elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in 1 edit |
Bell to challenge Superbowl simsub rulingMan they're getting brazen, when they don't get their way, they go running to the courts. They claim the CRTC erred in law and was outside it's jurisdiction when it made the ruling and Canadian attitudes, opinions, and values. They argue that the CRTC is not authorized to single out a single broadcast. I'd be very very careful Mirko, the CRTC might just say NO MORE SIMSUB period. My attitude is simple, I hate Bell, my opinion is we get rid of simsub, and I value watching what I paid for, not a 2nd rate broadcast. » www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 3244271/ |
|
|
madio1
Anon
2015-Mar-2 1:35 pm
amen good on them |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
I see our resident Bell troll is back
Is that you Mirko? |
|
|
daeron
Member
2015-Mar-2 1:48 pm
said by elwoodblues:I see our resident Bell troll is back
Is that you Mirko? Easy to spot when all his/her's user names end in "1" lol |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
to elwoodblues
It's his evil twin, Marko. |
|
|
to elwoodblues
A company that takes normal civilians for standing up in a public court to Court to pay fees,
did you expect anything else from this company?
And the trolls will starting coming in, one by one, on the payroll.
What Canadians want vs Bell Canada |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
HiVolt
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 2:41 pm
They should have our country's name removed from their freakin name... Rename it to Bell Greed Enterprises. |
|
|
to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:They argue that the CRTC is not authorized to single out a single broadcast. They may not be, but you're right... if Bell pushes them too hard, the CRTC may come back with something they like even less... |
|
1 recommendation |
DanteX
Member
2015-Mar-2 3:24 pm
you Mean functional separation of their vertically integrated Imperial Empire? |
|
mazhurg Premium Member join:2004-05-02 Brighton, ON |
mazhurg
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 3:26 pm
One can always wish... |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17
3 recommendations |
to DanteX
said by DanteX:you Mean functional separation of their vertically integrated Imperial Empire? Not functional, but structural. Repeat after me (with apologies to The Beatles): {refrain} Na-na-na-na-na-na-na Break-up Bell. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:I see our resident Bell troll is back There's been quite a few of "them" (and it could be only one person) around here lately. I have even started to wonder if this is being sanctioned internally by Bell. Haven't they been caught doing this kind of stuff before? |
|
|
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by DanteX:you Mean functional separation of their vertically integrated Imperial Empire? Not functional, but structural. Repeat after me (with apologies to The Beatles): {refrain} Na-na-na-na-na-na-na Break-up Bell. Not even the NDP or the Duceppe-era BQ would have the balls. |
|
1 recommendation |
haroldpenel to Gone
Anon
2015-Mar-2 4:32 pm
to Gone
said by Gone:said by elwoodblues:I see our resident Bell troll is back There's been quite a few of "them" (and it could be only one person) around here lately. I have even started to wonder if this is being sanctioned internally by Bell. Haven't they been caught doing this kind of stuff before? Well bell prolly wont catch that guy cus he probably is just a normal guy who doesnt work for anybody he just wants to speak his mind. I can prove the people on here are crazy. I spent a lot of time posting in the cogeco forums (under a diff name but clearly using a bell ip addy) and just because of my knoledge people acused me of being an employee of theyres this is unfortnately so sad it has sunk to the lowest level. There ARE knowledgable people who dont necessarily have to be an insider or work for the company. They may very well love the products and services. I see that a lot at hofo meats maybe u guys should think of that before u call people trolls or srills or stalls or blobs |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON
2 recommendations |
Gone
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 4:40 pm
said by haroldpenel :They may very well love the products and services. I see that a lot at hofo meats maybe u guys should think of that before u call people trolls or srills or stalls or blobs Call me old fashioned, but I tend to give people who register an account the benefit of the doubt when posting their opinions. Anonymous posters don't receive the same benefit. |
|
|
2 recommendations |
to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:Man they're getting brazen, when they don't get their way, they go running to the courts.
They claim the CRTC erred in law and was outside it's jurisdiction when it made the ruling and Canadian attitudes, opinions, and values. They argue that the CRTC is not authorized to single out a single broadcast.
I'd be very very careful Mirko, the CRTC might just say NO MORE SIMSUB period.
My attitude is simple, I hate Bell, my opinion is we get rid of simsub, and I value watching what I paid for, not a 2nd rate broadcast.
