Discussions

For the heads up on this issue. I hate any kind of censorship and theiveory.  
They call me a pirate and claim I'm stealing because I choose not to pay for their internet, cell or tv service.  
They tried this with Direct tv when everyone was cutting the cord and going to satellite tv.

I went to the link to oppose but I don’t like how they state that they’ll post your name and address on their webpage. Call me paranoid lol but that makes me think they could pin down/investigate everyone on that list knowing they likely pirate shows/songs.

Have to put your name down. That's for if you want a reply back or appear and speak at the hearing discussion.

https://www.change.org

for pointing out Bell's proposal. I signed the petition (opposed). This looks to me like a first step in circumventing the net neutrality act. Hopefully they (Bell) won't be able to push this through.

Sounds a lot like they are trying to bypass the net neutrality law. Where internet providers can block or slow down your connection to any website. If that site pays the provider then they get better connections.Basically a sneaky as eff way for them to make more money or give you worse service and blame it on the other company’s for not giving them money

Adam said " Respect the opinions of folks in this thread but also respect the difficult position tv providers and content owners find themselves in when it comes to piracy. Anyone willing to share an alternate plan to combat the issue of illegally acquiring and/or streaming content? "

Content owners already have options to target piracy - they can go after the source in the jurisdiction that's applicable. In addition, they can target sellers of the "out of the box" devices (aka kodi boxes).  
 
Finally, they could be pro-active and recognize that piracy doesn't exist in a vacuum: piracy becomes mainstream when consumers stop viewing the official sources as good value for the money. Anyone who's used an illegal stream will be familiar with the overall poor quality. People subscribe to services like spotify and netflix because they get good value for the money: for a reasonable price, they provide good quality content without a lot of hassle. Until other providers get on board, blocking or going after sources of piracy is just a game of wack-a-mole (look at how many times they tried to take the pirate bay offline).  
 
As for the issue at hand here, I personally filed a CRTC complaint - blocking sites is far too drastic and slippery of a slope to be good for anyone. Look at the Telus vs unions issue from a few years ago - Telus tried to block a set of pro-union websites, and wound up blocking another 700 unrelated sites in the process. ISPs should be an un-encumbered path to the internet, period. They should not have the right to tell me what I can and cannot view, for any reason whatsoever.  
 
We will be switching our internet from Bell back to Westman within the month, as I refuse to give my money to a company which wants to harm the open internet. When our contracts with Rogers are up, we will likely switch away from them too, though the alternatives there are less appetizing.

pinkflamingos said "First of all, this article explains in more detail how little Canada actually contributes to the global piracy problem.     https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/why-the-crtc-should-reject-fairplays-dangerous-website-blocking-plan/article37818403/     Secondly, there is never going to be a fool proof way to stop piracy, banning websites included. Like any form of prohibitive action, pirates are only going to get more creative. Copyright laws in Canada are very thorough and it's simple for the copyright holders to get a takedown notice when they see their content hosted illegally. And if our ISPs do need to have a site denied, they should go through the courts, rather than appointing their own little committee and denying us access arbitrarily.     You also have to look at the source here. The companies who are pushing this proposal, aka Rogers, Bell, Telus, etc, are not content creators/copyright holders themselves. They are merely service provider companies with a piss poor business model. Take Netflix for example: for like ten bucks a month (plus my internet cost of course) I get near unlimited content, ad-free, with great customer service. Through RoBeLus, I only get cable, which provides limited content, rife with ads, and terrible customer service. The same can be said for music streaming such as Spotify, which was also a huge issue back in the day when people were using Napster and Kazaa. The industry adapted, and now we have extremely convenient ways to pay for music. Rather than compete with Netflix, they are attempting to simply charge us more for their services under the guise of 'protection' from piracy, which is barely a problem in our country.     The idea that we are all cutting the cord and turning to illegal streaming or downloading is frankly absurd and unfounded. The only difficult position RoBeLus is in is, how do we get more money from Canadians who no longer want to pay for our overpriced cable and satellite? "

I agree with everything you''''''''ve said here, but just a minor point of clarification: Telus not part of the coalition proposing this change.  
 
