FiOS does that here, cable TV does not. Also, I pay something like $60 for TV and I watch 4-5 channels, maybe.
If I could pay for a license fee, and then per channel I would totally be down for that. My cable bill would go from $60 to like... $10. Which is, conveniently, how much these streaming services want me to pay. I'd rather cancel cable altogether and just get movie channels honestly.
This. Cable TV is bloated as fuck because they can be.
"Oh, would you like ESPN? Awesome, that comes with CSPAN 1-9, TLC, Home & Garden TV, and a bunch of random other shit you'll never want in a 60 channel package expanding our $15.99 basic service. Taht'll be $60, please."
...
"Oh, you wanted it in HD; you should have said so. You'll have to upgrade to the digital service for $19.95, and purchase the Expanded Sports HD tier. It costs another $15, but you also get The Mtn!"
...
"Well, sure I guess you could just stream ESPN3 in HD and get to choose your own programming, but I think you'll find that we make much less money that way, asshole!"
Fucking yes.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I've always thought the future of TV is expanding the "On Demand" idea into a sort of subscription service. Basically you buy a channel for $X/month and you get their set of shows to order whenever you feel like watching it. Stream it directly to their TV and you could easily still have commercials and people wouldn't mind.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
shryke on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
My utilities (gas, electricity, water) already use this charging scheme. The price per kwh or gallon increase as you go through their usage brackets.
Of the 2% of their customers that would hit the cap, I submit to you that only a very small minority are legitimate users (like steam enthusiasts). Its gotta be pirates for the rest and well, fuck them.
As I've told others, any company that somehow was able to be able to offer you a sub on a channel by channel basis instead of in bloat 'packs' would get so much business.
Probably impossible to do at this point, though.
I believe the big issue is not the cable (etc) company, but the company that is providing the content. They use the fees for their larger channels as leverage to get their smaller channels carried in a particular tier of programming. Take away the tiered setup and you kill that model, and the content producers are worried about that.
My utilities (gas, electricity, water) already use this charging scheme. The price per kwh or gallon increase as you go through their usage brackets.
Of the 2% of their customers that would hit the cap, I submit to you that only a very small minority are legitimate users (like steam enthusiasts). Its gotta be pirates for the rest and well, fuck them.
An individual hitting that cap? Iffy but possible. A household? Gonna happen.
This. Cable TV is bloated as fuck because they can be.
"Oh, would you like ESPN? Awesome, that comes with CSPAN 1-9, TLC, Home & Garden TV, and a bunch of random other shit you'll never want in a 60 channel package expanding our $15.99 basic service. Taht'll be $60, please."
...
"Oh, you wanted it in HD; you should have said so. You'll have to upgrade to the digital service for $19.95, and purchase the Expanded Sports HD tier. It costs another $15, but you also get The Mtn!"
...
"Well, sure I guess you could just stream ESPN3 in HD and get to choose your own programming, but I think you'll find that we make much less money that way, asshole!"
It's a tough nut to crack for sure. Some demographic somewhere has *got to have* that one channel, and ten other demographics *need* to have their individual channels. Cable companies have chosen the shotgun approach: Blast as many large piles of content into a big tube so that almost everyone will get at least what they want, and they'll be able to say that they're offering so much more for so many people that they can raise the price accordingly.
Dr.jebus on
"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me!"
-Rorschach
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
This thread is a really good example of what cable companies should be scared of. Cheaper competition that allows users to get only exactly what they want, a group of folks on a forum doing free advertising, and the fact that the streaming content is much much easier to get on your computer and TV than it used to be.
Dr.jebus on
"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me!"
-Rorschach
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I have a 100 GB cap and I like how the guy who I talked to on the phone said I could be streaming Netflix '24/7' and 'never come close to your cap'.
My utilities (gas, electricity, water) already use this charging scheme. The price per kwh or gallon increase as you go through their usage brackets.
Of the 2% of their customers that would hit the cap, I submit to you that only a very small minority are legitimate users (like steam enthusiasts). Its gotta be pirates for the rest and well, fuck them.
An individual hitting that cap? Iffy but possible. A household? Gonna happen.
Between my girlfriend and I watching netflix at different times, from working different shifts, we go over the cap monthly just by having it streaming. This doesn't including steam, games, download, hulu, youtube, updates, and just regular web browsing.
