Showing posts with label CRTC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRTC. Show all posts

Monday, September 24, 2007

unintended consequences

One of the funny unintended consequences of the article below is the RONA ads which play on the CFL games, which show an American football field instead of a Canadian one. You can tell from the hash marks.

Sheesh such a tiny detail could be disastrous for the renaming of the Grey Cup to the Rona Cup.

"As soon as 2008 you could see players competing in the Rona Grey Cup or the Ford Grey Cup," said one high-ranking league source. "It's for sale and the league will be pushing ahead with this."

And some sponsorship experts say the CFL may be risking more than it realizes by selling Grey Cup naming rights.

After their 1953 inception, the league's most valuable player awards were called the Schenleys until 1989, when sponsor Schenley Canada Inc. cut its ties to the league. The awards have had multiple sponsors since but are no longer as well known.
"The league has to ask itself, at what price do you sell your soul?" said Stellick. "The Grey Cup really is the soul of that league."


The more serious consequences are that a regulation that benefits the bank accounts of broadcasters does nothing for Canadian production. And of course the usual suspects will cry for the elimination of the CRTC because of this.


The right to insert Canadian commercials into U.S. broadcasts when shows air at the same time on both sides of the border is worth more than $200-million to the industry.

Such provisions were initially contemplated to give Canadian networks revenue that could be used to fund Canadian productions, including news, drama and comedies. But the report argues simulcasting has instead created overwhelming financial incentives to run U.S. programs in prime-time, since the networks can earn more ad revenue from American shows, which draw much higher ratings.

As a result, Canadian content is being marginalized to Friday and Saturday nights, or to the summer, when audiences are smaller. The report doesn't suggest killing simulcast rights, but the authors wonder if networks should be required to show a certain amount of domestic programs on weeknights.

"It's a great example of an unintended consequence of a regulation," Mr. Dunbar said in an interview. "We have all kinds of incentives for producing Canadian content, all kinds of subsidies for producing Canadian content, and then it's not really getting shown at a time when Canadians are watching television in large numbers. ...We are not saying abolish the rule.


SEE:

Death of Channel Ten

CRTC vs The Public Interest



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 25, 2007

Belus?


That's what the Globe and Mail is calling the idea of the merger between Telus and Bell (BCE).

In this latest poll you find that those of us who have experienced Telus are opposed to the merger for the reasons I have given here and here.


The Angus Reid poll found that 48 per cent of Canadians believe the government shouldn't permit a merger between Vancouver-based Telus and Montreal-based BCE. Another 27 per cent supported it, while 25 per cent weren't sure.

The highest levels of opposition to such a deal came from British Columbia and Alberta at 57 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively. "What surprised us the most is the high level of skepticism from Alberta and B.C., where virtually everyone deals with Telus on a daily basis," Mr. Canseco said.

If such a merger were to go through, 62 per cent of the poll's respondents didn't expect better customer service. Moreover, 68 per cent said it's somewhat or very likely wireless rates would increase, while 62 per cent said the same thing for Internet prices.

See:

Monopoly Capitalism in Cyberspace

Telus

BCE


CRTC


Bernier

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Ding Dong Tories


Even if it meant protecting Canadians who elected them from being subjected to a communications monopoly, the likelihood that the privatizing Conservatives, whose love of big business is expressed my its Industry Minister , would do anything like interfere in the market well ferget about it. Canada telecoms merger up to regulators: Harper

A consumer advocate warned Thursday that a proposed $50-billion merger between Bell Canada Inc. and Telus Corp. would be a loser for customers of the two telecom giants.

"The government and the regulators should simply turn down this merger," said Charles Tanguay, communications manager for Quebec's Union des Consommateurs. "This is critical because it would weaken competition in both the traditional wireline and wireless markets and expose consumers to continuing high prices and second-rate services."

Canadian consumers already pay almost twice the average per-minute charged in the U.S. and Europe and the market has too few players, Tanguay noted.

"A monopoly would be worse than today's duopoly, influence regulated markets unduly and freeze out new entrants."





See:

Monopoly Capitalism in Cyberspace

Telus

BCE


CRTC


Bernier

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 22, 2007

How Do You Spell Monopoly

T E L U S. The former publicly owned phone company of the Province of Alberta was created because Bell Canada would not expand into Alberta at the beginning of last century.

The Edmonton Phone Company. EdTel, was formed because neither Alberta Government Telephones, AGT, nor Bell Canada would provide services to Edmonton. Over a decade ago it was sold off at a fire sale price by the city to its old nemesis the predatory AGT now privatized and called TELUS.

It was announced that the privatized Telus, which now includes Ed Tel as well as B.C. Tel, is preparing a take over bid of Bell Canada; BCE. How the wheel turns.

All this privatization of public enterprises was to end their 'state monopoly' and create 'competition'. So instead it creates privatized monopoly and reduces competition.

We are so much better off now. Except we sold the farm and now we buy back our milk and eggs.

See:

Monopoly Capitalism in Cyberspace

Telus

BCE


CRTC


Bernier

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, May 02, 2007

CRTC vs The Public Interest

The CRTC was created to protect the interests of citizens today it protects the interests of telcos and communications media oligopolies in Canada.

The former monopolies can now vary rates among customers depending on where they live, and other factors. The companies had asked for permission to vary rates, in order to help them compete with cable rivals such as Rogers Communications Inc., that face no restrictions when they offer local service.

Companies such as Rogers will have about 18 per cent of Canadian telephone customers by the end of the year, according to a report by Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. that was released this month.

Stuart Langford, the sole CRTC commissioner to dissent, said the ruling removes any consumer protection except for clients who subscribe to the most basic service. "Incumbent phone companies can charge whatever they like; the sky's the limit," he wrote. "Consumers are left with two choices: pay or do without."

Monday's ruling will remove any incentive for new entrants to compete with the former monopolies, now that the CRTC "has given incumbent phone companies so much power to crush competition before it even gets started," Langford said.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Prey For A Miracle

Canada's evangelical TV network can no longer promise God will buy you a colour TV or Mercedes Benz if you donate to them. Miracle Channel told to repent, on pain of losing licence

The Miracle Channel, a religious television station that has come under fire for its on-air fundraising campaigns, could lose its broadcast licence in the future if it doesn't follow new rules on how donations are solicited.

The channel's revised fundraising policy sets out examples of appropriate statements that can be made on air. Hosts are allowed to make comments such as: "We ask you to consider the best gift that you are able to pledge at this time." They are not allowed to say: "If you don't give today, you are robbing God and could go bankrupt."

The document also states "fundraising appeals must not create unrealistic donor expectations of what a donor's gift will actually accomplish." Allowable phrases include: "We believe that as you give, God will bless you in your area of need." The new policy does not allow statements such as: "Because you gave a gift of this amount, God says you will see your income double this month."


Guess they will just have to play more Janis Joplin ads on air.


Oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?

Oh lord, wont you buy me a color tv ?
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh lord, wont you buy me a color tv ?

Oh lord, wont you buy me a night on the town ?
Im counting on you, lord, please dont let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh lord, wont you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?


See:

TV

Media

Christian

CRTC


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,