Why do we continue to be slaves to our cable providers?

My PVR is possessed, unless someone sneaked into the house while we were on vacation. Either way, the programs we’d been saving for up to eight months had all mysteriously vanished when we got home, and in their place was 18 hours of The National in HD. Sonuvabitch!

MIA forever: documentaries on Johnny Cash and Hank Williams, a fantastic 4.5-hour German docudrama on Speer and Hitler, some classic and foreign films, and a handful of tested and true episodes of The Simpsons and Family Guy. 

Before I call Shaw to complain, Mr. Teleprompter suggests that I “tell them we’re changing to Bell ExpressVu!” in the hopes that they’ll be more responsive. And to Shaw’s credit, the disembodied voice on the phone was compassionate and helpful, particularly after I dropped that hypothetical bomb. In the end, the best they can do is to reset the PVR to its virginal state, erasing all my series recordings and wiping out my hard drive, and promising to do a service call to switch out the box if this travesty happens again.

So why am I the one gritting my teeth and apologizing for my call? Is it the Canadian in me? Or am I just afraid of getting on their bad side and having some vengeful tech on the other end fill up my PVR with phantom recordings of Rock of Love?

But we rely on companies like Shaw, Bell, and in other parts of the country, Rogers and Videotron. We rely on them to provide us with our entertainment—i.e., our lives. And yes, they have us over a barrel, despite the ever-expanding television universe.

Last July the CRTC reported that revenues for these Canadian cable and satellite companies were more than $771 per subscriber, with profits of $140 per subscriber. At the same time, the near-monopoly in each region for TV distribution allows them to jack rates up without much of a peep from the consumer. This just ain’t cool. And really, is it all worth it? Are we getting good TV for our money?

In the meantime, cable channels like History and A&E are trying hard to reinvent themselves with new programming and rebranding. As of this week, History Television (not to be confused with the often-superior, book tie-in bonanza History Channel in the U.S.) has a new look, which is bolder, brighter, sharper, and, dare I say, younger?

Creative director Kevin Watson says that “history means different things to different people, and that’s reflected in this new look.” If by “history” you mean Hollywood bastardizations such as Rome and Kingdom of Heaven, then they’re really onto something.

My biggest bugaboo with the new History? Starting May 19, the military-based drama NCIS becomes part of History. (Grumble: would that CBS made it history.) Apparently history means anything they want it to mean to rope in some new viewers. So far History’s audience is skewing younger, with bigger chests. In the last two years it’s jumped 28 per cent in the 18-49 demo and 46 per cent in the women 25-54 demo. Let’s hope snooze-inducing Mark Harmon doesn’t hurt that trend.

Meanwhile, A&E has decided to ramp up the entertainment portion of their eponymous mandate. After gaining a reputation in recent years for somewhat exploitative reality programming such as Intervention and The First 48, the American cable network is dipping its toe into the pool of original program development, with The Beast (starring poor Patrick Swayze as an undercover FBI agent).

Hell, some viewers haven’t even noticed that Biography isn’t on the channel anymore.

Ah, just stick to PBS. While Frontline seems to have been replaced by The Bleeding Heart Liberal Documentary Hour, you can still count on Nova and Masterpiece Theatre for fabulously entertaining viewing. Last Sunday MP gave us the first part of Cranford, a BBC production of Elizabeth Gaskell’s 1851 novel (think Jane Austen with Dickensian social righteousness). Judi Dench, Francesca Annis, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton, Greg Wise, Julia Sawalha... it’s a period nut’s dream come true. 

And you don’t need cable to get it!