Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    What about projected programming?

    Here's my predictions:
    All of current reality shows: Survivor (all flavors), extreme makeover, shark tank, biggest loser... All of Chef Ramsey's shows will be there (US & UK)... all of E!'s shows... Cops, To serve and protect, A&E's reality shows (First 48, crime 360, Paranormal state, parking wars).

    Cancon content: HGTV shows, Whatever Happened To, Ad Persuation, FANatical, North of 60.

    Wow, from the look of my predictions, the RealityTV specialty will have more choices than DejaView, TVtropolis and Fox Sports World together! :D

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,983
    Why does every topic on here lately veer off into a discussion about FFC??

    Getting back on topic...

    This is a pointless channel IMO, there is already a channel for celeb gossip and related programming its called Star!. I think Comcast should cut ties with Canwest (hopefully their deal for E! ends soon) and should sign a deal with Star! for E! programming. The channel exists and is on the air and currently does not air much of anything. CTVgm should sign an exclusive deal with Comcast and rename the channel E! Canada, simple as that- end of story!

    Oh and IMO this Reality TV channel will never see the light of day (unless canwest does a swap like they are doing with DIY Network, I suggest FSWC as the channel to shut down) so its in Comcast's best interest to do as I suggested above or E! programming will never be seen in Canada again... at least not in the foreseeable future.
    Last edited by CDN Viewer; 10-15-2009 at 08:15 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Reality TV; killing your brain, one cell at a time. :D


    I don't think Canwest current state they would be launching anytime soon, right now they have more pressing issues to deal with than a channel that may or may not be picked up by BDUs.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by lukebenward View Post
    Terrible timing.

    ---

    http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/fox-reality-channel-calls-it-quits-...


    Fox Reality Channel Calls It Quits March 31

    By Nikki Finke

    To anyone who thought there's nothing worse than warmed-over Reality
    TV retread programming, you're right. David Lyle, head of the Fox
    Reality Channel, broke the news to staffers today that this 4-year-old
    unwatchable experiment will end operations on March 31st of next year
    even though it's currently available in nearly 50 million homes as
    part of the Fox Cable Networks group. Ironically, the news comes a day
    after its awards bash was taped for an October 17th broadcast.
    Programming and production chief Bob Boden announced earlier this year
    he was leaving the channel to join Hasbro.
    Fox Reailty becoming Nat Geo spinoff

    Wildlife-centric channel targeted to launch in the spring



    In the wake of Wednesday's announcement that Fox Cable Networks would
    drop its Fox Reality Channel, the company has teamed with the National Geographic Channel to relaunch the channel with a new format, a spinoff of National Geographic Channel.

    Called Nat Geo Wild, the new service is a joint venture between Nat Geo and Fox Cable Networks, sources confirmed.

    Nat Geo Wild is targeted for a spring launch, though still needs to be approved by cable operators. Channel owners sign agreements with cable and satellite providers promising to provide a specific brand of content, so any dramatic changes must be agreed upon.


    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...113cbfabaab640

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I think subscribers should have a variety of channels to choose from, not just channels that I want.
    So you'd support the direct importation of US services like USA Network, FX or TNT with Canwest or CTV getting none of the action? I would assume so by your statement.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    178
    Say isn't their a Reality Network in the States called TRU TV as well?!!!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    C'mon TV_Viewer. You took tthe time to make numerous posts compaling about my modest proposal for the BDU's to declare war on Canwest and CTV but where's your reply here? To help you out it's post 25 in this thread.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeFLash View Post
    Say isn't their a Reality Network in the States called TRU TV as well?!!!
    No, that is the rebranded CourtTV.

    There is a reality channel, Fox Reality but it is shutting down and rebranding to something else.

    I doubt Canwest will launch their reality channel as they have zero Cancon to fill it with. Unless they plan on stretching the meaning of "reality" to cover say ET Canada, etc.

    Same thing when they applied for a Soap channel, it never launched because they have zero Cancon to fill a soap channel with, it is mostly a placeholder so the BDUs can't apply for the US Soap Network for carriage. Importing that would take away potential viewers from their US soaps they carry on the network since the US SoapNet re-airs a bunch of daytime soaps nightly and in weekend marathons.

    So the reality license is likely the same thing, a placeholder to keep the BDUs from applying to import the US version.

    I'm not sure why the CRTC approves these licenses knowing the broadcasters have almost no Cancon to fill the quotas and knowing from past experience they won't create different content for each genre license they own.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    ^
    I'd contend it's because the CRTC is in the pocket of Canwest/CTV which is partly why the BDU's need to destroy them.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    NakedGord, to answer your question, no. I don't think it's fair for Canadian specialty channels to compete directly vs American specialty channels that don't have the same requirements.

