FFS How am I going to watch TV now?

Is that a personal shot?

Spoiler:

Yes the rules for broadcasting need to change , and they are but I do not believe in this causing us to kill our own industry . As someone who has some background in the music industry we owe alot to our CRTC . Many acts would not have got their breaks with out it .
Besides we do not have to rely on someone else for it , our entertainment .

Maybe, MAYBE, the CRTC had a place in Canadian media. I say it no longer can play that role. Get rid of it. Like the CBC it is no longer necessary.

The CBC is the most important institution in Canada next to Parliament and the Queen!

Want some of this GOM???

grumpyrom wrote: My DVR may work great for recording something I have planned to watch, but what about stuff I forgot to program, or didin't hear about till after it aired, or was on last year and I want to watch again? Should I just archive everything that airs? What if I want to watch it on a different tv or on my laptop? There's no way to pull content off my PVR. PVR's are great, but still have limitations.

That's not true.
Most PVR's have an output for video & audio...which you can plug into a DVD Burner or even your computer and burn a DVD of whatever is on the PVR.

Or.. wait for it to come out in a DVD box set or on reruns. Just because a show has aired does not give you some "human right" to watch it.

AGEsAces wrote:

grumpyrom wrote: My DVR may work great for recording something I have planned to watch, but what about stuff I forgot to program, or didin't hear about till after it aired, or was on last year and I want to watch again? Should I just archive everything that airs? What if I want to watch it on a different tv or on my laptop? There's no way to pull content off my PVR. PVR's are great, but still have limitations.

That's not true.
Most PVR's have an output for video & audio...which you can plug into a DVD Burner or even your computer and burn a DVD of whatever is on the PVR.

Your correct, the analog hole. But honestly why bother going through the trouble of spending 1hr of encoding time for every hour on your PVR to rip a show to your PC in crappier quality when you can just download a perfect digital copy in 5-10mins per hour of video?

While you technically can get at the video with the above method, there's no real point to it. Unless you have a lot of time to waste.

the analog hole?
Sounds like a crappy PC .

My PVR has about 4 different outputs...and my DVD Burner has similar inputs.
No conversion needed...simply connect the two and hit "play" and "record" and it plays.

Haven't tried it through my PC...though if I import it onto my PC and tell it to "save" to the DVD rather than to the harddrive then transfer back...it should work similar to the DVD Burner.

I don't save much anyway...just if the PVR is filling up I'll move a couple of movies over to DVD to free up space.

The other option is to hook an external harddrive to the PVR...then I can just go plug it into the computer to use later.

Deank wrote:Or.. wait for it to come out in a DVD box set or on reruns. Just because a show has aired does not give you some "human right" to watch it.

Or get rid of government intervention that is preventing Canadian's from having some legal choices that are available in other markets. Nobody say's it's a god given right, but there's clearly a lot of demand. I know tons of people that compliment their exising cable service by downloading shows on demand. In many ways it's easier than setting your PVR.

I can decide what I want to watch at anytime and have it on my PC in 5-10 mins. While I watch the first show I can have 4 or 5 hours more programming downloading. Within 1 hr I have enough TV to last the whole day if I choose to do so. I don't have to bother figuring out what I want to watch in advance, or program anything to record. In this way the newsgroups act like a giant archive of most everything that has aired in the last 365 days.

Streaming Hulu and Netflix add this same convienience in the US by streaming video to you on demand. Everyone get's paid, consumers get their programming when they want it. If something similar were offered here there'd be no reason to download most network programming as it'd simply be easier to just get it legitimately. But we don't get that choice. It's no different than when Itunes came out and gave everyone a cheap and easy alternative to stealing music on Napster etc. If you give people a better choice most people will use it, even at a slight cost.

Canadian cable co's need to come out of the stone age and embrace technology rather than fear it.

AGEsAces wrote:the analog hole?
Sounds like a crappy PC .

My PVR has about 4 different outputs...and my DVD Burner has similar inputs.
No conversion needed...simply connect the two and hit "play" and "record" and it plays.

Haven't tried it through my PC...though if I import it onto my PC and tell it to "save" to the DVD rather than to the harddrive then transfer back...it should work similar to the DVD Burner.

