Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Future of the /A\ stations

40K views 238 replies 49 participants last post by  wilspin 
#1 ·
Many have speculated on here that CTVgm was only keeping the /A\ stations around to broadcast their prime-time programming during the Olympics. Now that the Vancouver games are over, the question is will they keep them for another 2 1/2 years for the London games. With the analog shutdown scheduled before then, it seems unlikely. The /A\ stations can be grouped into three categories:

  1. Access
  2. /A\ Atlantic
  3. /A\ Broadcast stations

The Access stations are being discussed in the thread Future of Alberta's Access TV Network? so we will leave discussion of them to that thread.

/A\ Atlantic is only on cable and satellite, so it isn't affected by the analog shutdown, and may continue as is (it may even become a national station).

This leaves the Broadcast stations, which include:
  • CKVR - Barrie, ON
  • CFPL - London, ON
  • CHRO - Pembroke/Ottawa, ON
  • CHWI - Wheatley/Windsor, ON
  • CIVI - Victoria, BC

Some may be sold, some may be merged into the CTV network and some may be shut down. This thread is to discuss what could/should happen to each of these stations.
 
See less See more
#204 ·
Just take a look at CHCH to see what can happen when stations become truly independent and produce their own programming.
Exactly, CHCH will probably turn a profit (perhaps a small one) within the next few years. This station is probably reviled by all the big media conglomerates because it clearly shows that all the crap they are spewing about local television not being profitable, is nothing but lies. If you know how to properly run a local station then it can be successful. People want a local station that reflects the local community they live in and airs programming about that community- that is pretty hard to do when everything is centralized and run out of a major hub like Toronto. I think Canada should adopt the US model where big media companies are only allowed to own a certain percentage of local stations with the majority being owned by smaller independents who operate as affiliates. I would say CTV, Global be allowed to own only stations in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver- all the rest should operate as affiliates by other smaller independent broadcasters.
 
#207 ·
I think Canada should adopt the US model where big media companies are only allowed to own a certain percentage of local stations with the majority being owned by smaller independents who operate as affiliates. I would say CTV, Global be allowed to own only stations in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver- all the rest should operate as affiliates by other smaller independent broadcasters.
I agree something needs to be done to encourage independent affiliates in smaller markets. I think limiting networks to only those three markets might be a bit too strict, but that is certainly one option. Also, if you are going to limit the markets that they have stations in, they also need to have similar limits on the markets they have repeaters in.
 
#205 ·
The six o'clock news sunday night was just too embarrassing.....did the teleprompter break down. It was like watching a radio broadcast....the poor anchor, without explanation, read the copy from sheets of paper she was holding. Maybe she was just called in. Sorry but this takes the cake. Just another nail in the coffin of Achannel.
 
#208 ·
It's not the brand that is the problem, it's the way they are operated. If CTV put some popular prime time programming on /A\, expanded coverage and upgraded facilities to HD they would get more viewers. As it is, CTV puts all their money into CTV Toronto and ignores the rest of the country. Canadians outside the GTA are as well served watching US border stations as they are CTV.
 
#209 ·
It's not the brand that is the problem, it's the way they are operated.
While I agree that the brand isn't the problem, I am not convinced it can turn around without affiliating with a different, existing brand.

If CTV put some popular prime time programming on /A\,
It doesn't make business sense for CTVgm to give /A\ some of CTV's more popular programming (CTV has 22 affiliates nation wide and /A\ has 5, plus A Atlantic and Access) and I don't see them getting more programming in the future (if anything they will get less).

expanded coverage and
Do you mean local news coverage, or OTA propagation? The former (while helpful) won't help prime-time viewership and I am not convinced the latter will be a big help either.

upgraded facilities to HD they would get more viewers
IMHO, most people choose programs based on content, not PQ. Upgrading to HD will be necessary to save their existing viewers, but won't buy them many new viewers.
 
#210 ·
Do you mean local news coverage, or OTA propagation?
I meant opening transmitters in more cities. That might be a problem due to CRTC rules. If they can't provide coverage to the 10 provincial capitals plus other large markets like Vancouver and the GTA, there is no way that /A\ will ever be a major player.
 
#211 ·
If they can't provide coverage to the 10 provincial capitals plus other large markets like Vancouver and the GTA, there is no way that /A\ will ever be a major player.
They are actually pretty close to that. They have Toronto (from Barrie), Vancouver/Victoria, Ottawa, Calgary & Edmonton (from Access) and Atlantic Canada (from A Atlantic). The main cities they are missing are Montreal, Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon. Even if they added those, they would still be second fiddle to CTV.
 
#212 ·
Since there is little CanCon on the Canadian commercial OTA networks in prime time, it's a question of what's available from the US. There are 4 major US nets (ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC) and a few of minors (CW/MyTV/etc) that might produce enough combined to be counted as a 5th source.