    And seriously, give up the "BDU's must/will destory CTV/Canwest" rants, it's never going to happen. Notice how no other posters joined in to back you up? Even though we have plently that hate CTV and Canwest nobody else is that delusional to rant on about how the BDU's should break their CRTC requirements and lose their licence just to kill CTV/Canwest.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I think subscribers should have a variety of channels to choose from, not just channels that I want.
    So you want them to have that choice but only based on what critia you want.

    Good to know.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    I support choice but I also support being fair.

    It's not fair for Canadian specialty channels to compete vs American specialty channels who don't have to follow the same requirements.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I support choice but I also support being fair.

    It's not fair for Canadian specialty channels to compete vs American specialty channels who don't have to follow the same requirements.
    And it isn't fair that in a country with 1/10th the population the domestic specialties have us paying as much or more for television subscriptions as our US brethren but we receive maybe 1/4 the quality and choice in programming.

    Again, the breadth of choice is the issue, we have only a few corporations running the channels and they do so by spreading the same programming across as many channels as their genre license can get away with. Only a few of the specialties are creating original content, many of the others are simply airing that same content. That should not be the solution, when any specialty is licensed it should have to provide its own original content or not bother starting up since obviously it isn't viable if that is a condition of license and they cannot do it for every specialty. Exceptions can be made for retro channels, etc. who instead can rely on airing past Cancon productions.

    I know, it is to save money but this is being done to the detriment of the viewers who actually pay for the channels. Let us have pick and pay, let us choose which channels survive and which fold. Once we figure out which channels are strongest then import some US services to help prop up the surviving domestic services.

    The broadcasters are fighting a losing battle here, technology will overtake them as narrowcasting becomes more prevalent thanks to faster internet speeds. If there is programming they can't afford or won't purchase then consumers will find it via alternative methods.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering a "North American" broadcast system when it comes to cable programming, it doesn't all have to be domestic.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I support choice but I also support being fair.

    It's not fair for Canadian specialty channels to compete vs American specialty channels who don't have to follow the same requirements.
    So then I assume you'd support pulling HDnet, Spike,Peachtree, and A&E
    from Canadian cable then?

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedGord View Post
    So then I assume you'd support pulling HDnet, Spike,Peachtree, and A&E
    from Canadian cable then?
    Yes I would, fair is fair, just like how the U.S. broadcasters wouldn't want MuchMusic in the U.S.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    921
    But TVViewer, how is that fair to consumers if those channels were to be removed? I don't think limiting choice just for the sake of big private Canadian broadcasters is the answer.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yes I would, fair is fair, just like how the U.S. broadcasters wouldn't want MuchMusic in the U.S.
    Wouldn't want is a biig difference than petitioning telhe FCC to block themm or the FCC blocking Much itself. Face it you only want consumers to have the choice if the choice is being provided by the big CTV/Canwest machine.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    But TVViewer, how is that fair to consumers if those channels were to be removed? I don't think limiting choice just for the sake of big private Canadian broadcasters is the answer.
    The big private broadcasters only like Canada if it's there to protect their monoply system. Aside from that, and running local news in a *few*
    markets they couldn't give a crap about Canadian culture..

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    But TVViewer, how is that fair to consumers if those channels were to be removed? I don't think limiting choice just for the sake of big private Canadian broadcasters is the answer.
    Yes but I also have to think of what's fair to the broadcasters.

    By the way, if American networks such as A&E, SpikeTV, TLC ect.. were removed, Canadian networks would purchase the broadcast rights to that programming, so it's not like viewers would lose that programming, they would just get it on Canadian channels, which is good for both the networks and Canadian advertisers, and doesn't affect the viewer very much if at all.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,140
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yes but I also have to think of what's fair to the broadcasters.

    By the way, if American networks such as A&E, SpikeTV, TLC ect.. were removed, Canadian networks would purchase the broadcast rights to that programming, so it's not like viewers would lose that programming, they would just get it on Canadian channels, which is good for both the networks and Canadian advertisers, and doesn't affect the viewer very much if at all.
    Oh yeah, the Canadian broadcasters are going to go and buy up every program on those channels if they were removed. Sure that'll happen. And let's just say they did (which wouldn't happen, but I'll play along), it would mean less room that those channels could devote to airing other programming that they are picking up from elsewhere. So we will loose programming.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •