Well, US satellite dishes is a little different. Their signals are encrypted and require a subscription (or other means...) to view them. The Radiocommunications Act is pretty clear on the unauthorized reception of encrypted communications. OTA is in-the-clear and always has been.
This is why functional separation needs to be enforced.
Expletive, yes! Yes yes YES! Expletive!
What's it going to take before we get some traction on this idea? This vertical integration is a killer for consumers and tangentially, is something that's well on the way in computing "devices", a la Apple et al. Gorge rising.
Yep that's why even if you have a subscription(authorized), it's still illegal in Canada. So..not so different after all.
Except that in order to legally get that subscription the provider needs to be authorized to operate in Canada. Last I checked neither Dish nor DirecTV have that green light.
Simple solution network providers should be just that. Sell access to their network so people can get on the internet but they can't provide create/distribute content. Then vice versa for content providers.
Except that in order to legally get that subscription the provider needs to be authorized to operate in Canada. Last I checked neither Dish nor DirecTV have that green light.
Which goes right back to my original statement where when it was in a semi-legal to grey area, and they decided to outright ban them. You know because we had to "protect" the other companies.
Which goes right back to my original statement where when it was in a semi-legal to grey area, and they decided to outright ban them. You know because we had to "protect" the other companies.
Dish and DirectTV do not own the rights from the content owners to distribute in Canada. If they were to knowingly sell in to Canada, they would be sued for breach of contract by the owners of the various channels.
Dish and DirectTV do not own the rights from the content owners to distribute in Canada. If they were to knowingly sell in to Canada, they would be sued for breach of contract by the owners of the various channels.
And that is a completely different issue now isn't it?
You think the Canadian media companies are bad? The USA is very protective of media rights. And they should be, it's pretty much the most valuable (only?) thing they export these days.
You think the Canadian media companies are bad? The USA is very protective of media rights. And they should be, it's pretty much the most valuable (only?) thing they export these days.
That, and their laws ..... FATCA, IP provisions in trade treaties, etc....
And Marc dropped the ball in a big way. Content is content. Delivery method is irrelevant to the customer - the reason people want "TV" is because it's easy. It doesn't require thought and it's easy to browse what's out there and access it. Instead Marc submitted that content delivered in one way is different from content delivered in another.
Here are the highlights from today so far (I missed Netflix presentation)
Rep for WDIV (Scripps) was annoyed at the PQ of his station as carried in his Ottawa/Gatineau hotel. But most hotels I have stayed at have awful TV service. They don't like Canadian BDU's rebroadcasting their signals, although the program creators get compensated the local station being simsubbed gets nothing. They brought up a particular situation where the closed caption data was not being rebroadcasted and they fielded complaints from people in Northern Ontario. Strangely, they don't see US ads being broadcast in Canada as remotely interesting or of any value, say for a business in a border city.
Canadian Advertisers are annoyed that Netflix doesn't have ads and they can't access that market or other specialty channels coming from the US. They are terrified of discontinuing simsubs. They want to invade our privacy and get viewership data directly from set top boxes so they can "monetize" more of us. Commission challenged them on the fact that TV advertising revenues are declining but they are pleading to keep the status quo "delicate ecosystem" - more denial of their inevitable demise. Chairman asked why Canadian Superbowl ads aren't as good as the US ones: Canadian advertisers would rather spend advertising money on the Stanley Cup.
Today, Blais got really hot under the collar at Netflix when he kept pressing them for confidential information to be delivered to the CRTC by Monday. See the last couple minutes here »www.cpac.ca/en/programs/ ··· 5620446/
Netflix said that they were having discussions with CRTC's lawyers about how their confidential information would be treated, and that if Netflix was satisfied with the answers that they would provide the information.
Blais really blew it. He didn't see that Netflix's point person & Netflix as a whole was NOT familiar with just what CRTC's 'confidentiality' regime consisted of (Netflix & their point person being Amurrican and that 'confidentiality *might* legally mean something different under CRTC rules vs. FCC rules), and that Netflix was trying to understand it before they released the information to the CRTC. I think Blais needs to publicly apologize to the person from Netflix for what appears to me to be outright hostility. Normally I like Blais, but he certainly went too far with Netflix.
