Iceberg said:
Because Sportsnet does not have an agreement with the NHL. The agreements are with individual teams to show games in their local broadcast area.
Why Canadian is the way to go.
- Thread starter miguelaqui
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 113
- Views 17K
Because Sportsnet does not have an agreement with the NHL. The agreements are with individual teams to show games in their local broadcast area.
daves1 said:
I can definitely say not to use a made-up address. I used to have ExpressVu (I now have StarChoice). I used the address of someone I knew in Canada (with their permission) and their fax number. Well, after 8 months my service was suspended. I called to find out why and they told me they had got the bills back as a bad address and it turned out when the account was originally set up the rep made a typo in the address. They fixed that.
After another year or so my service went suspended again. I called in to ask why and as it turned out my friend wasn't home and their idiot sun answered the phone on the fax machine.
When ExpressVu called that number and asked to speak to me (essentially a sales call) he said he never heard of me. Bang... suspended again. I finally gave up and went with brokerage after that.
I never really understood exactly why they do that..as long as they get their money, what's the problem?pretzelboy said:I can definitely say not to use a made-up address. I used to have ExpressVu (I now have StarChoice). I used the address of someone I knew in Canada (with their permission) and their fax number. Well, after 8 months my service was suspended. I called to find out why and they told me they had got the bills back as a bad address and it turned out when the account was originally set up the rep made a typo in the address. They fixed that.
After another year or so my service went suspended again. I called in to ask why and as it turned out my friend wasn't home and their idiot sun answered the phone on the fax machine.
miguelaqui said:
If you don't pay your bill, the Mounties' horses cannot cross the border to come collect.
miguelaqui said:
I hope I word this correctly: Because they technically have no licence or authorization to legally operate services in the USA. I think the same holds true for our DBS to Canada and Mexico; and Meixico's SKY DBS to the USA. I assume it also might be considered an illegally imported product. I am sure there are plenty of other violations they could be nailed with; like the collection and payment of taxes.
Last edited:
As charper1 said, they have no license to operate - but that really isn't the biggest part of the problem.
The big deal is on reselling copyrighted material.
BEV and Expressvu, like Directv and Dish, own nothing but a distribution system. What they sell is the copyrighted material that they have a license to sell.
Just as CBS has a contract agreement to the rights of CSI in the 50 United States, CTV has a license to it in Canada, but not the USA. Thus, CBS could not pick up, say a Toronto affiliate (assuming the Government of Canada would let them) without re-working all of their programming agreements (again, assuming the Canadian Government would allow a Canadian TV station to be a USA affiliate).
Likewise, CTV has the rights to CSI in Canada - but not in the USA.
While BEV and SC could in theory license anyone within their signal range providing the individual governments would let them, the rebroadcast of copyrighted material is limited to a certain area (Canada) and not the USA.
Directv pays the NFL stupid money for the NFL Package - just read the threads and you will see how many put up with bad PQ and choice from Directv 24/7/365 just because of these 50 games on essentially 20 days a year.
If BEV was able to sell to subscribers in the USA, Directv would enforce its rights with the NFL and BEV would end up with no NFL Season Ticket - as the differences in funding between BEV and Directv to the NFL isnt even close.
Likewise, as the USA license holder would end up enforcing all their rights against BEV or SC if they sold subscriptions in the USA, BEV and SC would in essence be left with purely Canadian Programming. In the trickle down effect, actually, BEV and SC would be left with no programming at all, as the rights holder would pull their re-transmission agreements with BEV and SC - putting it exclusively on cable.
Remember, the USA Network Programming that is imported - as well as the movies for Movie Central and Movie Networks have big rights holders in the USA as well. You think HBO would license The Sopranos to MC and TMN if they could sell it in the USA?
Likewise, HBO, SHO and Starz would hold the big blockbusters hostage (Rightfully so) thus MC and TMN would be nothing more than Stuntdawgs, Artist Profiles and Canadian Movies that are thrown in to meet Canadian Content requirements. That said, MC and TMN would pull their retransmission rights with BEV and SC before they were condemned to that slow death.
So, in essence, the reason they cannot sell to anyone is because they do not have the right to do so.
If they were to sell outside of Canada, the program suppliers that they have redistribution rights with would be force to drop BEV and SC from any distribution of their programming - otherwise, they themselves would get cut off from the rights owner themselves.
It's essentially no different than the DNS issue in the USA which everyone misunderstands and thinks its their god given right to have access to.
The big deal is on reselling copyrighted material.
BEV and Expressvu, like Directv and Dish, own nothing but a distribution system. What they sell is the copyrighted material that they have a license to sell.
Just as CBS has a contract agreement to the rights of CSI in the 50 United States, CTV has a license to it in Canada, but not the USA. Thus, CBS could not pick up, say a Toronto affiliate (assuming the Government of Canada would let them) without re-working all of their programming agreements (again, assuming the Canadian Government would allow a Canadian TV station to be a USA affiliate).
Likewise, CTV has the rights to CSI in Canada - but not in the USA.