I've always thought the future of TV is expanding the "On Demand" idea into a sort of subscription service. Basically you buy a channel for $X/month and you get their set of shows to order whenever you feel like watching it. Stream it directly to their TV and you could easily still have commercials and people wouldn't mind.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
Turns out my cable box is a really fancy Video over IP box. How did I figure this out? I was looking at the traffic log on my router, I saw an IP I didn't recognize and didn't some snooping on my network and found out there was 2 of them doing similar traffic. One obviously doing a ton more than the other. Both have the same hardware ID reported from nmap. I turned off my cable boxes and they disappeared.
Fuckers are already doing streaming media through my internet. Probably fucking killing my connection too.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I've always thought the future of TV is expanding the "On Demand" idea into a sort of subscription service. Basically you buy a channel for $X/month and you get their set of shows to order whenever you feel like watching it. Stream it directly to their TV and you could easily still have commercials and people wouldn't mind.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
Turns out my cable box is a really fancy Video over IP box. How did I figure this out? I was looking at the traffic log on my router, I saw an IP I didn't recognize and didn't some snooping on my network and found out there was 2 of them doing similar traffic. One obviously doing a ton more than the other. Both have the same hardware ID reported from nmap. I turned off my cable boxes and they disappeared.
Fuckers are already doing streaming media through my internet. Probably fucking killing my connection too.
If I discovered that, I would hear a Cee-Lo Green "FUCK YOOOOOOU" in my head.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't really care because they did give me a complimentary upgrade that doubled my speed when I ordered the digital TV. But it's still what the fuckish.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The only reason I still have cable is for ESPN during football season, because there's not really another good way to get that that that I know of, since I don't get espn3 on TWC, and espn3 kind of sucks. If someone can enlighten me, that would be swell. But yeah, the other 8 months of the year its a waste of $50.
All digital cable boxes have IPs. A properly functioning one should never be accessible from your private network or router though.
Yeah that's what you'd think. Not sure why, I guess their router does some sort of routing to make it accessible from the LAN. I have seen their install CDs and it does install shit on your PC to sync the time on the devices. I could not explain in anymore detail though, it is definitely accessible from my LAN.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
As I've told others, any company that somehow was able to be able to offer you a sub on a channel by channel basis instead of in bloat 'packs' would get so much business.
Probably impossible to do at this point, though.
Except if TV channels worked that way, the only options would be 60 channels of nothing but American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.
The disgusting thing that's going on up here in Canada, for our American brethren:
Precursor:
Bell and Rogers are our two main ISP's. They also are the major players in the TV (Bell = Satellite, Rogers = Cable), Mobile Phones, and now Home Phones. They each also own a fair number of Canadian television channels (ie- Rogers owns Sportsnet, Bell owns CTV, etc. etc.).
The CRTC is the "Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunication Commission". They govern the Telecommunications industry, and make decisions concerning it. One of the rules they have implemented is that TV channels and Radio stations in Canada must contain a certain percentage of Canadian content, for example. This is key to remember.
A lot of Bell/Roger's infrastructure has been built with taxpayer money from the Government. True, they paid for some of it, but the point stands that we, the Canadian taxpayers, have in part paid for the infrastructure.
The problem with this new "attack" for lack of a better word, is that the ISP's/Cable Companies/Phone Companies already own a large amount of Canadian TV channels, which produce or have the rights to Canadian content. So if the CRTC said that Netflix needed a certain percentage of Canadian Programming in Canada, they'd have to go to the ISP's for the rights to broadcast it.
The amount of treachery and greed in this whole ordeal just fills me with severe hatred of Bell/Rogers, and I will never give them more money than I need to (current Wireless plan is Rogers, sadly).
Essentially Netflix has made Bell/Rogers/et al shit themselves and they want to get them out. Canada needs more competition in ISPs/Phone/Mobile Phone/TV as right now we're being bent over a barrel by the Duopoly that is Bell/Rogers.
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
The problem with this new "attack" for lack of a better word, is that the ISP's/Cable Companies/Phone Companies already own a large amount of Canadian TV channels, which produce or have the rights to Canadian content. So if the CRTC said that Netflix needed a certain percentage of Canadian Programming in Canada, they'd have to go to the ISP's for the rights to broadcast it.
Don't see a problem with this, especially considering they can go to other creators for content or create their own (much early Canadian Content production was cheap crap made just to fulfill content requirements but it was still beneficial to the industry and got better over time). I'm not a big fan of Rogers or Bell and I hope services like Netflix which require more bandwidth force them to become more competitive (this is highly reliant on the CRTC not letting Bell/Rogers call all the shots for our current competitive initiatives). I don't think the Canadian film/television industry needs to be destroyed in the future just to spite Bell/Rogers.