»www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 3244271/ Good on them. Less then 8 percent actually want the us commercials so is it worth all the burocracy prolly not. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
to Gone
said by Gone:Anonymous posters don't receive the same benefit. Most Anonymous posters, are trolls (be it for fun or profit) and do so for maximum deniabilty. There's probably one Anon on this entire forum who posts anonymously out of principle, but he's one of the only Anons who does so for reasons (as opaque as they may be) that aren't to gain an advantage in their trolling. EQ |
|
|
captainsmith to Gone
Anon
2015-Mar-2 4:54 pm
to Gone
said by Gone:said by haroldpenel :They may very well love the products and services. I see that a lot at hofo meats maybe u guys should think of that before u call people trolls or srills or stalls or blobs Call me old fashioned, but I tend to give people who register an account the benefit of the doubt when posting their opinions. Anonymous posters don't receive the same benefit. thats your problem i give equal rights |
|
2 recommendations |
to captainsmith
said by captainsmith :Less then 8 percent actually want the us commercials Nice made up number. Even Bell's own survey, with a slanted question, had "almost 20%" of people wanting the US commercials. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna
1 recommendation |
to captainsmith
Re: Bell to challenge Superbowl simsub rulingThe internet, and this private business aren't a democracy. In short no rights are given or implied. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to captainsmith
Funny how that poll was a loaded question, so that the only real answer was no simsub |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to elwoodblues
Bell's question implied two things that are false:
1) That Bell paid for the right to simsub and that's being taken away
2) That Bell is being prevented from airing their own commercials during the superbowl
Neither are true. First, Bell never had a *right* to simsub, they merely had permission to do so. They also never paid for the right or permission to do so: this is not something that is owed to Bell.
Second, the CRTC ruling in no way prevents Bell from airing their own commercials during the superbowl on their own channels. They do that today, and they can do that forever. They are only being prevented from *replacing* the commercials on *FOX*. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
That never stopped Mirko from lying before. I wonder if he'll go after costs for anyone who said BOO during the Talk TV hearings. |
|
taraf join:2011-05-07 Ottawa, ON |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Second, the CRTC ruling in no way prevents Bell from airing their own commercials during the superbowl on their own channels. They do that today, and they can do that forever. They are only being prevented from *replacing* the commercials on *FOX*. Well, it does devalue the advertising airtime that they've probably already sold to Canadian advertisers, because it would no longer be a captive audience. You could also make the argument that the Superbowl advertising is of limited value in Canada because some of the advertisers don't offer products/services in Canada, but that's a question that FOX needs to sort out with their advertisers... personally, I don't really care one way or the other, because it's really quite rare that I watch something that's simsubbed in the first place. |
|
1 recommendation |
DanteX
Member
2015-Mar-2 8:13 pm
How about this if someone in Canada wants to see Canadian advertisements during the Superbowl then those people should watch the Superbowl on the Canadian station and let those who want to see the American station advertisements to do so . I cant understand why anyone would be forced to watch the Canadian feed int he first place when the consumer should get the choice of what to watch |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to taraf
It devalues the cost of the ad. The number of eyeballs is of no consequence, the ad price reflects that. |
|
Barry join:2008-11-04 Burlington, ON
1 recommendation |
to elwoodblues
I don't like the practice, but couldn't care less. The only difference is that Canadian commercials are twice as insufferable as American ones. |
|
|
to elwoodblues
I don't have cable, satellite or IP TV. Only OTA, so I can receive the American channels straight from Buffalo, NY, by aerial. So I do get the American commercials on those channels.
Having said that, I am not sure what's happening on cable, satellite or IP TV. If the Canadian TV providers replace the commercials on their own channels (e.g. CTV), I think they'd be perfectly entitled to do so in order to gain revenue. But if they also replace the commercials on the U.S. channels (e.g. ABC), then that would be terribly wrong, in my opinion. Is this what is happening?
I would want to watch Canadian channels with Canadian commercials and 'unaltered' American channels with American commercials. This, I think, would be fair game for everyone.
Thoughts?... |
|
mr weather Premium Member join:2002-02-27 Mississauga, ON |
That is effectively what is happening. CRTC has permitted (tolerated?) BDU's substituting the Canadian feed of a US show on a US channel for as long as I can remember.
I personally find it very annoying. More often than not there will be some sort of disconnect, i.e. commercial breaks are off or the beginning or end of the show gets cut off.
Thank goodness I can receive all the major US networks with my OTA setup so I don't have to put up with this nonsense. |
|