While BEV and SC could in theory license anyone within their signal range providing the individual governments would let them, the rebroadcast of copyrighted material is limited to a certain area (Canada) and not the USA.
Directv pays the NFL stupid money for the NFL Package - just read the threads and you will see how many put up with bad PQ and choice from Directv 24/7/365 just because of these 50 games on essentially 20 days a year.
If BEV was able to sell to subscribers in the USA, Directv would enforce its rights with the NFL and BEV would end up with no NFL Season Ticket - as the differences in funding between BEV and Directv to the NFL isnt even close.
Likewise, as the USA license holder would end up enforcing all their rights against BEV or SC if they sold subscriptions in the USA, BEV and SC would in essence be left with purely Canadian Programming. In the trickle down effect, actually, BEV and SC would be left with no programming at all, as the rights holder would pull their re-transmission agreements with BEV and SC - putting it exclusively on cable.
Remember, the USA Network Programming that is imported - as well as the movies for Movie Central and Movie Networks have big rights holders in the USA as well. You think HBO would license The Sopranos to MC and TMN if they could sell it in the USA?
Likewise, HBO, SHO and Starz would hold the big blockbusters hostage (Rightfully so) thus MC and TMN would be nothing more than Stuntdawgs, Artist Profiles and Canadian Movies that are thrown in to meet Canadian Content requirements. That said, MC and TMN would pull their retransmission rights with BEV and SC before they were condemned to that slow death.
So, in essence, the reason they cannot sell to anyone is because they do not have the right to do so.
If they were to sell outside of Canada, the program suppliers that they have redistribution rights with would be force to drop BEV and SC from any distribution of their programming - otherwise, they themselves would get cut off from the rights owner themselves.
It's essentially no different than the DNS issue in the USA which everyone misunderstands and thinks its their god given right to have access to.
Last edited:
The only thing the broker does is supply them with an address to mail the bill. *c can put an address in its sytem and see if there is an account there, in the case of brokers, 8c can tell, it sees many accounts at one address and st no. I used a mailbox no of a friend and then a real address for service, signed up for paperless billing, fake canadian tel no but real secondary us number, that was a year ago, *c never called.
depends on the programming
check it out www.starchoice.com or www.expressvu.com
right now the price you see is about what you will pay with taxes after conversion
check it out www.starchoice.com or www.expressvu.com
right now the price you see is about what you will pay with taxes after conversion
What about getting a VBuzzer number in Toronto and forwarding to voice mail or directly to my cell phone here in Washington, DC?
http://www.vbuzzer.com/area_codes.php
http://www.vbuzzer.com/area_codes.php
miguelaqui said:
100% wrong.
The government did not outlaw ala carte.
In fact the Goverment has been looking at forcing MSOs to offer it.
HDTVFanAtic said:
First of all, it's a la carte....it's French. .."a" is a preposition and "la" is the word for "the".
Secondly, I'll clear it up....the government allows channels to insist that they are carried on certain packages. I saw Charlie on CSPAN pleading his case... the example was ESPN's insistance on being a part of his first basic package. I also have heard this from the owner of a local cable system as well on the local news for COX. COX wanted to make ESPN a pay channel because they said that it was unfair to make customers pay such a high percentage of their bill for ESPN.
I asked the owner of that local system exactly why he didn't make it a pay channel. He told me that he would have to charge so much for the channel, he would lose lots of customers. I asked him how much it was, he told me that he couldn't tell me.
In Canada, they can't do that.....That's my understanding...if I don't want sports, I don't have to have them! If the sports fan doesn't want movies for women, he /she doesn't have to pay for them either.
I understand that when cable first started, back when negative traps were the only way to scramble, a la carte would have been very hard to do. Now, it's much easier.
Maybe I should have said, "The gov't allows channels to insist that they be included in certain packages, therefore programming providers have no choice."
here's some info
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=69985&highlight=carte
Last edited:
miguelaqui said:
But this contradicts your entire Government regulation posts above and the response.
miguelaqui said:
The government allows anything that it doesn't make laws against (outside of the Bill of rights).
You are now saying you want the government to mandate it illegal - thus government interference.
At least hold a consistent position.
miguelaqui said:
I'll learn French 1) once the spellcheck does and 2) Once you learn basic English as to what "our gov't won't let them" and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution (not to mention the entire democratic process) mean.
Last edited:
my reasons for canadian tv
-NHL Network
-Sportscentre with tons of hockey highlights minus all the bouya or whatever stewpid scott
-CBC (Hockey Night in Canada)
-TSN (again, hockey. They also have WWE Raw & the CFL)
-US Nets from the west coast if you want them..no qualifying required
-NHL Network
-Sportscentre with tons of hockey highlights minus all the bouya or whatever stewpid scott
-CBC (Hockey Night in Canada)
-TSN (again, hockey. They also have WWE Raw & the CFL)
-US Nets from the west coast if you want them..no qualifying required
stone...looks like we agree on the same principals 
I forgot about the "real" Sportcentre...with highlights..and normal commentators.
I forgot about the "real" Sportcentre...with highlights..and normal commentators.