What is Canadian content? Does hockey count? Is it just moose, trees, and beavers?
Interesting question. Hockey in Canada fulfills the requirement. Hockey in the States due to how many players are Canadian may fulfill it depending on how the broadcast contracts are set up. I'll admit I know little about this area.
"In general, the CRTC certifies a Canadian program or series that meets the following criteria:
the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program
the production earns a minimum number of points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians
a minimum percentage of program expenses is paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies"
Does something filmed in Canada count? Like, Netflix streams all 9 seasons of The X-Files, the first 4 or 5 of which were filmed in Canada (which was particularly funny when they had an episode that took place in Chula Vista, CA which is a desert hellhole, yet in the show was fulled with lots of tall green trees and lots of grass). Isnt a lot of stuff filmed in Canada now?
I remember for music it was like "Artist is Canadian/Producer is Canadian/Recorded in Canada" and 1 or 2 other things. You tick off enough boxes, it counts.
Off topic, but there are plenty of Canadian musicians who think cancon does them way more harm than good. Generally, when a radio station is required to play a percentage of Canadian music that doesn't mean they're required to play a percentage of new or interesting Canadian music, so they end up playing 30% more Nickelback and Celine Dion, while the Canadian indie music scene (which is regarded as one of the most vibrant and flourishing indie music scenes around) gets ignored by radio and television.
As you requested, an Initial Security Alert has been added to your credit report. This alert will expire after 90 days from 04/26/2011. As an added precaution, we have removed your name from prescreened offer mailing lists for six months. The number you provided when adding this alert is XXXX
I've always thought the future of TV is expanding the "On Demand" idea into a sort of subscription service. Basically you buy a channel for $X/month and you get their set of shows to order whenever you feel like watching it. Stream it directly to their TV and you could easily still have commercials and people wouldn't mind.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
Turns out my cable box is a really fancy Video over IP box. How did I figure this out? I was looking at the traffic log on my router, I saw an IP I didn't recognize and didn't some snooping on my network and found out there was 2 of them doing similar traffic. One obviously doing a ton more than the other. Both have the same hardware ID reported from nmap. I turned off my cable boxes and they disappeared.
Fuckers are already doing streaming media through my internet. Probably fucking killing my connection too.
How much traffic were we talking about here? Kilobytes, megabytes, or gigabytes?
Because if you have any "traditional" digital cable provider (read: Comcast) then no, your cable box is not just a fancy Video-over-IP box. The only point-to-point stuff they're doing to the box is going to be subscription info (maybe guide info), and video-on-demand; the rest of your channels are still point-to-multipoint broadcasts, which use entirely different bandwidth than your internet connection. Many of those channels will be pushing 20Mbps or more, but it's not like that would be usable for point-to-point traffic, at least not to each user (it's not like 500 channels at 20Mbps would make any real difference to their overall network, since those channels go to everybody).
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
Doing it as a percentage is utterly ridiculous, as it would lock Canadians out from a fuckload of content for no reason, simply because Canadians don't make that much content and Netflix has damn near the entirety of Hollywood available (plus foreign stuff.)
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
Doing it as a percentage is utterly ridiculous, as it would lock Canadians out from a fuckload of content for no reason, simply because Canadians don't make that much content and Netflix has damn near the entirety of Hollywood available (plus foreign stuff.)
Yeah, it's fucking bullshit. This crap is the reason why our version of Netflix sucks ass, why we don't have Hulu, along with other issues. I don't give a rats ass which country made what I watch, and I don't want some silly little rule telling me that I need to be exposed to a certain percentage of content from any one country. I'm Canadian and I want Hulu. I want the Netflix that the US has. I'm sick of the CRTC getting in my way.
The CRTC is old and decrepit and clearly does not have the Canadian consumer's interests in mind. Doesn't help that most (if not all?) the board members are ex-Telecommunications employees/current shareholders. It needs to be stripped down and re-tooled.
If I were in the States I'd be very careful about the precedent that Canada is setting and if the US follows suit.
Well, it doesn't help that alot of Canadian stuff on telecommunications is written by US telecom lobbyists as, essentially, testbeds for what they wanna do in the US.
This is a wee bit off topic, but can someone link the news debate that was dropped in the Canada thread on this matter a while back (I've looked but cannot find it). Basically there was some fatcat who kept screaming about his dividends and profit margins when confronted with what the telcoms were pushing through in the market.
