# ESPN2, CNN watching in Canada



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Just for fun: I just returned from a few days in Canada. This morning, I was watching the TV at the Marriott Courtyard in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The OTA US networks are easy to understand, but the hotel also had such networks as CNN, Headline News, Spike, and ESPN2 (but not ESPN, go figure). I understood that it's illegal for typical Canadians to watch such US channels using DBS dishes, so how does the hotel get away with it?

Guesses:

* It's close enough to the US (can see US flags fly across the water) that it doesn't matter.

* Hotel chain made several deals direct with channel suppliers, including both their US and Canadian hotels.

* Long runs of coax from dishes situated across the border.

* They don't. As soon as someone reports them, they're in big trouble. :lol: 

Talk amongst yourselves. Enjoy!


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Not illegal at all AFAIK.

I seem to remember having CNN & HNN the last time I was in Vancouver, BC.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

Yeah, there are plenty of American Channels in Canada, just not all are allowed. Government approval is required before they can be carried.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Do you have any info on what channels are blocked, and why?


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

All that carload mentioned are "allowed" by our government. Some that are not: HBO, TNT, USA, FOXNews, FX, HDNet, DiscoveryHD, FIT, DIY, VH1, SciFi, AMC and a few more. Canadians that watch those "banned" channels are subject to a $5,000.00 fine. The Liberal government tried to change the fine to $25,000.00 and one year in jail but called an election and the Bill died.

Why? That is hard to explain in a short answer. Suffice to say that BCE (who own Expressvu) wields tremendous power with the Liberal party and do not want competition from grey market DirecTV and DISH systems. The official government reasoning claims that protecting Canadian jobs in the arts industries and protecting the rights Canadian broadcasters have paid for is more important than individual choice.


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

CNN Headlline is OK but not Fox News? I guess they aren't "fair and balanced" in
Canada. It would make more sense to allow CNN I than it does "Headline" but who
says government makes sense?


----------



## redfishhunter (Aug 5, 2004)

Pete K. said:


> CNN Headlline is OK but not Fox News? I guess they aren't "fair and balanced" in
> Canada. It would make more sense to allow CNN I than it does "Headline" but who
> says government makes sense?


Specially Canadian government.
We need to take Canada and call their provinces..STATES...
Love to go hunting and take my own gun up there...without all the red tapes...
LOL... :lol:


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Pete K. said:


> CNN Headlline is OK but not Fox News? I guess they aren't "fair and balanced" in
> Canada. It would make more sense to allow CNN I than it does "Headline" but who
> says government makes sense?


I think that Canada allows Sky News which is also Fox owned. Also, I believe Fox is in the process of getting some of its offerings approved in Canada. I seem to remember a blurb that they made an error in their application, so they had to resubmit or something? Not sure if that application included their news and commentary channel or not.

And, I remember something on CTV news (FTA channel on c-band) that said that news channels are required to follow certain ethical standards including presenting all sides of a story or something like that and that some of the "commentary" type shows on Fox News were not up to the standard, but that Sky News was able to pass muster. Maybe someone here who is more tuned in to Canadian programming can comment.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

I have not seen Sky News available from any provider in my area in Southern Ontario. Al Jazeera has been approved for broadcast in Canada, but RAI from Italy was denied. I believe FoxNews has an application in right now, but because it is right wing, I don't expect our left leaning government agency, the CRTC, to approve it.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

peano said:


> All that carload mentioned are "allowed" by our government. Some that are not: ... *SciFi * ... . ... The official government reasoning claims that protecting Canadian jobs in the arts industries and protecting the rights Canadian broadcasters have paid for is more important than individual choice.


Yeah right! :nono: 
You know how much SciFi programming is Canadian??? Like probably most of it! Filmed in Vancover, BC don'tcha know.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

There is quite a bit of Canadian produced programming that we are not allowed to watch because it is on banned channels. HDNet comes to mind in this regard.

Personally, I have a gray market subscription to DirecTV so I get to watch these channels. Unfortunately, I am also a criminal in my country for doing so.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Pete K. said:


> CNN Headlline is OK but not Fox News? I guess they aren't "fair and balanced" in
> Canada. It would make more sense to allow CNN I than it does "Headline" but who
> says government makes sense?


