How Canadians Get Their TV

Michael sent me this comment about a month ago and I thought the topic was interesting enough to coax an article out of. It concerns the mechanics of how TV is delivered in Canada.

I am curious about how the Canadians get their TV. Cable, satellite, downloading (such as NetFlix, iTunes, and Amazon) or DVDs.

How many channels are available to view? How much of the country's area is reached by TV in any form? What percentage of Canadians watch TV? Is it based on the free commercial model, the pay-tv model (cable for example), or license fees of the British?

To answer part of the last question first, Television in Canada is largely based on the free commercial model, although certain premium stations – HBO Canada, Sportsnet World, The Movie Network (in Ontario and east), Movie Central (Manitoba and west), and Superchannel – are commercial free but operate on a pay-TV model by charging significantly higher subscription prices than other channels. Apparently there was, in the early 1950s, a short-lived attempt to intrdoduce a licensing system such as the British use to help fund the CBC but that effort apparently died because Canada and the United States use the same technical standards and equipment and it was nearly impossible to stop people from buying (unlicensed) sets in the US and bringing them into Canada.

According to the CRTC, virtually all Canadians have access to over the air broadcast (OTA) signals but about 92% Canadians get their TV with cable and satellite. There are two major cable companies (Rogers and Shaw), three smaller regional companies (EastLink, Cogeco and Videotron) and a number of small independent companies, some of them community or cooperatively owned. There are two satellite companies Bell ExpressVu and Shaw Direct. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) offered by several of the telephone companies including Telus in BC and Alberta, Sasktel Max in Saskatchewan, MTS in Manitoba, BellTV in Ontario and Quebec, and Aliant in Atlantic Canada has a far smaller penetration in Canada than in the United States. Shaw, which is the primary cable TV provider in Western Canada and Northern Ontario is both the largest service provider in Canada and the largest Digital Cable provider. Part of this is because of their ownership of the Shaw Direct Satellite service which is significantly smaller than the Bell ExpressVu service.

Downloading is an available option although penetration is relatively low. According to a 2010 CRTC report in a typical week less than 25% of Anglophones and 20% of Francophones watched TV programming – defined as including “a TV program, newscast or clip from a TV program available on the Internet” – as opposed to over 40% of Anglophones and 35% of Francophones who watched amateur videos online. Sources appear to be somewhat restricted. Hulu is not legally available in Canada although there are people who try to avoid these restrictions. Apple has a Canadian service that appears (to a non-user like me) to be fairly extensive. In most cases you order from Canadian service providers such as CBC, CTV, Global, and CityTV and the cable service providers. NetFlix introduced a Canadian service in 2010. Again I’m not a subscriber so I can’t speak to the selection. Amazon Instant Video isn’t available in Canada. A potentially major problem for downloading may be the ownership issue. Shaw, Bell, and Rogers are among the largest Internet service providers in the country and the principal suppliers of broadband Internet services as well as the major cable/satellite Television providers. They also own the four largest broadcast stations – CTV (Bell), Global (Shaw), CityTV and Omni (Rogers) – as well as a high percentage of the Canadian cable channels. There is a benefit to them in restricting the penetration of downloading commercially made videos online.

The number of stations available to Canadians gets very complicated. Let’s start with broadcast. There are three English language networks – CBC, CTV, and Global – and two major English language systems – CTV Two, and CityTV. Systems are defined by the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission as groups of stations that don’t have outlets throughout the country. There are two French Language networks – Radio Canada (which has stations in all provinces) and TVA (stations in Quebec, cable deals in the rest of the country) – and one French language system – V (formerly TQS or Quatre Saisson). There is one multilingual network – APTN or Aboriginal Peoples Television Network with broadcast stations in all three territories and cable coverage in the rest of Canada which broadcasts in English French and several Aboriginal languages – and one multilingual system – Omni, which has five stations and broadcasts in no less than twenty different languages including Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Portuguese and Italian. People in border regions can also receive broadcast stations from nearby American cities.

Turning to cable/satellite, most Canadians have access to at least five American network stations as part of the most basic cable package, with others available depending on what sort of cable package they subscribe to. Four US “superstations” (WSBK, WGN, Peachtree and KTLA) are available depending on service provider – some require a subscription to premium movie services to get these stations. Canadians also have access to 110 Canadian owned English language, 33 French language, and 54 multilingual analogue and digital services. There are 67 English language, 26 French language and five multilingual High Definition services but most of these duplicate existing analogue, and to a lesser extent digital TV services. This is in addition to a number of American and Foreign broadcast and cable stations carried in Canada. Most Canadian cable subscribers also have access to more American and international specialty channels than I choose to count. Needless to say, no cable or satellite system carries everything, either because of limited bandwidth or because of rivalries between the various cable companies which are also cable channel owners.

I hope this gives you some answers about Canadian TV. It’s not the whole story – I haven’t even touched on simsubs and why Canadian stations schedule shows the way they do – but it’s a start.

Crisis!

I’m having a problem with my PVR. I’ve had the Pace Tahoe cable box and PVR for about four years (I bought it from Shaw Cable shortly after they started selling them) and bought an eSATA PVR Expander a month or two after that, Well, within the past few days the Tahoe has stopped recognizing the Expander and taken a huge number of the shows I’ve recorded with it. The indicator light on the Expander lights but I’m not sure if the Hard Drive is still functional. I’ve done the various things that you’re supposed to do to reinstall the expander to no effect. I don’t know if this problem will resolve itself but I’m not counting on it.

 

And before you ask, I would love to buy a new cable box – the new ones that Shaw offers has a larger hard drive capacity – but I can’t afford one.

Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – October 26, 2008

I confess that sometimes I get complacent about the PTC. Like I did this past month or so. It's the little things that drive you towards this. The vague hope that maybe they are sated, for lack of a better term. Alternately the sense that maybe they're losing steam. Certainly the continuing failure to update the "Misrated" column gives a hint of that. Of course they just might not be able to find interns to slave for them, what with the election and all that. And of course there's the repetitive nature of the thing. I mean how many times can you write about their vendettas against South Park and Rescue Men and Two And A Half Men and My Name Is Earl and just about everything that Seth McFarlane has created. And of course there's always the sense that they've gone about as far as they can go in the stupidity sweepstakes.

And just when you think that can't go any dumber, they get a little bit stupider.

I'm not sure how they're going to top their latest descent into the moronic. In a press release dated October 22^nd the PTC announced to the world – and more importantly to their 1.3 million members and assorted hangers-on – that they were filing an obscenity complaint against one of their perpetual targets, Two And A Half Men. According to the press release, the October 20^th episode "crossed the indecency line." In his statement announcing the complaint PTC President Tim Winter stated, "The shocking episode included a strip club scene that lasts three full minutes and features up close shots of a leading character being 'serviced' by a stripper complete with moaning and other sexual references. The scene was in no way 'fleeting' or accidental; rather, it was specifically written into this scripted program."

At this point gentle (and not so gentle) readers I would refer you to the PTC's "Worst of the Week" page for that very episode. Why? Well the PTC has supplied a clip of the very scene that they are claiming is so indecent that it is worthy of a complaint to the FCC by the PTC and its 1.3 million easily offended members (and assorted hangers on). For those of you using Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, just click the "Play" button on the Player; those of you using Firefox and Safari click the link that says download the clip. Go ahead and do that, I'll wait.

Doh de Doh de Doh Doh Dooooh.

Okay, are we all back? Have we taken care of any uh, side effects, that this scene might have provoked in we poor easily corrupted human males? Good. That is what the PTC currently thinks is indecent! I'm not sure how they get there to be honest with you. The setting is the world's most chaste strip club. The "stripper" in question is wearing more clothes than many women wear on the beach. She is not "Charlotte Ross nude" – the subject of the infamous FCC NYPD Blue decision which is currently under appeal. We are not seeing the "curve of her naked breasts" which was the cause of a PTC complaint about an episode of Las Vegas. No one in the scene is using any of the seven words you can't use on TV including the ones that you've been able to use for a while now. All of the participants in the scene are above the age of consent, which seems to have been the basis for the FCC fine in the Without A Trace "teen orgy" case, nor is it a simulation of a "sexual act" as most of us would be inclined to define it and as the FCC seems to have defined it in that same decision. It is certainly not of the standard of the bachelor party scene from the reality series Married By America which earned FOX an FCC fine. No, to quote the description from the "Worst of the Week" page (because it has the most comprehensive description of the scene that supposedly crossed the indecency line): "The episode begins with Charlie running into teenager Jake's former 5^th grade teacher, Dolores Pasternak. Dolores suffered a nervous breakdown and lost her teaching job after Charlie dumped her, and now works as an exotic dancer known as Desiree Bush. She chews out Charlie for ruining her life. In a rare moment of guilt, Charlie feels responsible for Ms. Paternak's misfortunes and decides to help her. Charlie visits the strip club where she works, bringing his brother Alan along. Once at the strip club, Charlie asks a dancer onstage, 'When does Ms. Bush come out?' The dancer replies, 'Whenever Ben Franklin comes out.' Charlie clarifies, 'I mean Desiree Bush.' He turns and recognizes Dolores' rear waving in front of his face. Dolores/Desiree refuses to talk to Charlie unless he pays for a private dance, whereupon Charlie offers to buy one for Alan. Once in the private room, Dolores bumps and grinds on top of Alan, who moans in pleasure: 'Whoo, doggies!' As she straddles Alan he stops her: 'Excuse me, I've got to readjust. I'm playing ring toss with my car keys.' She mounts him again, tosses her head back and sticks her chest out while Charlie offers to hire her as Jake's tutor. When she asks if Alan agrees with the proposal he squeaks, 'Oh…yes. Yes. YES!'" According to the PTC, "This scene was not just sexually suggestive -- it actually depicted a borderline sexual act. The graphic lap dance crosses the line into indecency." Oh puh-lease! Borderline sexual act? Graphic lap dance?! Maybe to an Islamic mullah, but for the rest of us it's hardly the stuff of arousal to sexual excitement. To be sure the script is full of double entendres, and even single entendres but that's pretty much expected of Two And A Half Men, and besides while it may be done in a way that offends good taste it is most assuredly not done in a way that offends the legal definitions of indecency.

Not surprisingly the mainstream media has not picked up on this story, and to be honest with you I'm not sure that they should if only because they can't give it the sort of ridicule that it truly deserves. I've only found two news items about the complaint. One is from OneNewsNow.com, "a division of the American Family News Network" and a website that has stories about whether Obama "supports the radical homosexual agenda espoused by one of his fundraising co-chairs," or how "there would be no mention of resurrecting the 'Fairness Doctrine' if talk radio were dominated by liberals." (The latter is one of those things that makes anyone with a bit of knowledge burst out laughing; the old and now discontinued "Fairness Doctrine" was established in law with the "Red Lion Decision" before the Supreme Court which essentially allowed regulation of the airwaves by the FCC because of the "scarcity of frequencies." Decry the basis of the Fairness Doctrine and weaken Red Lion and incidentally the case of people like the PTC. Click this link to read about Red Lion.) Obviously they drank buckets full of the cheap Kool-Aid substitute. The other news report is from TVNewsday which essentially reprints the PTC press release without comment. However broadening my search a bit further I came upon this from Tom Jicha, TV critic for the South Florida Sun-Sentinal and fellow PTC hater: "The Parents Television Council, which has been having trouble getting its name in the paper because of all the political news, announced it is filing a complaint with the FCC over Monday's episode of Two and a Half Men. The scene in dispute involved Jon Cryer's character getting a fairly explicit strip club lap dance. As it played out, I thought to myself, the Moral Mafia is going to get all worked up--no pun intended--over this. They never disappoint. They are still bringing up Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, largely because it was the last time anyone paid them serious attention. The Super Bowl, they had a point. That was an ambush. But anyone who doesn't know by now that Two and a Half Men is the raciest (and funniest) show on TV shouldn't be allowed near a remote control. This complaint, like almost all the other thousands the PTC and their fellow travelers file, will get nowhere but it will win them some attention that will help in fund-raising, which is what this is all about." He's right of course (except that I didn't find the scene all that racy but then I'm a Canadian and we're made of and used to stronger stuff) but really, the very fact that they even think they have grounds to complain makes it noteworthy in the annals of PTC intolerance.

I'm only going to give brief mention to the PTC's current Worst on Cable. It's another attack on the BBC America presentation of Skins which originally aired on Britain's E4, a satellite station owned by Channel 4, a broadcast network that is known for its cutting edge dramas. The series subsequently aired on the broadcast channel. The particular episode that the PTC found objectionable was a second season episode called Sketch, in which a teenage girl develops a major infatuation of Maxxie – an openly gay male character that goes to the point of stalking. When Maxxie gives her slight encouragement – he asks if she's "single" intending to set her up with his friend Anwar her obsession takes off, to the point where she sneaks into his room and masturbates on his bed upt to the time when he comes home at which point she hides under his bed and apparently stays there all night. Later, when she does surrender her virginity to Anwar, it is apparent from the way the scene is shot (as seen in the clip that accompanies the article) that the only enjoyment she gets out of the act comes from looking at a picture of Anwar and Maxxie, and presumably imagining that it is Maxxie who is making love to her rather than Anwar copulating with her. Having described the situation in explicit detail, the PTC doesn't seem to have many placed to take it. They don't even enter into their usual diatribe demanding Cable Choice and asking why the public is "forced to subsidize" programming such as this. Instead they latch onto something in an "inside look" type commentary that aired during the episode: "Incredibly, during an "inside look" at the show that aired during a commercial break, one of the actors made the audacious claim that '[Skins] is a very true-to-life program.' Only on TV are stalking, hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds considered 'true-to-life.'" But of course the character of Sketch is emotionally damaged – something that the PTC writer admits in his piece – and if there's one thing that we know from "real life" it is that stalkers exist and they are people who are emotionally damaged, and that they do things that go far beyond "hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds." But of course the PTC expects Sketch to be portrayed as though she were emotionally stable even after admitting that she isn't emotionally stable. And this is used as evidence that "Increasingly, on shows like Gossip Girl and Skins, sex is treated as a weapon, a tool girls must use to manipulate men at the expense of their own body. In this toxic media environment, sexual deviance is routinely pawned off as normal." But of course in Skins at least, that isn't the case; Sketch's activities, her "sexual deviance" as the PTC puts it, is most assuredly not portrayed as normal but rather the acts of a disturbed person.

Finally we turn to the PTC's TV Trends column. This time around the Council takes another run at demonizing anyone who dares to appeal an FCC decision that the PTC agrees with. The target this time around is NewsCorp President Peter Chernin. Chernin was recently given the Media Institute's Freedom of Speech Award – or as the PTC puts it, "the Media Institute's so-called 'Freedom of Speech' award." I want to start this part of this post with the conclusion that the writer of this latest screed offers: "Peter Chernin and his fellow media oligarchs claim that their 'First Amendment rights' are in jeopardy. Given the use to which they are already putting their freedoms – and the public's airwaves -- one may legitimately ask: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fox and allows it to air whatever offensive and harmful material it wishes, can America's cultural suicide be far behind?" Beyond the fact that I love how the writer puts the words "First Amendment rights" in quotes, as if such rights are an illusion or somehow non-existent for Chernin or the "media oligarchs" or maybe just the broadcast media in general, I have to wonder at a culture so fragile that someone saying "fuck" or "shit" on TV in the heat of the moment will lead to "America's cultural suicide." Because that of course is the issue that the PTC writer is so incensed about, the upcoming Supreme Court appeal of the "fleeting obscenities" ruling by the Second Circuit Court.

But let's go back to the beginning of the article. Chernin had made a speech after accepting the Media Institute Freedom of Speech award which was reported in Broadcast & Cable. The PTC claims that in that speech Chernins said that "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics." As usual this is a case of the PTC deliberately misinterpreting someone's words because what was actually said does not aid their cause. Here is the relevant portion of what Chernin said, as reported by Broadcast & Cable. He begins by noting the coincidence that the FOX case and the US elections are being held on the same day:

Chernin said the coincidence of the two events was appropriate. "The Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the two are inextricably intertwined. The First Amendment is central to our democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained," he said.

"While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one we would have chosen to argue before the Supreme Court," said Chernin, "we don't get to pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my company would be before the U.S. Supreme Court defending inane comments by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have said, 'You're crazy.' But I would contend that the nature of this speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no difference."

That's because Chernin called the heart of the case "an absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event. The effect would be appalling."

"As a media company," said Chernin, "we have not just a right but a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment line in the sand – even if the content we are defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it has been obliterated," he said.

Now I may be blind, but I don't see anything like what the PTC claimed was in his speech in this article. You know, the part about "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics."

Of course for the PTC what a finding for FOX in this case will mean is a blanket permission to "allow any kind of language on TV, in any amount and at any time of day." But Chernin is clear in his statement that this is not what this case is about: "It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event." And in fact that is the context of the case. The court is dealing with a sudden and arbitrary change in a policy that had been in place essentially since the beginning of the FCC's ability to deal with "indecent" content – the understanding that from time to time people on a live broadcast might forget themselves and say a word that under most circumstances would not be allowed, or that such a word might inadvertently be picked up on a microphone.

Then again, to the PTC, FOX is a veritable cess pool of unacceptable content, worse even than the other broadcast networks. The PTC says of this, "Clearly, Peter Chernin has an extremely high opinion of the programming that his networks currently air. In such a context, it is fair to ask: if Fox is demanding the 'right' to air anything it wants, any time it wants, what are the contributions the network currently makes to American culture and civil discourse?" They give as an example – inevitably given the PTC's attitude toward Seth MacFarlane – a couple of scenes from recent episodes of American Dad and Family Guy. I won't go into details except to mention a comment in parentheses at the end of the excerpts: "Of course, if Fox gets its way, "f******" – and every other profanity -- will never be bleeped again." Not true, as we've seen from Chernin's previous statement. However I will counter with what Peter Chernin said in his speech:

Chernin conceded some of the content Fox was defending in this and other cases "is not particularly tasteful," citing "expletives, the brief nudity, carefully placed whipped cream, and, of course, the pixels." He said he would not have allowed his kids when they were younger to watch some of those shows. But he also said Fox would "fight to the end for our ability to put occasionally controversial, offensive, and even tasteless content on the air."

That doesn't mean Fox doesn't make mistakes, he said, but the alternative is a media "ruled by fear of crossing an ambiguous line. Then, he says, the product becomes "less vital and more homogenous," viewers will have less choice, programming that is "provocative and accurately reflects our society will be compromised," and the First Amendment would be chipped away "until it becomes toothless."

The writer of this piece goes to great lengths to attack Chernin's position as being not just ill-formed but elitist and therefore invalid. Part of this is pointing out that the Media Institutes Board of Trustees are "oligarchs" by thoughtfully providing a link to the Institute web page that lists the members of the Board, most of whom are executives at various media companies ranging from Time Warner and NBC Universal to Belo Corporation and Clear Channel. They don't distinguish between the political viewpoints of the various companies or their executives – which I suspect is far more diverse than the political viewpoints of the leaders of the PTC – but that omission is most likely an attempt to make it seem that they all hold a unitary view. The use of the term Oligarchy – rule by a self determined elite who decides what is and isn't good for you – is a keystone for the PTC's argument on this issue since it allows them to paint it as "The People", as defined and given voice by the PTC, versus the evil elite. In fact they come right out and say it:

The entertainment industry often claims that the Parents Television Council is a tiny minority unrepresentative of most Americans, and that therefore our actions in advocating modest limits on indecency should be ignored. But considering that approximately 90% of everything Americans see, hear or read in the media is ultimately controlled by a few dozen network presidents and corporate chairmen, and possibly a few hundred more writers and producers, such a claim rings false. The PTC would willingly wager that our more than 1.3 million members are more in tune with the thoughts and feelings of average Americans than are a tiny clique of media bosses and their so-called 'creative' lackeys.

Obviously the matter of the PTC's so-called "modest limits on indecency" is questionable given the subjects of the their most recent campaigns (The Today Show "obscenity", the Survivor penis, and the Two And A Half Men lap dance) but I have serious doubts that the PTC's 1.3 million members is truly in tune with the majority of the 305.1 million people in the United States.

The PTC takes a very definite leap in logic in "proving" that the American public supports the action of the FCC in levying the fine against FOX on the "fleeting obscenity" issue. See if you can follow this (Emphasis is theirs):

The position held by Peter Chernin and his media cronies is that the U.S. government, following mandates from a Congress elected by the American people, should not enforce the common-sense standards of decency that the overwhelming majority of Americans want. That the overwhelming majority of Americans do want such common-sense standards of decency in entertainment is undeniable; in 2006, the people's elected representatives in the United States Congress passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing FCC fines for indecent content on broadcast TV. The House of Representatives voted in favor of this measure by a 10-1 margin; the Senate passed it unanimously.

But, because such measures do not meet with the approval of Peter Chernin and his fellow multi-millionaire moguls who control broadcast, cable and satellite television, radio networks, film studios, music companies, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing firms, these bosses demand that the law be overturned. The desires of average Americans be damned, say the Overlords of Media; anything that would limit the entertainment industry's "freedom" to make more obscene profits by deluging Americans with indecent and offensive content must not be allowed.

The logic is so faulty that it is laughable. Setting aside the fact that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (not 2006) does not deal with the definition of indecent or obscene content but rather with increasing fines for content defined by the FCC as being obscene or indecent, we are supposed to believe that that the "overwhelming majority of Americans" want this because their elected representatives voted for it en masse. This is, of course because the Representatives and Senators all asked everyone in their states whether or not they should vote for this measure. This is at best fallacious logic on the PTC's part. Let's set aside the dangers that the increased fines pose in terms of creating a chill in terms of what can be broadcast, as described in an article by Garrison Keillor in Salon in September 2005. Let's even set aside the views of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (yeah I'm shocked that I'm citing them but it's a worthwhile quote) which wrote:

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increases the fines for the broadcast of "obscene, indecent, and profane language," is itself an indecent obscenity.

The FCC's power to regulate any speech is a violation of the right to free speech. The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Such freedom requires that the airwaves, like the printing press, be used in complete freedom – any way their owners wish (short of libel, fraud and the like). Just as each individual should determine what he sees or hears, so each media company should determine what it broadcasts.

Parents – not media professionals or government bureaucrats – are the ones who have the responsibility for supervising what their children see and hear in the media. If people find a program objectionable, they are free to turn it off. It is as simple as that.

Instead, let's get back to the facts of the case that the Supreme Court will be hearing on November 4^th. The focus of the case is on the actions of the FCC in rewriting a policy that had been in place for over 50 years. In doing so, and not adequately explaining why it had abandoned this policy, the FCC was acting in violation of the Administrative Procedures which prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" behaviour by government agencies. In other words the FCC, an agency of the U.S. Government acted contrary to the laws of the United States. That this is a First Amendment question is obvious, but it is first and foremost a question of abuse of power.

It is actually my opinion that the position supported by the PTC is losing rather than gaining strength. Certainly that's the case amongst powerful people. Congressman John Dingel of Michigan of the House Commerce Committee wrote in a December 2007 letter to Kevin Martin FCC, that "given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner." In August of this year former FCC Chairmen Newton Minnow and Mark Fowler along with five other former officials of the Commission wrote in an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, "The indecency controls that began as a limited tool for reining in a small number of provocative broadcast personalities and irresponsible licensees have become a rallying cry for a revival of Nineteenth Century Comstockery," and they added that "Broadcasting is no longer unique and it is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality." In September former FCC Chairman Michael Powell stated at a National Press Club Event that he had been wrong in approving the policy change: "It was a terrible mistake and I voted for it." He also said at the same event that the agency's regulation of broadcast decency had "gone way too far—we are dancing with the limits of the Constitution." But perhaps the most interesting position on this comes from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens, who wrote the majority decision in FCC v Pacifica and is still a member of the court. In 2002, in a concurrent opinion on ACLU v Ashcroft Stephens wrote, "As a judge, I must confess to a growing sense of unease when the interest in protecting children from prurient materials is invoked as a justification for using criminal regulation of speech as a substitute for, or a simple backup to, adult oversight of children's viewing."

I don't pretend to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the "Fleeting Obscenities" case, although I obviously know how I would like them to rule (and I also know that this would not have been an issue in Canada). I do know that I found the PTC's rhetoric in this piece to be typically self-important and sneering and in a very real way dangerous. It's not something to be looked at complacently.

My New Channels

Most of what follows isn't going to make much sense to many of the people who are going to read this, but it illustrates a number of things. Or maybe I just want to do some writing. And if, by doing a bit more writing I get some of you off your hands and voting in the poll then that qualifies as a good thing. The little tale that I have to relate today is going to ramble around a lot because this post is positively designed to go off on tangents.

On Friday I was finally stirred to action by my mother and added some new channels to my Digital Cable service. I've had Digital Cable since a couple of months after the digital specialty services were introduced in September 2001. It has been an interesting ride. The first three months were a trial period that let you really get your feet wet. There were a number of stations that were mandated as "must carry services" by the CRTC, meaning that cable companies that were offering digital specialty channels had to carry them. These "Category 1" services earned that by programming a high percentage of Canadian produced content – somewhere in the 70 to 75 percent range. It didn't take me too long to figure out that most of these services weren't anything that I really wanted. These were networks like FashonTV – all fashion all the time; iChannel – TV about public, social and current affairs; One: The Body Mind and Spirit Channel – focused on the issues of "natural health, personal growth, new ideas, holistic lifestyle and intriguing possibilities"; BookTV – TV devoted to books and literature (which is broadly defined enough they can show The Paper Chase and Batman).

I made my initial selections based on a deal Shaw has that allows customers to great their own packages. At the time you could take individual channels or you could pick five, ten or all of the channels for less that the base priceper channel. That's essentially what the Parents Television Council wants every cable company in the United States to provide for every cable channel, but it isn't practical for every channel unless the system is entirely digital –no analog cable signals at all – where every subscriber has to have a digital cable box to receive a signal. That's because the cable box essentially a computer that can be programmed to block or allow through specific signals, and changes can be made from the local office while you're on the phone with them. For analog systems such changes would require individual mechanical connections made at the point where the cable to the house connects to the main line – impractical both in terms of time needed to customize each customer's order and in terms of cost. Based on other sources I am given to believe that there are no Canadian cable systems that 100% digital, and presumably the same holds true in the United States.

At the time that I got Digital Cable the 10 pack of channels suited me just fine. It allowed me to pick and choose the individual stations that I wanted without being bound by "theme" packages that forced me to take things I didn't want. Indeed at the time Shaw didn't offer themed packages, (today they only offer two – one for sports and one for movies) beyond what you get automatically when you got Digital Cable. Indeed, Shaw didn't even require you to subscribe to their premium movie channels to get the four US Superstations (WSBK, WPIX, WGN, and KTLA) which virtually every other cable and satellite company in Canada requires. For the most part, over the years I've been happy with the channels that I picked (particularly when they've accidentally given me channels for extended periods of time that I haven't paid for). So here's what I've been getting over the past few years:

• Independent Film Channel – the place where I saw Zatoichi the Blind Swordsman and parts of some of Ingrid Bergman's Swedish movies.
  
• The Documentary Channel – where I made the acquaintance of Dennis Hof, Air Force Amy and the rest of the gang on Cathouse not to mention Taxi Cab Confessions (those people have no shame).
  
• BBC Canada – where I lusted after Anna Rider Richardson, was amazed at Charlie Dimmock's denial of undergarments, and watched the complete run of Coupling and knew that the Americans couldn't do it justice.
  
• Tech TV – where Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton made me a geek and I lusted after Pat Boone's granddaughter (Jessica Corbin). But Patrick, Leo (and Jessica) are gone now.
  
• Deja View – Canwest Global's answer to TVLand...but not as good. The only choice in Shaw-town though.
  
• Discover Civilization – allows me to indulge my interest for archaeology and other bits of esoteric knowledge.
  
• Fox Sportsworld – This used to give me the world of Soccer and other non-North American sports but these days most of the games are on tape, there's no cricket, no Aussie Rules, and "International Fight League" is inflicted on the viewer.
  
• Lonestar – I bought the channel with western movies and TV shows. More on this shortly.
  
• Showcase Action – mostly action movies and TV series.
  
• Showcase Diva – mostly chick flicks and romantic movies (just remember, chick flicks have the best nudity).
  
• BBC World – BBC's world news service.
  

In addition, over the past few years they've added MSNBC, the National Geographic Channel, NFL Network, American stations from Spokane Washington, and Cosmopolitan TV (hey, it's a place where I can see Veronica Mars) to the Digital Basic line-up.

However over the years Shaw's packages have changed. Today they offer 7 and 14 packs instead of 5 and 10 packs for the same price. Of course they haven't exactly made a lot of fuss about it – like telling people that the changes have been made. Unless you've had reason to contact Shaw Customer Service you've literally gone on paying more for less. About a month ago when my mother contacted Shaw about a problem with her bill after we got the HD-PVR box. During the course of the conversation, the Customer Service rep mentioned that we really could be getting more channels for the same amount of money. My mother put me in charge of selecting the added channels. I finally got around to it last Friday.

The first thing that I decided to do was to rid myself of Lonestar. As I mentioned the network had started out as a western oriented network – showing things like The Big Valley and Bonanza. Despite an abundance of product they never seemed to show a lot of the shows I expected – no Maverick or half-hour Gunsmoke. More recently they stopped showing westerns altogether and started showing action movies and TV shows. I already have Showcase Action and they do the genre better. So, once I was clear on the deal that was available to me I told the Customer Service rep that I no longer wanted Lonestar. The conversation went something like this:

She (shocked and amazed): You don't like that channel?!

Me (shocked and amazed that she is shocked and amazed, but not showing it): No I don't. What I signed up for was a channel that showed westerns. It's become a cheap knock-off of Showcase Action and I already have that.

She (no longer shocked or amazed, rather fully understanding and even showing some sympathy): Ah, I understand.

After that the whole procedure went just fine. I named the stations that I wanted and she added them. And best of all, when I got off the phone and was able to turn on the TV less than a minute later, the stations were all activated. My new stations are these:

• Bold – When this was called Country Canada and focused on the rural lifestyle I wasn't interested. But CBC, which now owns it outright, has converted it with sports including rodeo and equestrian events, arts and culture programming, and programming that includes the current Doctor Who and The Lone Gunmen.
  
• Travel & Escape – the name pretty much says it all. Travel to places you aren't likely to go to on your own and see and do things you're not likely to see or do on your own (probably because you can't afford to).
  
• BBC Kids – I didn't order this channel just to watch Liz Sladen on The Sarah Jane Adventures...but it didn't hurt. The network not only provides content suitable for my nephew but after about 8 o'clock (my time at least) it starts showing more mature shows including Little Britain, Blackadder, Hollyoaks, and classic Doctor Who.
  
• GSN – It used to be The Game Show Network and it's probably the only channel I know of that is proud – to the point where they actually promote the fact – that one of their shows was awarded the PTC's Seal of Approval. Me, I watch the network for the Poker, and the classic game shows like I've Got A Secret and What's My Line? are bonuses.
  
• Gol TV – I am a soccer fan and this channel has a number of the Central and South American leagues as well as both the German Bundesliga and the Spanish La Liga. It doesn't have everything I'd want, but I'm not paying $14.99 a month for the English Premier League – heck I wouldn't pay that for porn.
  

I think that I've got the best stations – at least for me – that I can choose from. But there's a problem, because of the channels that Shaw makes available to me. I have nothing but good things to say about Shaw Cable's local service. When they schedule an appointment they show up on time which I'm given to understand isn't always the way it is with cable companies. Where I do have problems is with the upper levels of the company's management. The big thing in this story is the way that Shaw decided to pick and choose the Category 2 stations that they would accept. Of forty-nine Category 2 English language Digital Cable channels (not counting the HD channels) Shaw carries twenty-four. There seems to be little explanation of why some channels were taken and others weren't. Only one digital music channel is available (not that that matters to me). Only one Category 2 station originally owned by the CHUM group was included, a Canadian version of Court TV that was only added because Shaw carried the American network until the Canadian version replaced it. Only one of the three stations formerly owned by Craig Media was offered. On the other hand four of the five channels owned by Canwest Media were offered (and the exception, the jazz channel CoolTV was offered in Manitoba) as were all of the channels in which Alliance-Atlantis owned a majority stake – those channels are now owned by Canwest Media as well. I'm not suggesting that I would have made different choices if a fuller range of stations had been available. After all I only picked two Category 2 stations the other day, and I'm not unhappy about the choices that I've made. My major concern however is the paternalistic attitude exhibited by Shaw Cable in deciding what I, the consumer, should be allowed to choose from. Of course, given the attitude of company CEO Jim Shaw towards the Canadian Television Fund and what amounted his demands that "his money" because it doesn't produce programming he thinks is suitable (he has long complained about the funding that goes to the series Trailer Park Boys) not to mention his repeated demands for the "right" to bring in more American services without restriction (notably HBO and ESPN), this probably shouldn't be unexpected.

(Very) Short Takes – September 23, 2007

I haven't got much to write about today outside of taking my regularly scheduled run at the PTC – if I can't make fun of them editorially I am in real trouble. Part of the problem is that we're in a sort of doldrums when all the shows about to pop out are shiny and new and have finally have had their casts and scripts tweaked, and each and every one of them is going to draw a 40 share. It's sort of like Spring Training in baseball, the last time anyone seriously thinks the Washington Nationals have a shot at winning the World Series (I would have said the Cubs but this year they're contenders – it's only been a century since their last Series win, they don't want to be greedy). Harsh reality will assert itself within the next couple of weeks with a couple of shows falling by the wayside at the hands of the evil network weasels and I'll have something to write about.

As it is right now I seem to be suffering from a bit of writers block, or as I'm inclined to call it, literary constipation (because nothing's coming out; of course it could be called literary diarrhea – the only thing coming out is crap – but literary constipation just feels like the right metaphor). That's one reason why the other blog – The Good Old Days Weren't So Bad – is so stagnant. I come up with what seems like a good idea, start writing and after a few paragraphs decide "well that's a big steaming pile of crap" and delete it from my hard drive.

I mean here's an example. One of the things that really bothers me is people writing critical commentary about shows they admit they haven't seen. I mean take this example: "To be honest, I have never really heard much about The Unit. The most that I knew about it was that a guy that I recognized as a character on 24 (and also from those Allstate Insurance commercials) was on it. I had no idea who else was in it or what it was about. After reading up on the show, I can't really say that it sounds like something I'd like to watch, although I'm sure that there's an audience out there for this show somewhere." It's a Cinema Blend Fall Preview of The Unit. Or this one from the same source, about NCIS: "NCIS is one of those shows that I always see getting decent ratings despite the fact that I don't know a single person who watches it. I expect the series appeals mostly to people with military backgrounds or if not, people who have an interest in military shows. I'm all for supporting the troops but my enjoyment of anything even remotely military related is limited to movies like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan and Nelson DeMille books. I have no interested in crime related procedural dramas and even less interest in a series that shows the genre in a military light. That said, the show has gotten good ratings over the last few years so there must be something to it." The writer has never watched NCIS, has no interest in the subject matter but takes a shot at it anyway. These two weren't the only ones either. At times it seemed like Cinema Blend was deliberately assigning people to comment on previewing shows they had never seen and explaining that the show wasn't worth watching. And in righteous indignation I was prepared to take a run at them. And then a little voice (which sounds almost exactly like Tweety Bird) pops up and says "Ooo, what a hypotwite!" Because of course I do that all the time when I write my "TV On DVD" commentaries; I haven't seen all of those shows or even most of the shows but here I am telling my readers what they should spend their money on, sometimes quite vehemently. And since I'm not planning on stopping anytime soon, Delete!

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well, they don't hate the US Congress, that's for sure. In fact the PTC is ecstatic that Representative Charles Pickering (R – Mississippi) introduced House Resolution HR 3559, a bill similar to that proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D – West Virginia) "that affirms the FCC's ability to restrict the use of profanity and indecent images during times of day when children are most likely to be in the viewing audience." The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-North Carolina). As usual the PTC is railing against the decision of the Second Circuit on the "fleeting obscenity case." This time though Tim Winter is taking a new tack in his condemnation of the decision. First there's the usual assertion that the networks are plotting to fill their programming with S-words and F-words when children are watching: "No matter what the industry claims, if it had no intention of broadcasting the 'F-word' or 'S-word' during hours when children are watching, then it would not have sued – likely spending much more in legal fees than it would have faced in FCC fines – for the right to air these words and other indecent content." Well setting aside the fact that the PTC is yet again denying the networks the rights that even the most hardened criminal has, that is to say the right to appeal, they're getting their numbers wrong. I doubt that the networks collectively have spent $32.5 million on this suit, which is the fine that could currently be levied by the FCC for an obscenity aired on 100 stations, at the current maximum fine the Commission can levy - $325,000 per station. It's no wonder that some PBS stations have requested a censored version of Ken Burns's new documentary The War. However, as I have said, the PTC is taking a new approach on this issue – that all such language and images are fleeting. Tim Winter states in his press release, "I want to be clear: vulgar, profane language is, by its very nature, 'fleeting.' 'Unscripted' images that are highly sexual in nature may still meet the Supreme Court established criteria for broadcast indecency and are certainly highly inappropriate content for children. The so-called 'fleeting' nature of this type of programming does not absolve broadcasters of their responsibility to protect children from indecent content during the times when kids are most likely to be in the audience." If I'm understanding this correctly, any use of "vulgar and profane" language is fleeting therefore the court decision allows it all and legislation must be brought forward to prevent a person on live TV saying a "rude word" in the heat of the moment because it will allow scriptwriters to fill the screen with the vilest filth. Obviously you Americans are far more pure than we vile and obscene Canadians.

They are also applauding a class action suit launched against the practice of cable bundling. In their press release the PTC states that "The overwhelming majority of Americans support the notion of Cable Choice, so it is somewhat surprising that it has taken this long for a class action grievance to emerge against cable television's bundling practices. There is no question that a remedy is very much in order to put an end to the wantonly anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-family practices of the cable industry – a remedy rendered nearly impossible because of the industry's Washington power brokering. A victory in this court case will be a victory for parents and families – and indeed it will be a victory for all consumers. For decades now the cable industry has successfully dodged the free market by hiding behind a litany of falsehoods and PR spin. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on political campaign donations, on lobbying, and on contributions to a myriad of groups and individuals that have helped them to perfect and perpetuate a system that reliably produces price increases that are several times the rate of inflation." It's a great statement but it doesn't mention any of the details of the suit. For that you have to go elsewhere. The suit was launched by "veteran antitrust attorney Max Blecher" on behalf of fourteen cable and satellite subscribers in various cities. It "asked the court to enjoin the companies from "unlawfully bundling expanded basic-cable channels and ordering defendant cable providers and direct-broadcast satellite providers to notify their subscribers that they each can purchase 'a la carte' (separately) except for 'basic cable,'" basic cable being defined as the stations that the systems must carry per government mandate. The suit claims that the plaintiffs have been "deprived of choice, have been required to purchase product they do not want and have paid inflated prices for cable-television programming." Treble damages are sought, claiming "contracts between the programmer defendants and the cable and direct-broadcast satellite providers constitute a combination among and between the named defendants to monopolize trade and commerce in the relevant product market." In the past, the cable industry has argued that "government-mandated per-channel pricing will reduce programming diversity and could actually raise rates as channels forced to fend for themselves die off or have to charge more to make the numbers work." It is interesting to note that about half of the companies named in the suit - NBC Universal, Viacom, Disney, Fox, Time Warner, Comcast, Cox Communications, DirecTV, EchoStar Communications, Charter Communications and Cablevision Systems – are either content providers or companies which provide content and service (Time Warner, Comcast).

I have stated in the past that I support a la carte or "pick 'n' pay" pricing for cable channels although not for the same reason that the PTC does. I would rather not pay for channels that I don't watch. I am also cognizant however of the fact that bundling is almost essential for analog systems or systems that have not required subscribers to buy a digital box. In digital systems the digital cable box can be programmed to exclude individual stations however for people receiving analog services and using their TV's "cable ready" tuner a la carte service would require manpower intense changes to each customer's connection. The industry is almost certainly correct in their assertion that bundling subsidizes less viewed channels. What I do know from my own experience is that even if Blecher and his fourteen plaintiffs – representing, they say, all cable and satellite subscribers "except the defendents [sic] or their subsidiaries and employees" – are successful it will not mean the end of bundling. My experience in Canada, both with Shaw Cable and with every other Canadian cable and satellite system, including SaskTel which is owned by the government of Saskatchewan as a Crown Corporation and operates in competition with Shaw, is that while they offer "pick 'n' pay" as an option the price per channel is such that buying bundles are actually cheaper than buying individual channels even if you only want half of the channels in the bundle.

It's time for the PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week. This time around it's a rerun of Criminal Minds, about which the PTC said "simply flipping channels past CBS could have potentially been traumatic for any viewer." The episode was the one in which a serial killer uses an abandoned slaughter house that he owns to torture and eventually kill street people. A significant portion of the episode focuses on a young woman who is taken off the streets anesthetised. She awakes in the slaughter house and is challenged by the killer to escape, a sadistic game on the part of the killer – he's rigged things so no one can escape. The PTC describes her efforts to escape: "In a frenzy she tries to escape, but mistakenly crashes into a room covered in broken glass. The girl falls to the ground where she gains multiple wounds, including several on her face. She cries as she pulls the shards of glass from her cheek. A voice is heard telling her that if she can find her way out of the building she will be set free. Throughout the entire episode the girl is shown running for her life, but only finding rooms with the words 'dead end' written on the walls in blood. A Doberman pinscher is released and chases her into the 'Kill Room,' where body parts hang from the ceiling. The head of the old man from the first scene is shown on a table. The viewer learns that he was killed and cut into pieces with a circular saw. The girl is ultimately put on a gurney and prepped for death, when just in the nick of time FBI agents rush in and save her." While I found her efforts to escape heroic even as the FBI team tried to find the killer (and dealt with the sceptical police captain who didn't think there was a crime) the PTC felt that, "The plot was practically nonexistent. The entire point of the episode was frightening and sickening viewers with graphic scenes of blood and dismemberment." They also said that had it been a movie the episode would "certainly be considered for an 'R' rating due to violence." Hardly. An "R" rated film would have been far more graphic in terms of seeing victims (more than one) being dismembered, with abundant blood spattering in the scenes.

The Cable Worst of the Week (which the PTC still refuses to set up as an archived resource) is It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia on FX, for the episode with the Dumpster Baby. Here's how the PTC describes the show: "Charting the heinously decadent misadventures of Mac, Dennis and Charlie, the owners of a Philadelphia pub, It's Always Sunny premiered its third season on September 13^th. Filling out the degenerate gang are Dennis' sister Dee and their father Frank (played by Danny DeVito). And this season promises to pack an even more offensively crude punch to viewers – a punch subsidized by every cable subscriber, whether or not they feel the warmth of Sunny." As usual the PTC is sticking with their assertion that cable subscribers are subsidizing shows. It's not true and anyone with a hint of intellectual honesty will acknowledge this; the shows are sponsored and if they don't draw ratings that the advertisers are happy with (both in terms of total numbers and the specific demographic) those shows will be cancelled, as we saw with The Simple Life. The details that the PTC describes for the show aren't ones that would usually qualify for worst of the week (I think the PTC is desperate). One is the scene in which Mac and Dee try to get a tanning salon employee to let them put the baby they found in a tanning bed to give it a more "ethnic" look so it can be in commercials. The other scene they quote is the one in which Frank's mother tells him that he had survived her attempt to abort him. On the whole pretty tame stuff. In their conclusion the PTC writes "While this macabre humor may appeal to some (2.3 million viewers last week), what about the over 50 million cable subscribers who didn't watch, yet still subsidized this programming? Shouldn't those viewers get to choose whether or not they pay for It's Always Sunny's acerbic and polarizing humor?" By that standard we should probably be asking the companies who sponsor shows like According To Jim (just as an example – I could just as easily attack one of the PTC's favourite reality shows) why those people who don't watch the show but buy their products should be subsidizing that show's polarizing humour.

Finally we come to the PTC's Misrated section. They actually give us two this time around one of which they've mentioned several times in the past. The main one was the Emmy Technical Awards. As you may (not) be aware, these aired on the E! cable channel. The PTC believes that the show should have had a language descriptor. Here's why: "This award show was not live like other awards shows; it had been pre-taped and edited for time — yet the producers still chose to leave in many bleeped words like "f-word," "s-word," "b*lls," "d*ck" and "p*ssy." There were also un-bleeped words like "hell," "damn," and "bastard." In other words the PTC are complaining because "bad" words were bleeped and other words, which can be heard on many over the air shows were spoken on a cable channel. They note host Carlos Mencia's comment about sound editors: "…and a sound editor. He could cut all the bull [bleeped 'shit'] out of his own speeches. I apologize. I was going to say BS. I was back there and I asked Elaine Stritch. I said, 'Hey should I say BS or should I say the word?' And she grabbed me by the [bleeped 'balls'] and told me to 'be a man you [bleeped "fucking"] [bleeped "pussy"]'." And then they add this: "Just to be clear, the words were only bleeped, not blurred, so the viewer could see what words Mencia was actually using." So it's not just children that the PTC is concerned about but lip readers as well. And of course they were upset that clips of the nominated song Dick In A Box were shown: "The producers of the Creative Emmys decided to show clips of the song, during which Timberlake sings, 'One: cut a hole in the box. Two: put your junk in the box. Three: make her open the box…' and later Timberlake sings, 'It's my [muted "dick"] in a box, my [muted "dick"] in a box, girl. It's my [bleeped "dick"] in a box, my [bleeped "dick"] in a box, babe.'" Again, I remind you that if you read either of these quotes out loud you heard more obscenities than anyone who watched the show did. And then they added "Not only are there bleeped words, but there is clear sexual dialogue which would warrant the "D" descriptor." Not in that clip, at least in my interpretation.

The bonus material The PTC crowed in triumph about the airing of the season finale of NCIS which, they claim, includes a scene of "of a drug addict snorting heroin out of the intestines of a corpse." Actually the scene shows nothing of the sort; it simply implies it. In the scene, we see the back of the woman bent over the body of her brother (the corpse in question) and it is indicated primarily by the prior reaction of Tony and Dr. Benoit that she is snorting the heroin off of his body, but we don't see the intestines or indeed whether she is snorting the heroin. What the PTC seems happy about is two things. First, the episode initially ran with a TV-14 rating; in the rerun it ran with a TV-14 V rating. Secondly the episode initially ran in the first hour of primetime; the rerun ran in the third hour. To the PTC these two things indicated "that CBS recognized that the show was misrated, and that the network now took the necessary steps to warn parents of it's [sic] particularly offensive content." While the addition of the "V" descriptor might have indicated that, the show had been moved to the third hour of primetime following the debut of The Power Of Ten while the second hour was devoted to Big Brother which had its season finale on the night in question.

Short Takes – September 12, 2007

I confess that I came close to not doing even an abbreviated version of Short Takes this week. There wasn't that much that I was that enthusiastic about writing about beyond the ritual skewering of the PTC, and while that's fun, it isn't enough. There were stories – the apparent decision to put Doctor Who on hiatus for a year after the coming season because David Tennant wants to do Hamlet in the West End was one of those stories, but I just didn't have the fire in my belly to do it. Then something happened. I think I'll let the item in question explain itself.

Jim Shaw, arbiter of taste: If you live in Western Canada the odds are pretty good that you get your cable TV service from Shaw Cable. I get my Cable and Internet from Shaw, and I'll let you in on a dirty little secret – I don't hate my cable company. The service is usually up, the customer service in Saskatoon at least is good, and when you're given an afternoon appointment for a service call then by the gods the service guy shows up that afternoon. So I'm a pretty contented customer (except maybe for the rates but that's a part of this story). Now Management – in the form of company CEO Jim Shaw – well that's a whole other question.

On September 8^th my local paper the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and most of the other newspapers in Western Canada ran the following ad from Shaw, the company but it reflects the views of Shaw the man:

What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?

(Not much. We were hoping you knew.)

The Canadian Television Fund was created to help promote and develop quality TV programming in Canada. But somewhere along the line, they lost their way. Firstly, they give the CBC a backdoor to $120 million each year. Secondly, instead of promoting the creation of better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great, they pumped 2.5 billion dollars into shows about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park, shape shifting aliens with a grudge against the government and educational programming that.

At Shaw, we believe television should entertain, inform, inspire and make you think. We support the development of original Canadian programming that reflects this great country of ours. However this programming should be a lot more reflective of the audience that will ultimately watch it. We need a better way to create Canadian programming. The CTF is broken and can't be fixed.

This needs some background. Back in 1996 the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (the CRTC) established the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) to "support the production and broadcast of high quality, distinctively Canadian television programs." According to the CTF website their objectives are to "To encourage the financing and broadcasting of high-quality Canadian television productions; to reflect Canada to Canadians by assisting the creation and broadcast, in prime time, of high-quality, culturally significant Canadian programs in both official languages in the genres of drama, children's, documentaries and variety and performing arts, and by both majority and minority official-language sectors; and to support Aboriginal language productions in the eligible genres." According to CRTC regulations broadcasters are required to contribute 5% of their revenue to the fund. If I'm not mistaken, the cable company contributions were in return for relaxation of some regulatory requirements. According to a letter sent by Shaw to the CTF in January 2007 when he announced that his company would not be making its $56 million contribution to the fund for the year, "Over the past 10 years, Shaw has contributed over $350 million in direct subsidies to the Canadian production industry." And Jim Shaw is not happy with the programming that the CTF is funding.

Now it's no surprise that Shaw throws and off-handed comment about the CBC in there; Shaw comes from a corporate culture – the Canadian private broadcaster – that regards the CBC as a sort of amalgam of Satan and Stalin (evil incarnate and socialist). There's a whole history behind this but suffice it to say that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has always wanted the CBC dead.

No it's the second part of his diatribe that is irritating (and mystifying because I can't identify two of the shows he mentions) is that Jim Shaw sets himself up as an arbiter of good taste. Trailer Park Boys (the show "about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park") doesn't match Shaw's standard of good taste and quality television and so shouldn't receive funding. As I mentioned, I can't identify the other two shows he describes, the one about the shape-shifting aliens and the one that "offers instruction on the right and wrong way to host an S&M Bondage Party." They may be inventions of his own mind or they may be shows that are funded and he is drawing some aspect of them into the cold hard light of his "critical" eye. Not knowing what they are, I can't tell you if they're good or bad shows. I also can't tell you if they're popular or how they do in the ratings. I do know that Trailer Park Boys is one of the great successes of Canadian cable TV. People know and enjoy the characters to the point where the actors can make appearances on other networks (the CBC) as hosts of events and people know them. To me that's successful TV. Worse is that Jim Shaw doesn't suggest an alternative beyond a vaguely defined request for "better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great" to go along side his equally ill-defined comments about the quality of the programming that is funded.

Now I get people like the PTC. I know what they stand for and (mostly) against in terms of programming. They don't like sex, violence, and bad language. I don't agree with their definitions or thresholds for objectionable material – I think they are far too strict in every area, at every time period, and in every venue – but at least I know what they stand for. I don't get that with Jim Shaw. All I get from him is an echo of the US Supreme Court Justice who said that he couldn't define pornography but he knew what it was when he saw it. Shaw hasn't defined what a show that should be funded would be but he knows what it isn't when he sees it.

I don't object to Jim Shaw expressing an opinion about shows. Everybody does it all the time. But Shaw is a man with power – green power and I'm not talking eco-friendly here (okay so Canadian money isn't green, work with me on this one). A critic – especially an amateur critic like myself – doesn't have power beyond the power to tell people our opinion and trying to use our words to persuade them to watch or not watch particular shows. Jim Shaw is expressing an opinion about the shows he thinks should be funded and I defend to the death his right to express this opinion. But he's doing more than that and that's where he's crossing the line. He's saying in effect "fund the sort of shows that I think should be funded or you don't get my $56 million." I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like extortion. Or is it reverse blackmail? And it's the way he puts it in the ad, a way that generates an emotional response: "What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?" It makes it seem as though all the money that is going into the fund is coming directly from the taxpayer, and we all know that the taxpayer hates to fund things without getting some direct benefit. Of course what he's not mentioning is that that money stopped being ours when we paid it to Shaw Cable as part of our cable bill. And don't believe for a minute that if the CTF didn't exist your cable bill would go down by the per capita amount that would make up the $56 million.

To be fair to Jim Shaw, Shaw Communications has been a major funder of quality children's programming through their Shaw Rocket Fund which between 1998 and 2006 has spent $58.3 million to help produce quality children's programming, and presumably that has standards to define "quality." What I find objectionable is that Shaw is attempting to use his company's contribution to the CTF – which as far as I can tell is not voluntary but required as part of his license – to get the CTF to change their policy. And it's the question of whether the contribution is require that may trip him up. There are policies of Shaw Cable's that I disagree with – for example at the inception of the premium digital channels in 2001 the company decided which channels would be offered to its subscribers in a completely arbitrary manner. If I were to protest Shaw's policy on this by refusing to pay my cable bill but insisting that they continue to provide me with service, how far would I get? The answer is not very far at all – my cable service would be cancelled faster than it takes to type it. Actions have consequences, and Jim Shaw's action in not making his required payment to the Canadian Television Fund – for which he gets benefits – needs to have consequences.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: As I said above, I get where the PTC is coming from even if I don't agree with their position or their logic. But it does make studies like the recent one they released on content during the "Family Hour" suspect. Set aside the fact that the "Family Hour" as such hasn't existed for over a quarter century, having been thrown out by the courts as an arbitrary use of power by the FCC, the fact that the PTC defines an act of violence as showing a dead body, considers words like "damn" and "crap" as foul language, and counts verbal references to adultery as sexual content means that the results of this study are inflated to say the least. Still the PTC claims that TV is going to H E double hockey sticks and dragging us all with it: "Our study clearly demonstrates that corporate interests have hijacked the Family Hour from families. This early prime time block was once reserved for programs the whole family could enjoy but it is now flooded with shows that contain adult programming. The Family Hour was once lauded by the entertainment industry and members of Congress as a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content for at least one hour each night. Shockingly, this data shows that parents cannot trust what is on during the so-called Family Hour for even a minute." When they find that "in 180 hours of original programming, there were 2,246 instances of objectionable violent, profane and sexual content, or 12.48 instances per television hour," though, any validity the study might have is significantly eroded by the organization's definition of violent, profane and sexual content, definitions which may only be shared by the more extreme of the social conservative groups that support the PTC. And here's a question to consider, when exactly was it that Congress and the entertainment industry lauded the Family Hour as "a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content?" Not recently I suspect.

Onto the PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week and the organization continues in reruns, this time attacking Heroes for an episode that originally aired back in late November 2006 (at a time when the PTC wasn't doing new reviews; I suspect they were mourning the loss of a Republican Congress during the midterm elections). Their vision of the show doesn't seem to be in agreement with any of the episodes that I've seen: "While Heroes is marketed as a show about super-powered do-gooders and their quest to save the world, it is hard to find that theme in the typical episode." Uh, no it isn't about that at all. In the first season at least Heroes was about ordinary people suddenly discovering that they have extra-ordinary abilities and trying to cope with those abilities. About the only character who was really determined to be a "super-powered do-gooder" was Hiro. The rest of the characters were at the very least ambiguous about their motivations. Not unlike comic book characters have been since the 1970s – the early 1970s (heaven alone knows what they'd think of Roy Harper – Speedy – and his heroin addiction). Here's another gem which shows the PTC's incredibly harsh definitions: "Graphic violence involving fights, guns, bladed weapons, blood, burns, and death are commonplace on Heroes." So are the guns and bladed weapons "graphic violence" or is their use – that sentence doesn't entirely make it clear. Context doesn't matter either: "This week's episode featured Niki attacking her estranged father and beating him into submission." Context does not enter into the PTC's consideration – Niki, has at least one other personality (Jessica) as a result of being physically abused as a child by her father and it is Jessica (the strong personality) who beats her father into submission after the father yells at Niki's son. But as I say, for the PTC motivation and character development don't matter.

The Cable Worst of the Week is the PTC's perpetual target Rescue Me. The Council must be going soft – all they can find to comment on is Tommy's promiscuity ("the August 29^th episode features Tommy having sexual relations with two different women. In one scene, Tommy is shown sitting naked in a chair talking to Valerie after a brief sexual encounter") and a bit of dialog that happens after Tommy tries to grope the fire chief's daughter Beth: "My parents always want me to go back on [her medications]. Because they're always worried if I go off it that I'm going to snap and try to, you know, run into the room where they're sleeping and stab their eyeballs out with an ice pick or rip their chest out and then bury it in the backyard next to my ovaries. Why'd you take your hand away?" Before their usual final sentence decrying the fact that basic cable subscribers have to "subsidize" this filth (even though it airs at a time when children, the group that the PTC is supposedly protecting, aren't watching) they add this bit of artistic criticism: "Rescue Me continues its tradition of graphic content matched to superficial character analysis, mocking everything from monogamy to manic-depression. For a show that prides itself in exploring the human psyche in all its dysfunctional glory, this episode seemed only to mock real-life tragedies for a cheap laugh." Clearly they just don't get what this show is about.

In the PTC's Misrated section this week we find The Hills, which is MTV's self-described "reality drama" an intern working at Teen Vogue and her friends. The episode is rated TV-PG with no descriptors, and the objection seems to be concerned with a single scene: "Justin: "Who [muted 'fucking'] cares? Why do they [muted 'fucking'] care? It actually pisses me off. Because when something's working you don't [muted 'fuck'] it up by throwing labels or doing stupid [muted 'shit'] like throwing a ring on your finger. Because society or friends said so. So you know what? [Muted 'Fuck'] them. Literally. I don't give a [muted 'shit']." Although the words aren't bleeped and the mouth of the person saying them isn't blurred they also aren't heard either. Moreover, in the past the PTC has objected strenuously when those particular words have been bleeped and the lips were blurred because the words weren't bleeped to their standards. And yet, despite the fact that if you read the first sentence of the PTC's version of the dialog aloud (complete with the words in the square brackets) you'd have heard more "bad words" than in the actual transmission of the episode, the PTC feels that it requires at least a descriptor and probably a higher rating. Or as they put it, "Wow. In mere seconds, viewers are subjected to four muted 'f' words, two muted 's' words, one "piss" – and the ratings never reflected that. The entertainment industry wants consumers to believe that the ratings system works, but clearly there was nothing correct about the rating for this episode of The Hills." But here's the real question: how can you justify putting an "L" descriptor on a show for strong language when the words in question were only present in one's imagination. The context is clear but the words are taken out. It's not like taking the words "son of a bitch" out and replacing them (badly) with "scumbum" (as was done in Smokey And The Bandit when it was redubbed for TV) but it does the job.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

There are a couple of reasons for this title which will become clear in due time, but for the moment, let's just bask in the return of Big Brother – the horribly mutated version for North America. It's true, this is not the show that John de Mol created and which the rest of the world watches and participates in by calling in and voting for who should be evicted and who should stay. CBS tried that in the summer of 2000, and I think it's fair to say that if that were the only example of a reality show that was on the air that year the genre might have died "a-borning." But there was a little show called Survivor – which I'm convinced that no one at either Endemol or CBS thought was going to take off the way it did – that kicked Big Brother in the balls and took its lunch money. And when Big Brother came back for its second season it had ceased to be a show where the audience was an active participant and became a somewhat weak Survivor clone, but one which holds an audience.

This season the Big Brother house has been done over in a sort of Alice in Wonderland – or probably more accurately an Alice Through The Looking Glass – motif complete with one bedroom where everything is oversized and one is undersized (to say the least). And there was one room where the beds were round for no apparent reason, although I'm sure we'll discover one eventually. The eleven house guests were let into the house in groups of four, three, and four. Yes, I did say eleven, which is down from last year, but that's part of The Twist for this season (or one of the twists anyway). Naturally the "randomly chosen" first four – Carol, Joe, Mike and Amber (not that one) – grab the big beds, while the second three – Nick, Danielle, and Jameka (this season's only African American player, who admits that she doesn't spend much time with White People and is rather nervous about it) have far reduced choices. The final four – Kail, Jen, Eric and Zach – just happens to include some of the tallest members of the cast get the "Hobbit Hole" room with the tiny bed and the low to the floor door.

Once the players have their beds selected they get together in the living room to introduce themselves and it's a chance for us to get a really good look at them. The oldest one – so far – is 38 year old Kail while the youngest at "not quite 21" is blonde Danielle. In fact this is probably the youngest group of houseguests ever since – of the ones we know about – the only other one out of his twenties is graphic designer Zach. There's the usual sort of bitchy but insubstantial comments that occur. One houseguest states in confessional that she doesn't think another woman is "a person of substance" because of her enormous giant boobs." Don't snicker; from such facile observations are alliances forged on this show. The big early revelation is that Joe is Gay (no shock there). Actually he says that he works as a receptionist in a children's hair salon which is about the least "butch" job one can think of and yet another example of Big Brother casting the most stereotypical Gay people in America. Kail (who owns multiple businesses and is willing to tell us all about how most of her small Oregon town works for her or her family, but has only told her fellow houseguests that she was "just" a real estate agent) came off as something of a homophobe when she said in confessional that she would be "heartbroken" of one of her children "chose a Gay lifestyle." Which is a pretty crappy thing to say, but there's a bit of a hitch because we don't know when these confessionals were shot, and there are revelations to come about our happy little Gay guy.

The revelations are going to come because of the first Twist of the season. Host Julie Chen shows up on the living room monitor and tells the denizens of the minimum security prison known as the Big Brother House that they are not the only houseguests in the building. They are three people that they know; possibly a rival, an enemy or someone they have unfinished business with. And they're watching the action in the living room on TV. The three are Joe's ex, Dustin, "Evil" Dick (he insists on calling himself "Evil") who is Danielle's estranged father, and Jessica who is owed $5 by Carol from back when they were in high school. Huh!? Back downstairs the main group of inmates is speculating on who from their past life could be upstairs. Joe almost immediately says it has to be Dustin, and claims that Dustin gave him gonorrhoea (Dustin says it was Joe who was cheating and gave him The Clap), and that after they broke up Joe turned all of Dustin's friends against him. If Kail's comments about the Gay Lifestyle came after hearing this, they may seem just a bit less homophobic. Or maybe not. Suffice it to say that "our happy little Gay guy" doesn't come off at all well even without a rebuttal from Dustin. Danielle is afraid that it's probably her dad but doesn't say anything, while Kail is mostly worried that someone from her hometown will reveal the fact that she is – say it with me folks – a multiple business owner. As for Carol, she can't figure out who from her life could be somewhere in the house except maybe one of the girls she dissed when she was in high school.

The HOH competition was a bog standard one with a bit of a spin added to it – so to speak. Players paired up (with one not getting a partner and thus not competing) and while one player sat on a giant mushroom (like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland – remember that part of the theme) while their partner answered questions based on what the houseguest said in a general questionnaire before the start of the show. For every incorrect answer the mushroom of the "answerer's" partner would spin faster. Eric, who was trying desperately to answer questions wrong, ended up winning the challenge with his partner Kail who stuck to the mushroom like glue. Then Julie announced that the Head of Household would be chosen by the three players we haven't met yet. They decided to give it to Kail. Then, after everyone cleaned up (there were geysers of mud and a cloud of powdery white dust for the mushroom riders), the three players upstairs came down to meet everybody else. Pointedly Joe refused to shake hands with Dustin, but clearly the most emotional situation related to the massively tattooed "Evil" Dick and his daughter who fled to the bathroom along with most of the women on the show. I suspect that while Dustin & Joe is the relationship with the most external conflict, whatever happened between Dick and Danielle goes a lot deeper.

Ah, but there's one more complication thrown into the mix for this season and it's The Big Twist. Throughout the show they had been teasing us with the idea that one houseguest would be ours (the audience's) to control. At the end of the episode it is finally revealed that the one to be controlled would be Eric, who had been Kail's partner in the HOH competition. At the end of each episode viewers will be polled as to what "we" want Eric to do in a given situation ranging from how we want him to vote during the eliminations to which woman (I think/hope it's only women) he should start a "showmance" with. He's our little puppet to master. And while It's not the same as being able to vote out houseguests ourselves as is done in other shows in the Big Brother worldwide franchise, it is a lot more interactivity than has been available in the past. Despite the fact that he seems like the other players Eric is most assuredly not like the others.

The Big Brother houseguests are in their seventh day in the Big House. It is possible to get the live Internet feeds on Real Networks, but for the first time ever there is a daily three hour show available on the American cable network Showtime Too called Big Brother After Dark which shows viewers what's going on, live, in the Big Brother house from Midnight to 3 a.m. Eastern which is 9 p.m. to Midnight in California where the house is located – according to producer Allison Grodner, "That's primetime for the Big Brother house. It's when our houseguests are most wide awake and having fun, talking about strategy and playing the game. People are going to see quite a bit." And since it's on cable it won't be as censored as the broadcast programming is. Unfortunately that option isn't available in Canada. Global, which broadcasts Big Brother in Canada is offering an interactive contest called "In The House" where players can answer questions on their computers as each episode progresses. The highest point total for the week wins a TV with the highest point total for the year winning tickets to the show's wrap party. It's all part of an effort to make Big Brother 8 a more involving experience for the viewers at home. (Of course if you can't be bothered with the internet live feeds and aren't willing to subscribe to Showtime Too there's always Jackie's blog The (TV) Show Must Go On where she makes a heroic effort to summarize what's going on in the house, complete with her patented eyerolls @@. She has also posted the names of some other sites that recap the live feeds.)

Big Brother is the height of mindless summertime programming, the sort of thing that has little significance and not much in the way of dramatic qualities. The "characters" aren't particularly compelling and the casting – this year in particular – has tended to focus on the young and insubstantial rather than people who have accomplished something in their lives as some previous seasons have had. Purely on the level of the three episodes a week that most people see it can be dismissed as a typical reality show. Dimension is added however by the ability to see material other than what the show's producers edit for mainstream consumption – the live feeds and now Big Brother After Dark – which gives an enhanced view of what is occurring in the house. Because it's live it represents a more candid view of the people in the house. It's still "reality TV" but it's "reality" as it happens rather than interpreted by producers and editors looking to create artificial conflict and dramatic storylines. Where the series is finally making a breakthrough is in terms of interactivity. By giving the viewers a player to "control," even to the limited degree that we will be able to make decisions for him; the producers have made a big step. Having Eric "controlled" by the viewers breaks down the fourth wall from our side, making those who vote on what he should do participants rather than just observers. It's a small step, but more than the baby steps of other audience participation shows like American Idol in making TV interactive. And if you don't think this is significant consider something the Dianne Krisitine posted in Blogcritics. The article titled TV Yearns to Let You Choose Your Own Adventure states that new NBC Entertainment boss Ben Silverman wants to develop dramatic series along the lines of "choose your own adventure books" where decisions made by readers – or in the case of TV, viewers – influence the direction in which the story goes leading eventually to different endings. Indeed Chuck Lorre proposed a primitive version of this to FOX in 2001 with a show called Nathan's Choice where viewers would vote during a commercial break as to which of two options the lead character would take and then air the second act of the episode based on the viewers vote. With the "America's Player" idea, in which some of Eric's actions are controlled by the players, we are seeing this idea in action, although admittedly not in the format that either Silverman or Lorre envisioned. It'll to be interesting to see how this is going to work.