I don't save much anyway...just if the PVR is filling up I'll move a couple of movies over to DVD to free up space.

The other option is to hook an external harddrive to the PVR...then I can just go plug it into the computer to use later.

It's still an analog signal your outputting from your PVR to your PC or DVD burner. When you hit record your PC is in fact encoding it to MPEG or AVI on the fly. And there's no way to output it faster than 1 to 1 using this method. 1 hour from your PVR to your PC, takes 1 hour of recording time. Just like an old VCR to VCR transfer job. This is the "analog hole". You can copy the analog signal your PVR put's out all you want, but you'll never be able to transfer the signal digitally. That's why you can't connect your HDMI output to you DVD burner or PC and then copy it, HDCP was designed specifically to prevent the copying of digital signals over HDMI.


You mention hooking an external hardrive and copying files? The vast majority of PVR's have this function specifically blocked. Including Tivo (unless an old hacked model), Bell, Shaw, MTS and most stand alone players.

Most of the digital tv files shared on the net come from people with DVB cards hooked up to their PC where they can capture the digital satelite signal as it comes in. Or from one of the few older models of PVR where it's possible to get the files off the hard drive.

Actually...Shaw promotes it in their literature.
That you can add an external harddrive to increase the capacity you can store.

Yes you can add it to increase recording capacity, but you CAN NOT remove it, connect it to your PC and copy the files to use on your PC etc.. Trust me on this one. Shaw would get sued into oblivion if they allowed this. I have the exact same setup with Bell and there is no way to ever get the files back off the drive and use them on my PC. On the other hand, my old FTA reciever specifically allowed this function...but it wasn't exactly legal.

Ummm...I specifically asked if it was possible...both the sales rep and the tech installing it.
It's a harddrive...you plug it in, and the PVR detects it and you then have the option of using it or the PVR internal drive.

You unplug the drive, connect it to your PC...and the PC detects it and takes the files so you can use them.

I asked about needing a "special" drive...and they said "any" external harddrive should work.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those tech's are talking out there a-holes. The files are encrypted. You will not be able to use them on your pc. Give it a try if you don't believe me or better yet just Google it.

I hate it when sales reps have no clue what they are talking about.

grumpyrom wrote:Or get rid of government intervention that is preventing Canadian's from having some legal choices that are available in other markets.
...
I can decide what I want to watch at anytime and have it on my PC in 5-10 mins.

Not all people want more "choice" and I for one am glad that there is a group of people who sift out the crap that could potentially be available and set certain maximum limits for quality programming. Every other month or so Shaw is calling me and offers a "free" digital box with additional "free" digital channels and each time I tell them that I am not interested in what these channels have to offer. I subscribe to basic cable but only watch 3 or 4 of the channels that are available to me. The only choice I would be interested in is having fewer channels available and paying less, but NO my subscription also has to support the 90% of crap that's already available.

better yet... Shaw recently "upgraded" basic service by removing a channel and placing it in the digital category. That was so nice of them.

We are entering a new age. The internet and technology will certainly change the playing field and that alone obsoletes the CRTC.

Technology will soon make it very difficult for people to steal programming, and I bet make it more lucrative at the same time.

I like the notion of pay-per-view for everything I watch (mostly anyway). I don't think much for those that think they should be able to download anything they want for free.

eViL tRoLl wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:Or get rid of government intervention that is preventing Canadian's from having some legal choices that are available in other markets.
...
I can decide what I want to watch at anytime and have it on my PC in 5-10 mins.

Not all people want more "choice" and I for one am glad that there is a group of people who sift out the crap that could potentially be available and set certain maximum limits for quality programming. Every other month or so Shaw is calling me and offers a "free" digital box with additional "free" digital channels and each time I tell them that I am not interested in what these channels have to offer. I subscribe to basic cable but only watch 3 or 4 of the channels that are available to me. The only choice I would be interested in is having fewer channels available and paying less, but NO my subscription also has to support the 90% of crap that's already available.

I'd say your in the vast minority who wants less choices. You sound like type who should be welcoming the possibilities to buy your content from the content creator(s) directly rather than a cable middle man.

