Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Scott Mayers

Our media rights as citizens are being lost to private interests and thier selective censorship...

Recommended Posts

A neighbor of mine mentioned that she was going to watch the Superbowl but opted out because of some CRTC decision to permit broadcast channels here to replace ALL commercials for Canadian ones. This means that she would not get to see the commercials that this event is most famous for. I looked it up and found out that this legislation permits channels here to replace ALL commercials now, not simply the ones for that particular show.

We already have had a rule before since at least the early 1980s that permits exchanging simultaneous American programs to replace commercials with Canadian ones. The present change in law and some undetermined court case has ruled that all programs are now able to be replaced. 

To me this is a form of censorship permission granted to all private media ROUTES (since cable is just a route to the actual media of the channels we pay for). Given we pay for limited access through these companies AND the cable companies are actually now also the owners of the channels by indirect purchases, this decision to permit their right is permitting them to act as a censor of our media from any programming outside of the country AND by private interests alone!

Since these companies are also monopolies in action if not formal, we are letting our country become as closed in as South Korea with regards to communication media everywhere. Note these companies are also our Internet providers which this will have a profound effect on once this gets overtaken. And not that it also doesn't matter whether this is being done by governments or by private interests except that the private interests that are in monopoly are not accountable and don't have to have any loyalty to Canada. It is definitely advantageous of other country and ethnic interests to act as independent media companies to capture ownership of the very air we breathe and this make it a threat to anyone and everyone....especially if you don't belong to the membership of these interested parties.

Is there anything WE the PEOPLE can do to stop this downward spiral towards perfect censorship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the Super Bowl® ads and simsub, the CRTC actually waived the requirement for some previous years declaring that the U.S. content and commercials was a "cultural event". 

It was Canadian holder(s) of the broadcast rights and the NFL that complained because of lost domestic ad revenue, forcing the CRTC to relent because of the courts and NAFTA 2.0.

This may be censorship in the broadest sense, but not legally / commercially for foreign content or intellectual property.

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I watched this years' commercials through CBS regardless. But I am pointing out that it is not merely the commercials of this one event. As of that date, all channels now are permitted to replace commercial for Canadian content. While I might understand this for 'free' channels, all channels are paid for through our cable packages. I would also respect it on the simultaneous airing of shows on an American to Canadian. But the specialty channels are being bought up by Bell or Corus (Shaw in disguise now for channels) and CBC. To watch all except the Crave or Superchannel programs, they put in commercials. 

I'm likely going to drop cable altogether if they don't change. And given only the few providers we have that work in sync, there is no advantage to switching elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have long had an interest in the curious way that the CRTC regulates broadcast, cable, and satellite television when faced with strong demand for U.S. and other foreign content while trying to meet Cancon mandates and associated funding derived from domestic advertising.    This goes way back to Canadians using and trafficking pirate sat/cable receivers to get American content.    Canadian cable platforms were built using a lot of U.S. content, and the CRTC still mandates carriage of American broadcast networks (4 + 1).

The reality is that the CRTC has not kept up with advances in program distribution and production that now crosses international borders with ease.  Cancon goals and funding models are struggling accordingly, simsub or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 10:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Thanks. I watched this years' commercials through CBS regardless. But I am pointing out that it is not merely the commercials of this one event. As of that date, all channels now are permitted to replace commercial for Canadian content. While I might understand this for 'free' channels, all channels are paid for through our cable packages. I would also respect it on the simultaneous airing of shows on an American to Canadian. But the specialty channels are being bought up by Bell or Corus (Shaw in disguise now for channels) and CBC. To watch all except the Crave or Superchannel programs, they put in commercials. 

I'm likely going to drop cable altogether if they don't change. And given only the few providers we have that work in sync, there is no advantage to switching elsewhere. 

Maybe go buy yourself an American satellite dish and subscribe to some American cable network.  But like you, when I watch the Superbowl I always will watch it on some American channel even though I am being forced to still watch Canadian commercials on that American channel. It's my little way of saying go get lost all of you CRTC censors.