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
Doing it as a percentage is utterly ridiculous, as it would lock Canadians out from a fuckload of content for no reason, simply because Canadians don't make that much content and Netflix has damn near the entirety of Hollywood available (plus foreign stuff.)
What's ridiculous is that currently there are no Canadian content requirements. I'll agree that a percentage system may not be the best or at the very least they would need to significantly reduce it. Its a different technology used in a different way which means regulation should be adjusted not ignored.
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
Doing it as a percentage is utterly ridiculous, as it would lock Canadians out from a fuckload of content for no reason, simply because Canadians don't make that much content and Netflix has damn near the entirety of Hollywood available (plus foreign stuff.)
Yeah, it's fucking bullshit. This crap is the reason why our version of Netflix sucks ass, why we don't have Hulu, along with other issues. I don't give a rats ass which country made what I watch, and I don't want some silly little rule telling me that I need to be exposed to a certain percentage of content from any one country. I'm Canadian and I want Hulu. I want the Netflix that the US has. I'm sick of the CRTC getting in my way.
Our version of Netflix sucks ass and we don't have Hulu because the rights for shows/movies are sold by country and none wants to shell out the money for Canadians. Considering Canadian content regulations don't currently apply to these types of broadcasters I'm not sure why you are blaming the CRTC for this.
I've always thought the future of TV is expanding the "On Demand" idea into a sort of subscription service. Basically you buy a channel for $X/month and you get their set of shows to order whenever you feel like watching it. Stream it directly to their TV and you could easily still have commercials and people wouldn't mind.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
Turns out my cable box is a really fancy Video over IP box. How did I figure this out? I was looking at the traffic log on my router, I saw an IP I didn't recognize and didn't some snooping on my network and found out there was 2 of them doing similar traffic. One obviously doing a ton more than the other. Both have the same hardware ID reported from nmap. I turned off my cable boxes and they disappeared.
Fuckers are already doing streaming media through my internet. Probably fucking killing my connection too.
How much traffic were we talking about here? Kilobytes, megabytes, or gigabytes?
Because if you have any "traditional" digital cable provider (read: Comcast) then no, your cable box is not just a fancy Video-over-IP box. The only point-to-point stuff they're doing to the box is going to be subscription info (maybe guide info), and video-on-demand; the rest of your channels are still point-to-multipoint broadcasts, which use entirely different bandwidth than your internet connection. Many of those channels will be pushing 20Mbps or more, but it's not like that would be usable for point-to-point traffic, at least not to each user (it's not like 500 channels at 20Mbps would make any real difference to their overall network, since those channels go to everybody).
It's not traditional cable, but it is eating up a significant amount of bandwidth, probably in the order of a gig or two over the course of a few weeks. There's no way that's just guide and subscription data. I don't watch HD so I could assume they're using some compression algo on SD that could fit in that, like I said, I don't watch much TV.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I got a phone call from Charter last month to inform me that I had exceeded my monthly bandwidth limit by over 100% for the last 3 months and that if it continued they would drop my service.
So, I made the "unlimited" argument, and was told that the limit had been in their service agreement for years but they had not been enforcing it until recently.
I dug through my paperwork and sure enough, it's there. 125GB for the bottom-tier speed, 250GB for the two middle-tier speeds and 500GB for the top-tier. Naturally, business service is truly unlimited but exponentially more expensive.
Most of my bandwidth was coming from moving big files back and forth to work, so I cut that out and made it known to my employer that I wouldn't be able to do as much telecommuting unless they forked over some scratch to pay my internet bill.
While I had Charter on the phone I asked if they were considering offering additional bandwidth a la carte and they said they had no intention at this time.
This is a wee bit off topic, but can someone link the news debate that was dropped in the Canada thread on this matter a while back (I've looked but cannot find it). Basically there was some fatcat who kept screaming about his dividends and profit margins when confronted with what the telcoms were pushing through in the market.
If they're going to go that route, then they should start regulating porn sites that you pay per view, and if they want to get ridiculous, they can start regulating Youtube for Canadian content.
If they're going to go that route, then they should start regulating porn sites that you pay per view, and if they want to get ridiculous, they can start regulating Youtube for Canadian content.
It gets pretty ludicrous.
That's an awfully silly extension of what he's talking about.
Quite simply, if you are gonna have Canadian content regulations, they should apply to services like Netflix in some way or another. Not the same way, because the services are different, but something.
