rise of an world system, a "city of nations", so to say. Sadly, just as humans are prone to self-centered megalomania, so are our social systems. Thus we should expect jealous attempts to claim "their" people's loyalty through, for example, nationalism and censorship.
Of course the irony is that a properly working world system will be a far safer place with more opportunity than the violent chaos of ages past for nations, just like a nation is a safer place with more opportunity than a jungle for humans. But that doesn't stop people from bitterly complaining how they're robbed by taxes, even as the only reason they have any income to tax besides whatever berries they managed to grap while running from lions is the very infrastructure maintained by said taxes. And of course would-be tyrants see their window of opportunity slipping away, and have every reason to delay the inevitable as long as possible by stirring up trouble and creating resentment. They'll fail, but time will tell how long it'll take.
Re: (Score:2)
hunwha? The legitimacy you speak of is the courts exercising the rule of law. The courts in all 3 countries established that existing laws put foreign companies operating inside territorial borders in a meaningful way (example: amazon.ca or attempting to earn profit from people in the territory) are subject to the laws of that territory. The same law applies to every company regardless of sector
Re: (Score:2)
Courts are claiming jurisdiction. Since the courts do not have magical powers, what if any effect the claim has depends on whether the people needed to enforce it, or in positions
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, courts do not have magical powers - but the rule of law and application of the law is within their domain. If it's not enforceable, it's not up to the courts to enforce it beyond issuing court orders to be enforced by others in the government.
Justice being served is a separate issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Not when they control the nodes of access on the data network.
Well, at least in this case, they can enforce even against "meaningful ties" insomuch as if they do not play ball, they do not enter. Of course you could try a proxy and Tor but I imagine it would be a matter of time before that imposed risks on the user for circumventing their will.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, because of rule of law they can simply go after their money through various treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again an AC provides value to the thread.'
You read the article was about the Ontario government and now this thread is about US/CA/UK yet opted to post about how you dont live in these nations?
Since you are not in one of these jurisdictions, doesn't that make your post "completely moot"?
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue to operate in a country that does not fall under their jurisdiction, making their "decision" completely moot.
Is your country a signatory to the Berne Convention?
Has your country come under pressure to "harmonize" its copyright laws with US/Canada/Europe/Japan/etc?
Re: (Score:3)
This has little to do with Canadian Content. Most Canadians are well passed the 'Canadian Content' and tend to consume regular popular TV shows. I can't recall the last time cultural influence from 'America' was even an issue (except for maybe Quebec).
You will notice this comes from Ontario. Bell and Rogers have a huge presence here. As does the film and media industry.
It is about jobs and corporate welfare. This government has been very big on trying to create/contain jobs. Just today, Ontario wants to con
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, then perhaps they should start putting more Canadian shows on Netflix. I watch lots of Canadian shows on Hulu and Vudu, but Netflix seems to have a dearth of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you on Canadian Netflix? There are more Canadian shows on Netflix in Canada, compared to the U.S. Netflix.
At least, there were last time I checked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have you know that Canadian beer is just like American can beer, only 1% higher in alcohol content. And they're proud of it.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Government doesn't get it. They don't control it.
Not only that, but with the wording they're using, they'd get their ass handed to them in front of a WTO panel.
...it includes regulating foreign online video services such as Google and Netflix, but exempting Canadian services.
Either that, or may be their end game is to also regulate their own Canadian online streaming services and to claim surprise and innocence when the WTO requires them to impose the same regulation on their own industry.
Re: (Score:3)
So? who gives a fuck ? Do you know what country has the most rulings AGAINST them by the WTO? Find out and let me know. (I'll give you a hint: its name starts with UNITED).
Re: (Score:2)
So? who gives a fuck ?
There is one country that does care and that's Canada.
Canada does end up complying with WTO rulings, especially if the complainant in question is already a large trade partner to begin with, like the United States is.
Re: (Score:2)
The big Canadian cable/phone/internet companies are branching out into media and this is just a move to remove competition. In this case the people like netflix/google and hate bell/rogers so it won't fly.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Eh, can you blame them for wanting to "keep jobs in their country"? I mean, you americans (if you aren't american just ignore that part) just don't get it. The problem with Netflix is that they are US based. And their servers too. Netflix, for example, is available here in Argentina. But they don't have any local servers. They just stream straight from the US. The service sucks (international bandwidth is not the same as national. Or even local, as Netflix does in the US with hundreds of caches across the USA).