Works for me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, taxme said:

Maybe go buy yourself an American satellite dish and subscribe to some American cable network.  But like you, when I watch the Superbowl I always will watch it on some American channel even though I am being forced to still watch Canadian commercials on that American channel. It's my little way of saying go get lost all of you CRTC censors.

Works for me. ;)

This is an interesting problem in its own right. Do you realize that satelites are intentionally being 'censored' out as a right to people? If you don't own your own property to even hope to set up a satelite dish, this option is censored out. I live in Saskatoon where no apartments permit satellite dishes anymore. And it is more interesting how this gets implemented by indirect laws that hide HOW this censorship is being controlled by the private powers regardless of the existence of the CRTC. I think we NEED a communications regulator but that body is actually a 'culture' regulator. But they are being controlled successfully BY the private owners of media, NOT the public at large. 

The regulations needed should be to prevent monopoly of ownership OF our media. It is cleverly manipulated though to define only the rights of specific classes of people communicating while entrenching these specific people to have the power TO communicate with affect. While the present CRTC favors specific people defined by 'minority' cultures, the private owners of the media are also in bed with this idea in principle but simply DIFFER on WHICH cultures they want to permit us access to. We need limits on how anyone can own the very air we breathe as independent media between speakers and listeners or any of the media owners get power to manipulate the message between speakers and listeners. The competing interests of the CRTC and the private communication networks is only about content (culture) but both the CRTC and the media, whether publicly owned or private, only pretend they are caring for our rights of free media. 

CRTC is controlled BY the private interests regardless. But without ANY body of regulation, we'd lose even the power to limit the monopolies that ARE succeeding by default. I think that the CRTC is just a fraudulent organ meant to appear democratic but is just a playground for the wealthy competing 'owners' of media. What we need is to CHANGE how it is defined and operated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you mean North Korea?

 

Also as you mention this has been in place for almost 40 years... So maybe it's ok.  I'm not concerned.

Who was this responding to and what did you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Who was this responding to and what did you mean? 

"we are letting our country become as closed in as South Korea with regards to communication media"  I'm not really familiar with the media landscape in SK.

And blocking commercials....  like I said, not really a controversial issue except a few mentions every Superbowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"we are letting our country become as closed in as South Korea with regards to communication media"  I'm not really familiar with the media landscape in SK.

And blocking commercials....  like I said, not really a controversial issue except a few mentions every Superbowl.

I understood that the new rule allows not only the simultaneous broadcasts to be replaced by local advertising but that the Canadian owners of the channels running these shows in any time slot is now permitted to replace their commercials regardless of simultaneous airing. This seems to make sense why the cable companies here in Canada are buying up restricted access to our variable services over outsiders. For instance, the bait and switch of the Science Channel to become "CTV Science" means that they can now advertise to us by means of profitting uniquely upon advertisers. We used to have these specialty channels non-commercial ....and why we pay distinctly for them. So these should not even have a right to provide commercials in which they profit (1) by the charges to businesses for airing commercials, (2) for the fees to the cable company for the access to the channel, and (3) to the fact that those buying up the exclusive access to external services indirectly BY these cable companies in which they are also the sole owners makes them get paid twice: once for the channel we deliberately pay a fee for AND to the owners of the very cable companies who now also happen to own these channels. 

When I said that we are becoming as closed as South Korea, I meant that the powers of ownership to media access is successfully empowered with strict censorship controls by all communication interests here in Canada in a way that forces us to both view the ideals sold to us (such as through commercials) AND to the power of the culture laws that place Canadian programming as a requirement by some minimal percentage. It acts as a censorship that I as a consumer am both forced to pay for AND be expected to accept unilaterally (non-negotiable in practice) if I merely want any access right to the world at large.

We are also required to permit absolute electronic censorship power by these media companies by their exculsive right to proprietary modums, ....even if we buy them directly. Unlike the Sim card system set up for cell phones, our devices have to be in complete control by the communication owners. This makes them also able to profit by their power to know what we watch, when we watch, and how we can manage our own ownership of media through these avenues. 