Posts
Fucking yes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Last time I mentioned this though, someone who worked for a cable company mentioned that On Demand services through your digital cable box or whatever simply can't handle the amount of traffic they get now, let alone an entire system set up that way.
Of the 2% of their customers that would hit the cap, I submit to you that only a very small minority are legitimate users (like steam enthusiasts). Its gotta be pirates for the rest and well, fuck them.
An individual hitting that cap? Iffy but possible. A household? Gonna happen.
It's a tough nut to crack for sure. Some demographic somewhere has *got to have* that one channel, and ten other demographics *need* to have their individual channels. Cable companies have chosen the shotgun approach: Blast as many large piles of content into a big tube so that almost everyone will get at least what they want, and they'll be able to say that they're offering so much more for so many people that they can raise the price accordingly.
-Rorschach
Netflix HD is about 1.5-1.6 GB/hr when streaming to an xbox 360 according to the internets, so I assume it is the same for everything else.
Netflix SD is somewhere around 500 MB/hr.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
-Rorschach
Well then.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Between my girlfriend and I watching netflix at different times, from working different shifts, we go over the cap monthly just by having it streaming. This doesn't including steam, games, download, hulu, youtube, updates, and just regular web browsing.
Turns out my cable box is a really fancy Video over IP box. How did I figure this out? I was looking at the traffic log on my router, I saw an IP I didn't recognize and didn't some snooping on my network and found out there was 2 of them doing similar traffic. One obviously doing a ton more than the other. Both have the same hardware ID reported from nmap. I turned off my cable boxes and they disappeared.
Fuckers are already doing streaming media through my internet. Probably fucking killing my connection too.
If I discovered that, I would hear a Cee-Lo Green "FUCK YOOOOOOU" in my head.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah that's what you'd think. Not sure why, I guess their router does some sort of routing to make it accessible from the LAN. I have seen their install CDs and it does install shit on your PC to sync the time on the devices. I could not explain in anymore detail though, it is definitely accessible from my LAN.
Precursor:
Bell and Rogers are our two main ISP's. They also are the major players in the TV (Bell = Satellite, Rogers = Cable), Mobile Phones, and now Home Phones. They each also own a fair number of Canadian television channels (ie- Rogers owns Sportsnet, Bell owns CTV, etc. etc.).
The CRTC is the "Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunication Commission". They govern the Telecommunications industry, and make decisions concerning it. One of the rules they have implemented is that TV channels and Radio stations in Canada must contain a certain percentage of Canadian content, for example. This is key to remember.
A lot of Bell/Roger's infrastructure has been built with taxpayer money from the Government. True, they paid for some of it, but the point stands that we, the Canadian taxpayers, have in part paid for the infrastructure.
Here's the shit that has gone down:
1) Netflix comes to Canada
2) Bell unveils "UBB" (Usage Based Billing). That means they will charge customers by the gigabyte for Internet access, and that’s on top of a flat service fee. Is the timing coincedence?
3) Bell gets the CRTC to agree to a bill that allows Bell to impose this pricing model on other individual ISP's (like Teksavvy, whom I use), basically forcing this billing model on ALL of Canada
- other ISPs (Shaw, Rogers, etc.) say they will use this model too.
4) Public outcry occurs on the Twitterverse, and Tony Clement, our industry MP tells the CRTC to go back and re-think their decision. - http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/tony-clement-defends-overruling-crtc-52286.html
5) Bell reveals that it cannot gauge internet usage reliably. - http://www.moneyville.ca/article/935381--bell-admits-errors-tracking-clients-internet-usage
6) It's revealed that Bell has plans for an IPTV package, and that bandwidth won't be counted against their caps - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/08/usage-based-billing-hearing-the-highlights/
7) Cable companies change their tactics and ask the CRTC to regulate Netflix. Essentially, they want to make Netflix have to adhere to the percentage of Canadian content. - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/tv-industry-asks-crtc-to-look-at-regulating-netflix/article1985547/
The problem with this new "attack" for lack of a better word, is that the ISP's/Cable Companies/Phone Companies already own a large amount of Canadian TV channels, which produce or have the rights to Canadian content. So if the CRTC said that Netflix needed a certain percentage of Canadian Programming in Canada, they'd have to go to the ISP's for the rights to broadcast it.
The amount of treachery and greed in this whole ordeal just fills me with severe hatred of Bell/Rogers, and I will never give them more money than I need to (current Wireless plan is Rogers, sadly).
