Originally Posted by jabba359
I can't even count the number of shows that have moved over to Arri Alexa, you know, the cinema camera used to shoot Skyfall, The Avengers, Life of Pi, Hugo, and Zero Dark Thirty (just to name a few). It is very much a cinema camera.
A few television shows shot on Alexa: NCIS - LA, Hell on Wheels, The Vampire Diaries, Once Upon A Time, Grimm, Person of Interest, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey, Doctor Who, Sherlock, Homeland, Modern Family, Boardwalk Empire...need I go on? And yes, a lot of these are shot at 24fps.
Ok. I guess not much of the stuff I watch is shot on 24p. I don't usually watch fiction content (unless you count some reality shows with their pseudo-scripting...).
Originally Posted by Fat Dave
How about the fact that we have about one-tenth your population spread over a larger area? It's far more economical providing bandwidth in high-density areas than low-density areas. The US averages about 88 people per square mile. Canada has 8. Even if you choose to ignore the northern 3/4 of our country completely, you still have a density that's about one quarter that of the US. Compound that with the fact that the associated equipment is more expensive in Canada, and further compound that by the fact that the underground work in ALL of the country has to either be done during a shortened season or at a much higher cost.
Like many, I live in the country, and have no cables of any sort connected to my house except for power. Some homes also have telephone connections, but there is still no high-speed availability unless your distance to DSL equipment is within a mile or so, which eliminates the vast majority. My internet is a wireless shot to a town about five miles away. I have the 8 Mb/sec as a peak, and normally much lower.
The US also has people in rural areas who are underserved. The US in the 1950's had a project for rural telephone service to become universal, but we don't have the political will to do the same for 1gbps internet... or even 1mbps internet in some places. There is no technical reason you can't serve rural customers with fiber as long as they have power poles to run it on (and if they don't have power poles, they are off the grid, so satellite is the only option anyways).
Originally Posted by David Susilo
Like I stated earlier, BiggAW, your comment on "political reason" is laughable at best
please have your facts line up before commenting on my country. As I mentioned earlier, it seems like you think the world revolves around USA. None of my US friends think that way, by the way.
I in no way think that the US is the center of the universe. The US is severely lacking in broadband deployment and broadband policy, and I certainly don't mean to say that we have a good system, merely one that is slightly less messed up than Canada's. We have many of the same fundamental problems of the telcos running our government and the government being too weak to stand up against monopolistic practices, caps, overages, etc, etc.
Originally Posted by imagic
Canada's cities are very impressive by any standard. Technically, 80% of Canada's population is classified as living in non-rural area; in or around a city. Furthermore, a full 50% of Canadians live in an urban conglomerate, as defined by the world bank. It turns out those figures are nearly identical in the USA, using the same measures for population density.
^^This. In fact, Canada, depending on how you look at it, has less suburban sprawl due to policies that promote the growth of healthy cities, unlike the US, where we built the Eisenhower highway system, and then proceeded to embrace strongly pro-home-purchase policies as a way to grow wealth, and the cultural notion of the suburb, and then left our cities to rot, with many of them (with the exception of some of the bigger ones like NYC, Boston, and LA) still rotting today.