Netflix collects money from Argentinians and pays zero taxes in Argentina. They also don't invest here. And they effectively block the competition by making it economically impossible for a company to sell here since they won't be able to match their price (capital cost and taxes). This is the same for every other country that's not the US.
Canada has successfully regulated the TV industry, requiring a certain amount of local productions. This is why a LOT of US shows are actually shot in vancouver with canadian actors. Without this, the TV industry in Canada would be tiny. This is the same thing that happens here in south america: dozens of cable channels broadcasting only US shows.
Unfortunately, capitalism tends to centralize things to make it more efficient. The only way to force things to change is by legislation.
I don't like paying taxes either, but I would like if there was an industry of things, not just "arrogance" like "you don't have a right to collect taxes from me, I don't pay taxes in your country. Yes, i sell millions of my product there but i owe you nothing. And you better have a good infrastructure for me to be able to sell"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually Buenos Aires is trying to get Netflix to pay a 3% tax.
Argentinian netflix does have local movies. I watched Nueve Reinas (Nine Queens) there (if you're a netflix subscriber, would you please check for me if that's available in your region? If so, I'd also suggest you watch it).
The problem, as you say, if you buy a car and have it shipped, you pay tax. But services aren't taxed (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, i'm just stating a fact). And, as you say, if they don't have offices, they shouldn't pay anything. And this is where it gets interesting: why should any american company have offices outside the US? Everything they do is online or over the phone. You don't go to a netflix office.
As for the quota of local content: yes, I don't want to see crap shows on TV to meet a quota, but, as you say, the production value is different. The US has a huge advantage: they have their own market, which is gigantic. And they own the distribution too. They don't make their shows to "export", they do because it doesn't cost them more money.
But other countries don't have that advantage, and they have to play in a completely unfair game. How do you expect your country's productions to get better if they just simply can't because they have to compete with TV shows?
A TV show in the US has a budget of millions of dollar per episode. High profile shows even have millions of dollars in salaries, per actor, per episode. You can't really expect a TV show made in Suriname to have a $2M budget per episode. Not even for a whole season. No other country shoots their TV shows on FILM like the US does (or used to do - probably now it's all 4K video). All other countries shoot on SD video - that should give you an idea of how much the americans can spend for production - and also: now they can re-release all their old shows in HD (because their source material is able to give you that resolution). Try that with European shows - oopsie: they were shot on video. Good luck competing with that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are things on youtube produced with a very small budget that are still very entertaining,
Re: (Score:2)
Try Lazarus Form Recovery.
As for "guerrilla" shows, that's pretty much how it works. Other countries resort to "content", but American shows can have content AND be super-productions (HBO shows), so it's hard to compete.
Argentina is able to give you a high profile movie, for example. See "The secret in their eyes" by Juan Jose Campanella. Fantastic movie, and rare as it had VFX and shots from an helicopter, something rarely seen in low budget stuff like what we're used to. (Disclaimer: Campanella worked in
Re: (Score:2)
But services aren't taxed (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, i'm just stating a fact).
Yes they are. Most sales taxes are in fact Goods and Services Taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about international taxes (Import tariffs)
Re: (Score:2)
...But services aren't taxed (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, i'm just stating a fact)...
Clearly, you aren't from Canada. Here, we tax the snot out of everything [wikipedia.org]. Services aren't taxed? HAH! 13%. On everything. Electricity, gasoline, the mechanic's labour. Everything. 13%
Even new houses and used (!) cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where in Canada you are. Here it's 5% and 7% Provincial tax on real stuff. Next door they don't even have the provincial tax. Besides if you're rich enough you get that 13% back, just need a business and GST number. That's why your province is doing so good with cheaper goods and zero unemployment, at least that was what was promised here when they tried to stick us with the 12%.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of trade is that another country can do something better/faster/cheaper. If you can't compete then don't compete - don't invent some imaginary barriers then use lots of logic fallacies to defend it.
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that's not how the world works. Sorry.
You see, you live in the USA. Your country is the biggest piece of shit when it comes to fair trade.
Why? Because you CANNOT compete. So you create bullshit regulations and trade barriers. But you go around the world bullying other countries to sign free trade agreements with you. So you can dump our countries with your crap - but we can't sell to you.
I'm from Argentina. We can't sell lemons to you (even though our lemons are cheaper than yours), and we can't sell beef to you (even though or beef is perfectly healthy). The US claims our beef is contaminated with Foot-and-mouth disease, so they won't accept it. All it takes is ONE case in my country for you to completely block us for years. Think about it for a little and figure it out. Have you? Let me explain: all it takes is for someone from the US to infect ONE of our cows - for the US to completely block trade for one of our main industries.
And the US works ACTIVELY so other countries CANNOT develop. For example, when Argentina was working on a 4K video codec, the US government, by way of "export controls" didn't allow nVidia to sell us more than 4 (four) Tesla units - for the whole country.
See? THAT is how the world works. Not with your libertarian free market theory.
Re: (Score:2)
How would they stop you from simply flying there, buying 10 of them and taking them home in your suitcase?
It's not like they check your passport when you buy them is it?
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to go through customs. 10 teslas is a lot of money (you can't walk into a country with $50K in cash).
Texas Instruments sends me free samples sometimes. Last time I tried to order a DAC (Analog to digital converter) for AUDIO. Since it was considered, by US customs, a "data processing" device, i had to sign a statement swearing I'm not a military entity and it wasn't going to be used for military purposes.
Getting INTO the US is a whole different story. Read up on the VISA application program a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To ALLY countries!
Argentina isn't an ally of the US. And, of course, that means Argentina is an enemy of the US. The US has "allies" and several levels of enemies. The US doesn't have "neutral" relationships with any country. Either you do what they say or they pretend not to care, but screw you later on.
Assange says Argentina's problem with holdouts is because of our "agreement" with Iran (to investigate the bombing of AMIA). Initially the US said they would support Argentina's cause, but now they've chang
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They don't have allies. But they have several levels of not-enemy-at-the-moment. Also the status can change very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can, because "keeping jobs in their country" is just another name for crony capitalism: it doesn't actually do sh*t for jobs, but it does do something for uncompetitive industries.
You got it backwards. The primary reason for "centralization" and lack of competitiveness is legislation, as powerful cor
Re: (Score:2)
. The problem with Netflix is that they are US based.
Say what? Why would you care about where they are based? I do not care. I have purchased entertainment from Eastern European countries and Northern European countries and I felt no different than paying for my son's Netflix account. Whoever earns my money will get it. I do not care where they are.
Netflix, for example, is available here in Argentina. But they don't have any local servers. They just stream straight from the US. The service sucks (international bandwidth is not the same as national.
I am sure if it were affecting their bottom line and your government did not intervene, they would be more than happy to install local servers. Again, what does it matter if they are US based or running out of Viet
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government doesn't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, the Canadian government is not just impotent but incompetent to think they could actually control foreign entities
Of course they can. They can block netflix traffic at the canadian border.
And if netflix operates servers within canada, then those will be subject to the laws of canada.
Seems to me Canada can effectively regulate netflix for "canadian content requirements" if it wishes.
Whether this is 'good for canada' or "good for the internet" remains open questions, but it would be consistent with the regulation in place already for broadcast / cable tv, and the idea that they can't do it for select large internet streaming services is ridiculous. They most certainly can - half the work is done for them.
Due to licensing agreements for the content, major streamers already "arbitrarily" limit and restrict what is available in different companies, so all the infrastructure to do it is already in place. Incorporating a layer of government regulation wouldn't be particularly onerous.
I disagree with the Canadian content requirements, (although I do endorse the governments efforts to promote Canadian content); so I'm against what the government is proposing here. However, that doesn't mean its impractical for them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
what is available in different companies,
In different *countries*
Netflix for example, maintains separate servers with a separate library for Canada.
(And therefore complying with canadian content rules for the libary would not be particularly difficult)
Re: (Score:2)
Government doesn't get it. They don't control
Ermm... you are wrong.
They are controlling it, and they have been working on controlling Internet for years now.
Although many people used to say "They can't win", they actually did win some time ago.
This is a denial phase, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to build the Great Wall of Canada - Good Luck with that, and good luck getting elected on it...
I would be angy too... (Score:2)
...if my country lost the earnings from Trailer Park Boys!
Wouldn't it be nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And that alone shows you how Canadian media companies are just incredibly stupid. They want to block Netflix in every possible way but then they shoot themselves in the foot by not making their own services available to all Canadians, knowing that most of the population don't have access to multiple ISPs except in the half-dozen major cities of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Your libertarian, free market theory says if they do, someone else will start a thriving business because of that.
Ontario == China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When users try to visit a blocked site they are met with a screen politely asking them not to go to the website?
Wait, I know this one... (Score:2)
An overregulated province anyway... (Score:5, Informative)
The government has a monopoly on all liquor sales. You aren't even allowed to buy certain cough medicines unless there is a licensed pharmacist on premises, even though while they're busy in the back you can just grab the stuff off the shelf. All stores MUST be closed on certain statutory holidays even if there are people willing to work those days, and the store is fined heavily if it opens anyway.
All of this is, of course, theatrics designed to garner the perception of an effective government while the Ontario government debt has risen by a third or $90B over the last five years alone [wikipedia.org]. And they're worried about regulating foreign OTT services? I predict spectacular failure as it has been for the longest time in the province.
Re: (Score:2)
Alberta also has private liquor stores.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to this, when the government tried to sell off the BCL stores and privatize the whole thing, the people complained heavily so we still have them.
Its funny, as usual the sell by the right wing government was that private liqueur stores would be cheaper and more efficient (and they donated a lot of money to the election campaign). Well we have lots of private liqueur stores and they're 10-20% more expensive then government stores and the government stores often have more expensive locations, pay more t
Re: (Score:2)
." So you get things like mandatory Grade 13 for students going into Ontario universities (but those from outside the province don't need to take it), mandatory business closure on boxing day (even though the reason for this is lost in the mists of time for most),
Outdated info. The Ontario Academic Credit (OAC/"Grade 13") year was removed by Mike Harris (PC-ONT) back in `01-`02 (a sibling was a member of the double-cohort year [Grade 12s and OACs graduating and applying to university at the same time -- basically a royal clusterf***]). Also, I worked retail through my teens (`90s), always worked the 26th of December. And no, I was not in a designated "tourist attraction" mall (and yes, that loophole IS stupid -- either it's illegal to be open on x day or it isn
Re: (Score:2)
Ontario made wine? Shudders...
Is that like Canadian beer? Just like the bad American stuff but 1% higher alcohol content.
A tepid defence (Score:5, Informative)
I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.
I'm not sure Americans really understand what it's like for smaller countries who lack the population or money to compete with American media productions. People get so much culture from television that it's hard to maintain a national identity when there's a US megaphone next door that dominates mass media. In some ways a well functioning film industry is as important as a military. Just look at what's happening in Ukraine, the rebellion is most certainly not fuelled by East Ukrainians, however it would be hard for Russia to do what it's doing without the support of an East Ukrainian minority who feels closer to Russia and is scared by Kiev. Almost certainly Russia's game would be much more difficult if Ukraine had a mass media strong enough to forge a strong national identity in East Ukraine.
That being said I'm not sure how this works on the Internet, but smaller countries do have a reason to worry about getting swamped by culture from American websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only culture. There are economic interests too.
You see, every country sells goods and services to other countries. For this, they receive (gasp!) money, which goes into their reserves. These reserves are what makes that country's moneys worth something.
So, it's not in the best interest of Canadians to be funneling money into the US for something like a streaming service. It is, though, in the best interest of Americans that they do.
So, Canada tries to regulate Netflix, since Netflix, not being a US comp
Re: (Score:2)
Read that as: So, Canada tries to regulate Netflix, since Netflix, being a US company, pay taxes in the US. So, why should the Canadian government defend netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
True but that's the case for any kind of business with international customers.
That's actually got me wondering why politicians always talk about job creation when selling film and television subsidies since the underlying economics are so dodgy. It seems the true reason for subsidies is the cultural benefit from having a healthy film industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.
I can't speak for all video streaming services, but does not netflix canada already make the same percentage of canadian content available as required by the network broadcasters?
Personally I have no issues with making such options available, and while part of me wishes it was not required to force anyone to do it, but not enough broadcasters willingly would do so, and as you say there are problems with culture and identity being overtaken (although personally I think that's already happened - but not sayin
Re:A tepid defence (Score:5, Informative)
This is why the CBC and National Film Board of Canada are supposed to exist. If you want Canadian content, you can tune into the CBC or go to their free streaming music service etc and Netflix can carry the NFB catalog. Unluckily our government is starving these institutions out of ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about forcing people to watch anything? Maybe forcing Netflix to carry the NFB catalog, which is basically free. I've always had the freedom to watch American programming (well sometimes with Canadian ads injected but I think that was the cable company, Rogers at the time) though usually the Canadian channels got the prime channels on cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? Let America make the movies and Canada the Maple syrup.
And you want to maintain the fiction of a separate culture... why?
Re: (Score:3)
I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.
I'm not sure Americans really understand what it's like for smaller countries who lack the population or money to compete with American media productions. People get so much culture from television that it's hard to maintain a national identity when there's a US megaphone next door that dominates mass media.
Why does any of this matter? If your "national identity" is not strong enough to withstand the culture of another area, then your "national identity" was not unique or strong enough to justify its own existence.