Essentially Netflix has made Bell/Rogers/et al shit themselves and they want to get them out. Canada needs more competition in ISPs/Phone/Mobile Phone/TV as right now we're being bent over a barrel by the Duopoly that is Bell/Rogers.
While they don't have our best interests at heart, that one is actually legitimate and a good thing for the Canadian film/television industry. I imagine changing technology would destroy that industry unless regulation is modified to adopt to new technology. It's fairly legitimate to expect Netflix to adhere to similar regulations as everyone else.
Don't see a problem with this, especially considering they can go to other creators for content or create their own (much early Canadian Content production was cheap crap made just to fulfill content requirements but it was still beneficial to the industry and got better over time). I'm not a big fan of Rogers or Bell and I hope services like Netflix which require more bandwidth force them to become more competitive (this is highly reliant on the CRTC not letting Bell/Rogers call all the shots for our current competitive initiatives). I don't think the Canadian film/television industry needs to be destroyed in the future just to spite Bell/Rogers.
Interesting question. Hockey in Canada fulfills the requirement. Hockey in the States due to how many players are Canadian may fulfill it depending on how the broadcast contracts are set up. I'll admit I know little about this area.
"In general, the CRTC certifies a Canadian program or series that meets the following criteria:
the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program
the production earns a minimum number of points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians
a minimum percentage of program expenses is paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies"
I remember for music it was like "Artist is Canadian/Producer is Canadian/Recorded in Canada" and 1 or 2 other things. You tick off enough boxes, it counts.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Shit, I should do this twice a year anyway.
How much traffic were we talking about here? Kilobytes, megabytes, or gigabytes?
Because if you have any "traditional" digital cable provider (read: Comcast) then no, your cable box is not just a fancy Video-over-IP box. The only point-to-point stuff they're doing to the box is going to be subscription info (maybe guide info), and video-on-demand; the rest of your channels are still point-to-multipoint broadcasts, which use entirely different bandwidth than your internet connection. Many of those channels will be pushing 20Mbps or more, but it's not like that would be usable for point-to-point traffic, at least not to each user (it's not like 500 channels at 20Mbps would make any real difference to their overall network, since those channels go to everybody).
Yeah, it's fucking bullshit. This crap is the reason why our version of Netflix sucks ass, why we don't have Hulu, along with other issues. I don't give a rats ass which country made what I watch, and I don't want some silly little rule telling me that I need to be exposed to a certain percentage of content from any one country. I'm Canadian and I want Hulu. I want the Netflix that the US has. I'm sick of the CRTC getting in my way.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
If I were in the States I'd be very careful about the precedent that Canada is setting and if the US follows suit.
What's ridiculous is that currently there are no Canadian content requirements. I'll agree that a percentage system may not be the best or at the very least they would need to significantly reduce it. Its a different technology used in a different way which means regulation should be adjusted not ignored.
Our version of Netflix sucks ass and we don't have Hulu because the rights for shows/movies are sold by country and none wants to shell out the money for Canadians. Considering Canadian content regulations don't currently apply to these types of broadcasters I'm not sure why you are blaming the CRTC for this.
It's not traditional cable, but it is eating up a significant amount of bandwidth, probably in the order of a gig or two over the course of a few weeks. There's no way that's just guide and subscription data. I don't watch HD so I could assume they're using some compression algo on SD that could fit in that, like I said, I don't watch much TV.
So, I made the "unlimited" argument, and was told that the limit had been in their service agreement for years but they had not been enforcing it until recently.
I dug through my paperwork and sure enough, it's there. 125GB for the bottom-tier speed, 250GB for the two middle-tier speeds and 500GB for the top-tier. Naturally, business service is truly unlimited but exponentially more expensive.
Most of my bandwidth was coming from moving big files back and forth to work, so I cut that out and made it known to my employer that I wouldn't be able to do as much telecommuting unless they forked over some scratch to pay my internet bill.
While I had Charter on the phone I asked if they were considering offering additional bandwidth a la carte and they said they had no intention at this time.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I think you're looking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ruPTjIO5Zs
Kevin O'Leary is all about the money. Nothing but. He gets owned by the spokesman for my current ISP.
If they're going to go that route, then they should start regulating porn sites that you pay per view, and if they want to get ridiculous, they can start regulating Youtube for Canadian content.
It gets pretty ludicrous.
That's an awfully silly extension of what he's talking about.
Quite simply, if you are gonna have Canadian content regulations, they should apply to services like Netflix in some way or another. Not the same way, because the services are different, but something.