Here is the full list of companies in the coalition:  
 
Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television  
Alliance of Canadian Cinema  
Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)  
Association québecoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle, et de la video (ADISQ)  
Asian Television Network (ATN)  
Association québécoise de la production médiatique (AQPM)  
Bell Canada  
Bell Expressvu  
Bell Media  
Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters (CAFDE)  
CBC / Radio-Canada  
Les Cinémas Ciné Entreprise Inc.  
Cinémas Guzzo  
Cineplex  
Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA)  
Cogeco Connexion  
Corus  
Directors Guild of Canada (DGC)  
DHX Media  
Entertainment One  
Ethnic Channels Group  
Fairchild Media Group  
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)  
Landmark Cinemas  
Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE)  
Movie Theatre Association of Canada (MTAC)  
Québecor Média Inc.  
Rogers Media  
Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB)  
TIFF  
Union des artistes (UDA).  
 
Locally relevant companies are in bold.  
 
Edited by pudds, 2018-02-05 11:51:20

All about censorship and greed and controlling the population and their viewing habits and their information intake.  
How dare they (Bell, Rodgers) and others tell me what I can watch or read. Example - stopping someone from accessing a Union web site.  
The cable/internet companies has been ripping off Canadians for years and the average smart Tec savvy Joe Lunchbox citizen has now decided to exercise their spending dollar by spending else where and Bell and the others are now crying because the CEO ,s bonus is smaller.  
When the Cable companies show all programs (movies and tv) from Canada, USA, Uk, and Australia. Maybe just maybe I will entertain the idea of connecting the cable cord and the new tv shows (season 1) is not 3 yrs old.

This is what you get when the content creators also own "the pipes" that get stuff into your home.  
 
Television and Internet providers like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers should never have been allowed to own TV stations, networks, or specialty channels. It creates conflicting priorities inside the organization.  
 
Example: CTV is a broadcast network, but I cannot watch the live stream without having a "television provider" when I'm inside a building that doesn't get a broadcast signal. So, of course, that means more cable subs:criptions for Bell, that also owns CTV. (The idea is that CTV is a free-to-air broadcast station, but can be hard to get in some buildings.)

Lowkey said "Have to put your name down. That's for if you want a reply back or appear and speak at the hearing discussion. "

The form could not be submitted because 9 errors were found.  
 
Error 1: You must provide details of your intervention in the box below AND/OR submit an attachment  
Error 2: Please select if you want to appear or not  
Error 3: Intro is mandatory  
Error 4: First name is mandatory  
Error 5: Last name is mandatory  
Error 6: City is mandatory  
Error 7: Province/Territory is mandatory  
Error 8: Email address is mandatory  
Error 9: You must agree to the confirmation of service

Provide any info to them. Not my name or city etc. You must have done something wrong. Your line one mentions the word intervention...  
That's would probably be the 1st place your error is..  
other wise the extra info they are asking is for is if you want to attend the hearings and also has a say or chance to voice your concerns.  
All I did was mark down opposed to it and hit send.  
I also now see there is a petition out on  
Change.Org

is an absolute joke and I encourage everyone to email CRTC directly with comments.  
 
issue one.... to have the default as a "support" is just wrong, and in particular for a Gov agency. should have been a simple 2 box, check one, "support or decline", with an additional comment short section optional.  
 
issue 2... you have to fill in all your details and will it be posted on the Gov Web site for all to view. I tried just sending in a comment on my objection to the format and it still wanted my id information.  
 
I absolutely refuse to hand over my vote and/comments and have my identity known to the world, that is like a hands up open vote at a club meeting.  
 
not a chance.  
 
whether you support a "free for all piracy" on the internet, or you support "artists and patents rights" being protected, email the CRTC directly your objection to the format of the survey cause this is just wrong.

Adam said " Respect the opinions of folks in this thread but also respect the difficult position tv providers and content owners find themselves in when it comes to piracy. Anyone willing to share an alternate plan to combat the issue of illegally acquiring and/or streaming content? "

Well sort of. They should be looking at value potentials in both affairs. Meaning that I would spent a little bit of money trying to shut down high priority piracy sites, on the basis of bang for your buck. Then put my services in line with competitors... and behold people will buy my content. Why:  
 
1. Value is good  
2. Sports... sports... SPORTS!  
3. People don’t want to be pirates... Arrrrrr.

Yeah, I can't find a way to do it without putting in full information.

Contact information is required for all CRTC responses. It's not a survey, it's a formal comment to a public proceeding, and your comments go on the public record as part of the decision.

Contact information is required for all CRTC responses. It's not a survey, it's a formal comment to a public proceeding, and your comments go on the public record as part of the decision.