I can say a lot more but this should suffice for this topic. Our means to reach the outside world is being successfully narrowed to favor weathy owners of media in an unaccountable way that permits them to redirect our voluntary interests back into Canada as though we NEED such authoritarian controls. The CRTC being defined to only serve the cultural content issues closes the gap of censorship that satisfies only the wealthy with respect to the commercials and to their interests in the businesses of making the art that we are forced to watch or go without. 

If you disagree, explain how you think we actually have more freedom of access in light of these changes. The media includes the Internet too. And the access routes that are presently run through these very same companies are also becoming tighter and why the essential requirement of paid proxies and/or virtual tunnelling (Virtual Private Network encryptian routes) are required more and more. 

Do you think that it is okay for some unique privileged class of people to OWN the air we breathe? Imagine a future in which we may literally be trolled for by media owners to pay to breathe such literal air. That is how I am interpreting our present condition as it advances with respect to media. We are being deluded to think there is variety when the very owners of these 'corporations' can hide their very private interests and stock holdings with exceptional means because they can also own the competition without proof of them conspiring in principle ...even where we see the hints of this occurring ubiquitously by them getting in sync with no competitive differences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 5:33 PM, Scott Mayers said:

This is an interesting problem in its own right. Do you realize that satelites are intentionally being 'censored' out as a right to people? If you don't own your own property to even hope to set up a satelite dish, this option is censored out. I live in Saskatoon where no apartments permit satellite dishes anymore. And it is more interesting how this gets implemented by indirect laws that hide HOW this censorship is being controlled by the private powers regardless of the existence of the CRTC. I think we NEED a communications regulator but that body is actually a 'culture' regulator. But they are being controlled successfully BY the private owners of media, NOT the public at large. 

The regulations needed should be to prevent monopoly of ownership OF our media. It is cleverly manipulated though to define only the rights of specific classes of people communicating while entrenching these specific people to have the power TO communicate with affect. While the present CRTC favors specific people defined by 'minority' cultures, the private owners of the media are also in bed with this idea in principle but simply DIFFER on WHICH cultures they want to permit us access to. We need limits on how anyone can own the very air we breathe as independent media between speakers and listeners or any of the media owners get power to manipulate the message between speakers and listeners. The competing interests of the CRTC and the private communication networks is only about content (culture) but both the CRTC and the media, whether publicly owned or private, only pretend they are caring for our rights of free media. 

CRTC is controlled BY the private interests regardless. But without ANY body of regulation, we'd lose even the power to limit the monopolies that ARE succeeding by default. I think that the CRTC is just a fraudulent organ meant to appear democratic but is just a playground for the wealthy competing 'owners' of media. What we need is to CHANGE how it is defined and operated.

First of all here in Canada Canadians have no property rights. It was left out of old man Trudeau's constitution. If we had a free market there should be no one, no rule or no law that denies anyone from wanting to own an American satellite dish in Canada. To deny this right is pretty much what I would call censor dictatorship. The big giant telecoms in Canada like Telus, Bell, Rogers and Shaw do not want any kinds of competition from American. They want Canada all for themselves. They despise competition. 

Indeed, those outfits mentioned above do cater now more too ethnic minority's. Why does those mentioned above offer TV channels that cater to dozens of languages here in Canada? And in many instances I am paying for them, if not all, thru my monthly cable bill. If they want their own TV channels then go buy their own satellite dish from wherever they came from and pay for it themselves. This is what multiculturalism has done to Canada. Multiculturalism works well for minorities, but not for the host people, who did not let them in this country but were forced to take them in. Many of these minorities now have their own TV and radio channels to listen too. They do not need an English Canadian TV channel to listen too anymore when they can get a TV channel on Canadian TV in their own foreign language. Signs right there that multiculturalism does not unite, but divides. But saying so is now being seen as an act of racism. Good luck if you think things will change. We are a well controlled bunch of leftist liberal politically correct society of people who IMHO could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Most Canadians have become too polite, too docile, and very afraid to say anything politically incorrect for fear that it may offend and hurt someone's sensitive feelings. :unsure: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my complaining IS affecting the CRTC in some way. I just discovered that they raised a concern that I was complaining about for a long time: 