I live in a foreign country and yet my "culture" is my own. There are very few cultural things here that are better than from my home country. The ones that are better, I integrate. The ones that are not, are ignored.
For example, one of the cultural things here that are superior to EVERYWHERE else I
Cancon... feh. (Score:3)
I'm Canadian and I'm completely fed up with Can-Con rules here. CBC Radio is pretty decent, but CBC TV is crap. If Canadian TV producers wanted Canadians to watch Canadian shows, here's an idea: Try making good shows once in a while.
(Funnily enough, my favourite TV channel is... TVO (TV Ontario), which is funded in part by the Ontario government, and which produces excellent kids' shows and great adults' shows like The Agenda. But for the most part, Canadian shows are crap, apart from documentaries and a few comedy shows, and the shows produced by private broadcasters are usually much worse than the ones produced by public broadcasters.)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Interestingly one of my favorite Canadian programs ("Made in Canada") spoofed the TV/media industry and regularly made fun of how sub-par Canadian content was.
The CRTC is fighting an un-winnable battle using stupid means. Through population and economy, the US can produce more and better (or at least more popular) content than we can. This is just a reality. We've produced some good stuff, but we simply don't have the mass to compete and probably never will. Requiring broadcasters to dedicate certain
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be the biggest company around to make quality TV people actually want to watch. The BBC is on this one tiny island yet they produce a dozen shows Americans (and others) gobble up. Top Gear alone is the most-watched "informative" show in the world. Hundreds of millions of people watch it. Doctor Who, Sherlock, etc etc.
Canada can make fewer, higher quality shows if they're able. But they don't seem to want to try.
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair. 'Trailer Park Boys' was good, if a little too embarrassingly real for some Canadians.
AKA turning the internet into crap for Canadians (Score:2)
Next week he will introduce measures to support the VHS tape industry.
At least he will now be remembered as one of the stupidest politicians of his generation. It is good to be remembered for something.
CBC online (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And all movies MUST be subtitled in French.
Subtitled? French first! All movies must be in French, and may, if you ask nicely (and in French), be subtitled in other languages.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really more of a federal government thing than an Ontario one.
Ontario would just require subtitles.
It's okay, though; as a Torontonian, I forgive you for not being able to make the distinction. It is the centre of the universe, after all.
Re:And all movies MUST be subtitled in French (Score:5, Funny)
I'm French! How do you think I got this outrageous accent?
Re: (Score:2)
Ontario, *not* Quebec.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wouldn't mind seeing more french subtitled titles on Netflix. They bothered to make a Canadian service, which is only roughly 12.5% of the potential USA market, but they haven't bothered to understand that nearly 25% of the Canadian population lives in Québec [wikipedia.org] and that most of them only speak french. I always watch in the native language with english or french subtitles, so I don't care personally but a lot of my friends which could be potential Netflix subscribers will never sign up because
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An American's opinion (Score:5, Funny)
Not to sound harsh, but Canada is a shithole and I would move to North Korea before I'd consider going up north.
Some people think Canadians are extraordinarily nice for how we deal with people like this, the truth is we simply have different ways of dealing with problems.
Consider the topic of justice and how to deal with bad people. The US is big into angry retributions and capital punishment, making sure people are punished harshly and everybody knows it.
Canada on the other hand simply tries to put bad people in a place where they don't bother anyone, and when someone does have to be punished we don't talk about it as much. In fact we're big believers in rehabilitation. Quite often we'll give the guilty something they really really want, hoping that in time they'll realize how terrible it is and discover the error of their ways.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand your anger and I'm sorry, we both know the US has been responsible for some terrible things, global warming, the Iraq War, NSA spying, etc, the list goes on for a while.
But sending Justin Beiber was definitely overkill.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to sound harsh, but you're a raving jackass who doesn't know anything about my country, and I'm quite happy you'd never live here.
Not to sound confused, but which country are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Nm, I did specify 'we' when referring to Canada so you're likely referring to the US. Which would be odd because unlike Lithuania or Kyrgyzstan the one thing you can be assured of is everyone does know a ton about your country.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst kind of 'knowledge'. The false kind that you are convinced is true.
Now go back to the trailer park. Lehey is trying to get you evicted...I know something about Canada too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is Rogers/Bell pushing the government to over regulate. At least TW/Comcast are cheap, have high bandwidths, high caps and better customer service compared to Rogers/Bell.
Re: (Score:2)
The standard packet size should be OVER 9000!!!
Re: (Score:2)