Comments on: Internet CanCon is already here http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/ Can you think of a better name? Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:27:08 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Fagstein » Does YouTube have more Cancon than CTV and Global? http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-54122 Fagstein » Does YouTube have more Cancon than CTV and Global? Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:52 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-54122 [...] U.S. shows, there is no such rule online because there are no international barriers. Sure, some are trying to put up barriers to make our lives difficult, but the majority of content is available to Canadians as much as Americans, no matter which side [...] [...] U.S. shows, there is no such rule online because there are no international barriers. Sure, some are trying to put up barriers to make our lives difficult, but the majority of content is available to Canadians as much as Americans, no matter which side [...]

]]> By: princess iveylocks http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-3964 princess iveylocks Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:02:46 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-3964 Guy Lombardo is very, very offended, Josh. I would also like to point out that IP filtering prevents Canadian from purchasing "US-only" downloads via iTunes, and as often as not, determines what currency transactions are made in. Guy Lombardo is very, very offended, Josh.

I would also like to point out that IP filtering prevents Canadian from purchasing "US-only" downloads via iTunes, and as often as not, determines what currency transactions are made in.

]]> By: Josh http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-3930 Josh Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:59:30 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-3930 I understand Chris questioning CanCon, but I do think that when CanCon first came about, it was an unqualified success. It started in 1971, and frankly, pre-1971 Canadian music isn't something that anyone really wants to remember. I understand Chris questioning CanCon, but I do think that when CanCon first came about, it was an unqualified success. It started in 1971, and frankly, pre-1971 Canadian music isn't something that anyone really wants to remember.

]]> By: Christopher DeWolf http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-3926 Christopher DeWolf Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:42:31 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-3926 I'm sceptical about CanCon. If you look at the Canadian cultural industries that have been successful --- music and publishing --- you'll see that they've been nurtured not by anything like airplay requirements but by good old fashioned cultural subsidies. It's money for SODEC and the Canada Council for the Arts that lets bands like the Arcade Fire make their albums, not CanCon rules that set aside 1/3 of radio and TV to Canadian content. The only people who benefit from those are producers who make knock-offs of American products. I'm sceptical about CanCon. If you look at the Canadian cultural industries that have been successful --- music and publishing --- you'll see that they've been nurtured not by anything like airplay requirements but by good old fashioned cultural subsidies. It's money for SODEC and the Canada Council for the Arts that lets bands like the Arcade Fire make their albums, not CanCon rules that set aside 1/3 of radio and TV to Canadian content. The only people who benefit from those are producers who make knock-offs of American products.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-3902 Fagstein Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:51:35 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-3902 It's the cable provider's responsibility, so I would direct my scorn there. It's the cable provider's responsibility, so I would direct my scorn there.

]]> By: Josh http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/comment-page-1/#comment-3899 Josh Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:40:14 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/11/23/internet-cancon-is-already-here/#comment-3899 There's another issue with simultaneous substitution, too: Sometimes someone falls asleep at the switch. A few weeks ago, I was a bit curious about the regular season game that the NFL played in London, England. It was carried on Fox, and started at 1pm on a Sunday. CTV now has the rights to carry regional NFL broadcasts in that block as well, so what viewers in Canada usually get is one game on Fox, one game on CBS, and one game on CTV - with the one on CTV sometimes being a simsubbed broadcast of one of the other two games, and sometimes being a third, completely different game. I don't remember all the details, but CTV was carrying a CBS broadcast that day; not the game from London that was being carried by Fox's Burlington affiliate. Despite this, I missed the first half and then some, because for whatever reason, the Fox Burlington signal was blocked out, replaced with the CTV's feed of the CBS game they had picked up. At some point in the second half, whoever was responsible realized the mistake and (imagine this!) Fox became Fox again. Steve, do you know who would be responsible for this? I mean, when simsubbing happens, who throws the switch: the CTV/Global/whoever, or the cable or satellite provider? Who deserves my complaints when that happens? There's another issue with simultaneous substitution, too: Sometimes someone falls asleep at the switch.

A few weeks ago, I was a bit curious about the regular season game that the NFL played in London, England. It was carried on Fox, and started at 1pm on a Sunday. CTV now has the rights to carry regional NFL broadcasts in that block as well, so what viewers in Canada usually get is one game on Fox, one game on CBS, and one game on CTV - with the one on CTV sometimes being a simsubbed broadcast of one of the other two games, and sometimes being a third, completely different game.

I don't remember all the details, but CTV was carrying a CBS broadcast that day; not the game from London that was being carried by Fox's Burlington affiliate. Despite this, I missed the first half and then some, because for whatever reason, the Fox Burlington signal was blocked out, replaced with the CTV's feed of the CBS game they had picked up.

At some point in the second half, whoever was responsible realized the mistake and (imagine this!) Fox became Fox again.

Steve, do you know who would be responsible for this? I mean, when simsubbing happens, who throws the switch: the CTV/Global/whoever, or the cable or satellite provider? Who deserves my complaints when that happens?

]]>