If Blais does not apologize then he fucking well better start holding the incumbents in the same sort of harsh public contempt for the continued bald-faced lies the incumbents try to foist on the CRTC & the citizens of Canada.
Blais has nothing to apologize for. Without getting into the false information issue, there are two reasons what she did was inappropriate. First, it's the responsibility of the lawyers to know this type of information before entering a market or when changes the regulations are made they figure it out. Going into a federal proceeding unprepared like that is unprofessional. Second, this is a federal commission hearing - it'd be like her going in front of a Congressional hearing in the US and refusing to provide information. The difference between doing that in the US and doing it here is that in the US they'd be held in contempt.
I say good on him for asserting the power he has to put Netflix in their place.
It also sucks available airtime, because now a "Canadian" station is broadcasting the same show as an American one.
That too. His theory seems to be that if more advertising dollars are available for Canadian productions, the Canadian productions will get better in order to attract more viewers and dollars.
Blais has nothing to apologize for. Without getting into the false information issue, there are two reasons what she did was inappropriate. First, it's the responsibility of the lawyers to know this type of information before entering a market or when changes the regulations are made they figure it out. Going into a federal proceeding unprepared like that is unprofessional. Second, this is a federal commission hearing - it'd be like her going in front of a Congressional hearing in the US and refusing to provide information. The difference between doing that in the US and doing it here is that in the US they'd be held in contempt.
I say good on him for asserting the power he has to put Netflix in their place.
You clearly didn't hear what Netflix was saying .... that they would provide the info if they were given assurance that the information was to truly be held in confidence.
If it were me, I too wouldn't give the CRTC anything (as a first-time participant not knowing the complete rules and nuances and having something in writing which assured me). That's what the discussions with the CRTC's legal counsel was all about. Those discussions had just not reached a conclusion in Netflix's mind.
Blais may be a lawyer (or maybe not). The other commissioners may/may not be lawyers, but they're ALL the GOVERNMENT's political appointees. I'd want my own lawyers to be satisfied by representations from CRTC staff lawyers - who could be disbarred if they knowingly gave Netflix false information. The Commissioners are not held to the same standard in a hearing situation.
You could say that Neflix were amateurs - as you have implied. I'd say that they were doing their due diligence and awaiting further clarification from CRTC counsel.
First Blais says he's insulted when Netflix questions their confidentiality, then he says he never guaranteed confidentiality.
If I were Netflix I wouldn't give them anything. If they want to take away the exception it'll be the CRTC Canadians blame when they can no longer use the service, not Netflix.
You clearly didn't hear what Netflix was saying .... that they would provide the info if they were given assurance that the information was to truly be held in confidence.
I watched the entire thing and heard every word. What she kept asking for was a guarantee which the commission is not able to provide. The commission will hold it in confidence but they cannot override other laws just because Netflix wants a guarantee. That's the crux of it - if a court rules that the information should be released in the public's interest per an access to information request there's nothing the commission can do but comply.
First Blais says he's insulted when Netflix questions their confidentiality, then he says he never guaranteed confidentiality.
Again, it's because the CRTC must obey the law as well. They will keep the confidence up until the point at which they are required by an access to information request to release it. Such a request would have such an infinitesimal chance of being granted. Since the possibility exists that a court could overrule the confidentiality they can't legally guarantee it (or Netflix could sue the government for breach of contract).
Blais sounded like he was threatening Netflix with the removal of an exemption order for New Media - directed solely at Netflix.
What would the CRTC have done - banned Netflix for delivering content to Canadians? demanded that Netflix not deliver content in the US to VPN's legally operating in the US or other countries?,
Call me Chapter 11 of NAFTA if that ever happened. If I were Netflix in that instance, I'd be looking for a few billion in damages.
Question: Was Netflix a) compelled by the CRTC to participate in these proceedings b) invited by the CRTC to participate in these proceeding c) voluntarily appeared of their own accord?