Another perfect example along with Hulu (etc.), is The Filipino Channel (TFC) which has fully embraced IPTV (Internet Protocol) and On Demand programming. You can get your TFC from local providers (Shaw) for $15/month or so, or you can buy it directly from ABS-CBN (the parent company) with a set-top box for $30/month that gives you 5 channels PLUS access to all their programmings on-demand. Again, other cultures/counries can see that this is the type of service that is in demand by customers and are looking for a way to provide it to them.

The cable company middle man is an out dated business model and one that everyone should be happpy to see go. What exactly do Shaw or Bell do to add any extra value to the programming that is already created by someone else (networks, independant producers etc.)? All they are doing is adding cost while providing zero benefit. The technology exists to cut them completely out of the loop and they are fighting it tooth and nail.

I think the notion of pay-per view everything would only serve to increase the costs for the average consumer as a whole GOM. The future is something like what Apple is trying to put together with the major networks which would be a monthly subscription cost (something like $30/month) for all the 4 major networks and the ability to watch your content on a variety of sources (TV set top box, PC, mobile etc.) with your monthly subscription, and the ability to watch your shows on-demand rather than in a rigid schedule like we currently have.

no...PPV everything would end up being cheaper...IF the prices were reasonable.

I don't watch most shows on the networks.
I watch maybe 6-10 shows in total, and only for the season...reruns, not so much...except perhaps syndicated when i'm bored.

What it WILL do is force content providers to create MORE new content to keep the choices up.

It will also limit stations from creating pilots and seasons and "testing" them...so they'd have to develop a new model that's more web-friendly.

I agree the program prices would be lower and the revenues higher and choices greater. By making everything pay-per-view more people will have greater access to programs more frequently.

Not sure if we'll ever see that in our lifetime. What I'd like to see is true al la carte selection of stations/channels. If I choose 50 or 15 stations for $1 a month (or whatever the price is) that would be best. Then all stations sink or swim on their own. No more subsidizing sub-par channels/programming.

Like the CBC...

grumpy old man wrote:I agree the program prices would be lower and the revenues higher and choices greater. By making everything pay-per-view more people will have greater access to programs more frequently.

Not sure if we'll ever see that in our lifetime. What I'd like to see is true al la carte selection of stations/channels. If I choose 50 or 15 stations for $1 a month (or whatever the price is) that would be best. Then all stations sink or swim on their own. No more subsidizing sub-par channels/programming.

Like the CBC...

What your describing is a la carte channel purchasing, this has nothing to do with pay per view. Pay per view would mean a charge per show similar to Itunes right now. There is no way that would ever be cheaper unless the cost per show was ridiculously low, or you watched very little tv.

Assuming the average person watches 3 hours per day, that's 90 hours a month. For pay per view to be cheaper than a monthly subscription of say $75, you'd have to have a cost per 1 hr episode of less than $0.80 to save any money. Considering that costs on Itunes are roughly a bit more thandouble that and you only get 40 minutes of actual viewing time, there's no way to save money buying TV shows pay-per view. Unless your a very lite viewer which again, according to the stats is not the norm.

Buying individual channels a la carte is a better option, but still pales in comparison to on-demand viewing. That's the fundemental difference that a Hulu, Netflix and their like offer. Free Hulu and paid Netflix offer 80% of network tv viewing south of the border, plus on demand movies for as little as $20/month. A very difficult value proposition to beat.

"Like the CBC..."

Like the CBC? Hell no.. I love it!

I recognize the difference. I was suggesting something I'd like to see: Al la carte channels.

grumpyrom wrote:Assuming the average person watches 3 hours per day, that's 90 hours a month. For pay per view to be cheaper than a monthly subscription of say $75, you'd have to have a cost per 1 hr episode of less than $0.80 to save any money.

My monthly subscription is about $28/month and I sure would like to pay substantially less than that, given that I utilize less than 10% of available channels. A good model may be a base price of $5/month and then additional $1 per channel/month. For the first 10 channels, .60/channel for the next 10 channels etc. That would keep it affordable for people who mainly watch news and a few shows, and have the full smorgasbord at a similar prices as it is now for people who demand choice and do a lot of channel surfing. Could still add higher prices for low demand premium channels.