Fox News is "Fair and Balanced"?, now that is funny.

John


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Fox News is banned from Canada because they don't have enough "Canadian" content. CNN is there because it was grandfathered in. So it's not that the Canadian government is anti-Fox (which it actually is) it's just that they're protectionist. Kinda like what the old Soviet Union would do.

Regarding Fox's "leanings": to those who are so far left that you're knocking on the door of socialism, EVERYTHING is on the right. Perspective.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Canada certainly gets a hell of a lot more U.S. channels than we Americans get Canadian.
Don't read too much into the fact that not every channel in the US gets play in Canada; a Canadian sat system will get you a lot more variety than either Dish or Direct TV can offer, at least in the English language.


----------



## mre_2001 (Oct 5, 2003)

billpa said:


> Canada certainly gets a hell of a lot more U.S. channels than we Americans get Canadian.
> Don't read too much into the fact that not every channel in the US gets play in Canada; a Canadian sat system will get you a lot more variety than either Dish or Direct TV can offer, at least in the English language.


I guess its a case of always wanting what you don't have. Canadians want the American channels, but many Americans say how much they like the variety offered through Expressvu.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

billpa said:


> Canada certainly gets a hell of a lot more U.S. channels than we Americans get Canadian.
> Don't read too much into the fact that not every channel in the US gets play in Canada; a Canadian sat system will get you a lot more variety than either Dish or Direct TV can offer, at least in the English language.


I have both Expressvu and DirecTV. We watch DirecTV almost exclusively. If you prefer watching 36 different versions of local CBC channels, then I guess Expressvu has more variety.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

_but RAI from Italy was denied_

The last time I stayed in Calgary, RAI was part of the basic cable lineup on my hotel TV.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

US "Cable" channels might not be available in Canada for three reasons. There is the Canadian governments "approved list". Canada's FCC, called the CRTC, requires Canadian content. So if a channel does not have enough Canadian content, it cannot be approved. Further, it acts in a basic protectionist manner relative to specific genres, so if a Canadian company has an all-polo channel, then it won't permit a US all-polo channel in. And lastly is simply copyright laws. Its two different countries, and often the copyright to a certain program is not owned by the same people in both countries.

However US OTA networks (NBC, CBS, etc) are available nationwide in Canada, without all of this SHVIA foolishness.

If you remember Bob and Doug McKensie, the slow witted beer soaked brothers on SCTV, that was not intended to be funny. It was a political commentary. SCTV, a show made in Alberta with an all Canadian cast was fined by the CRTC because it had no "identifiably Canadian" content. So they had Bob and Doug, who lampooned every Canadian stereotype.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

RichW said:


> The last time I stayed in Calgary, RAI was part of the basic cable lineup on my hotel TV.


They must have had E*.

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/article.asp?id=32748&issue=07152004


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2004)

Some of the stuff I'm hearing here is half-truths and some just BS. A lot of U.S. channels are not so-called banned, only in essence they are banned. They are just not approved. To be Approved they cannot be competitive with Canadian equivalents so to speak. The CRTC determines this, but their methodology is so flawed and politically motivated. Denying RAI international was absurd. Fox News has an application in right now to broadcast here. They could get approved but you never know. We get CNN, Headline News, MSNBC(Canadianized version folding soon), Euronews and BBC World Service and Deutsche Welle from Germany. Stuff like HBO, ESPN and USA will never get approval because they are competitive according to the CRTC. But on the Approved List is stuff like, CNN, HNN,A&E, TLC, BET, SPEED, TV Land, Spike (fighting for survival here), AMC, TCM, Comedy Central, Lifetime, C-Span, Superstations, All Broadcast Networks, TBS, Golf, CNBC, and a few others. We also have lots of Canadianized versions of U.S. Channels that are affiliated with the U.S. counterpart like HGTV, Discovery, History, MTV Canada, MTV2, etc. Some of the approved channels like TCM and AMC and Lifetime won't purchase Canadian Rights to their programming so they are not offered anyways, but they are approved and have been for years now, by the CRTC.


----------