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-420.htm?_ga=2.93397597.1923542448.1582014

I wrote the following to them in this below. (Excuse the fact that it doesn't format my paragraphs as I wrote it. I removed my personal informaton that isn't already 'public'). So it is hopeful to at least TRY! This issue is something I raised specifically on this site a long time ago but got dismissed on its relevance or significance at the time. I'm hoping my input there helps. 

Check that link out and try to speak your own opinion there for the channels that are asking for re-application. We have only two more days though. I'd want to look and speak at some of the others but couldn't possibly do so myself. For the full list and links to our input, see 

https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=O&PA=A&PT=A&PST=A&Lang=eng&_ga=2.124308169.2143624451.1581821522-2059258326.1580686513

Quote

Participate in a consultation

Thank you for your submission

Your intervention was successfully submitted to the CRTC.

You commented on the Notice 2019-420 - Call for comments – Access to in-building wire in multi-dwelling units

Case number: 287508
Date submitted: 2020/02/15 22:49:20

Intervention in: Support
Comments: Since owners of dwellings are intent to act as a business relative to the owner's interest and yet that the renters are expected to pay the bills of the communication services, the onus should be to the owner to NOT interfere in the wiring in ANY way and permit the communication companies ONLY right of access by law or the owners must ALWAYS be rightfully liable to the bills of their tenants debts of these services. The access ways of wires within buildings, like hallways, are 'media' in this respect that are defaulted to respect the tenant given the structure is NOT defined to serve the owner's power to censor unilaterally. As such, penalties should be charged of owners for any infringement of communication media to and from the suites involved. Note too that any bias in favor of 'owners' of these buildings is tantamount to certain discrimination against the poor as a class most harshly who by necessity have no power BUT to rent. As such, priority must respect the tenant's right to hold both or either the landlord and/or communication company by whichever complaint by a tenant is made. That is, the buck should not be passed on to the other for asserting conflicting areas of who owns what lines or not. There have also been indirect means of intentional discrimination that relate to this against the poor too with respect to any 'media' powers, which include the literal physical access points to and from suites and even the traditional 'buzzer' devices used for outsiders attempting to contact particular suites. These have been degraded on the assumption of people having cell phones, a relative 'luxury', or to a minimal necessity of a land line of some sort. This means that the issue of communication for the wiring that gets ignored by particular communication companies by excusing this as the owners responsibility has to be defaulted to the company receiving the tenant's interest to deal with and fix if any intermediary issues of the landlord is at stake. As is, if the landowner 'owns' the lines within their buildings, they technically have every right and power to also tap into it for any reason, including transferring this right to others in a highly discriminatory manner, such as how the Policing services may, for instance, be permitted to do wire taps without even conferring with any courts but just simply gettinh some owner's permission ....which biases the poor to be searched without warrant in an indirect way. This issue has to thus be universal to all communication companies. As to satellite communications, these are now successfully censored from any renter which prevents any free potential to access to the world where wired connections are paramount to many still. (the poorer more specifically). So any limits of service types available to the same access to suites bias favor at present to those companies that have restructured their wiring to outter walls (like Shaw Cable does here in Saskatoon). We need those 'Crown' corporations, like Sask Tel here, to either do the same or require preciding power and access to the present wiring within the buildings. Also, they have to be responsible uniquely to the tenant with priority over the landlord's interest. I hope this logic suffices as a compelling argument for the changes suggested. Thank you, Scott Mayers Saskatoon, SK Note that I opted to not appear but welcome potential invite or clarification of my argument where desired by the committee or other inquiries.
Attachment(s): None
Request to appear at the hearing: Do not wish to appear

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Said, "hopeless" when I meant "hopeful". corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...