The reason for A's existance is that CITY/CTV/Global can, between them, simsub only 3 American channels at any given time. This leaves 1 or 2 American sources not simsubbed, which A can latch on to. The bad news is that the CITY/CTV/Global have taken the highest rated shows, leaving A with bottom-of-the-barrel offerings, i.e. the number 4 or 5 program in a given time slot. That explains why A has low ratings, other than in local news.
 
#213 ·
In Ontario, CFPL (London) and CKVR (Barrie) dropped their CBC affiliation while CHEX (Peterborough) and CKWS (Kingston) did not. The two latter stations are owned by Corus and seem to be doing OK; at least we are not hearing endless discussions about their future. It seems that CHEX and CKWS made the right choice keeping with CBC, their loyal audience and Hockey Night in Canada. CBC has to pay the local affiliates so they kept an income stream. In comparison, CFPL and CKVR threw away an established audience and income stream and tried to develop their own primetime schedule. It didn't work so they lost the lead-in to other programming and their newscasts. I don't recall when CHUMCITY got control of the stations that form /A\ but I recall they were trying to expand local news along the lines of CITY. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work in the smaller markets and CTV eventually killed it.

Some posters are suggesting that local control of the stations is the solution to their problems. I don't see how this is any solution - the original owners would have kept the stations if they were profitable. Small groups simply don't have the access to capital required to run a TV operation and have difficulty surviving during economic downturns.

The notion that substition is not necessary to protect Canadian stations is clearly wrong - it started around 1970 and has been a critical part of Canadian broadcasting ever since. One of the big problems has been allowing BDUs to import Canadian television stations from elsewhere in the country without substitutions or blackouts. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters cut this deal with Expressvu because they hated cable and in the end it bit them in the butt. You can't have the programming you purchased coming into your market from other sources, particularly earlier in the day, and expect to get the full audience and advertising revenue the programming should attract.

The problem for CTV and /A\ channel, and before that Global and E!, is figuring out how to use a pair of broadcast channels effectively. CTV pushed the 'main network' and let the second one struggle rather than figuring out how to work with a pair of networks to maximize the combined value. The key requirement in this arrangement would be equivalent national coverage for both networks so putting a show on either channel would provide the same total audience availability. The two networks should have been CTV-1 and CTV-2 to allow development of a single CTV brand rather than split resources between the two. Counter program the two networks so CTV News could be on one network at 10 and the other at 11. Other countries have single broadcasters with multiple networks and seem to be able to make it work.

I guess we will hear about the /A\ future when the Bell/CTV hearings begin.
 
#214 ·
I wonder which CTVglobemedia finds more profitable?

Simocasting or selling of A Channels?

By having A they can simosub(SD only) their programing with US stations or switch them around ie program on CTV one week, next week on A like during the Winter Olympics.

By selling them off(which they only get the money one shot deal, after the moneies are spent where are theyt then?)they can only buy so many US programs and simosub only so many.

IE They own a show from ABC & one from NBC, both ABC & NBC show those shows at the same time, same night(Friday 8PM-9PM), which of the two does CTV simosub?

By having A they put one on A the other on CTV, both shows get simosub problem solved.

The catch is, is CTVglobemedia willing to do that on acontious bases, even if means the station loose money out side those simocasts?
 
#215 ·
GeorgeMX, That would seem to make more sense, provided /A\ and CTV have the same geographical coverage, which is not now the case. It looks like CTV might be testing the waters for /A\ this winter. They are planning on airing the American Idol results shows on /A\. If ratings bomb, that could spell the end for /A\. OTOH, /A\ is not yet in HD and will not be eligible for HD simsubs so that would be a deciding factor for some viewers.
 
#216 ·
In Ontario, CFPL (London) and CKVR (Barrie) dropped their CBC affiliation while CHEX (Peterborough) and CKWS (Kingston) did not. The two latter stations are owned by Corus and seem to be doing OK; at least we are not hearing endless discussions about their future. It seems that CHEX and CKWS made the right choice keeping with CBC, their loyal audience and Hockey Night in Canada. CBC has to pay the local affiliates so they kept an income stream. In comparison, CFPL and CKVR threw away an established audience and income stream and tried to develop their own primetime schedule. It didn't work so they lost the lead-in to other programming and their newscasts. I don't recall when CHUMCITY got control of the stations that form /A\ but I recall they were trying to expand local news along the lines of CITY. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work in the smaller markets and CTV eventually killed it.

Some posters are suggesting that local control of the stations is the solution to their problems. I don't see how this is any solution - the original owners would have kept the stations if they were profitable. Small groups simply don't have the access to capital required to run a TV operation and have difficulty surviving during economic downturns.
A fine example of a television station that has remained under local ownership and doesn't seem to have any problems at all is CKPR in Thunder Bay. I have never seen the station but from what I have been told they apparently have a very strong local newscast. Another station that seems to do just fine under local ownership is NTV in Newfoundland.

CFPL/CKNX were sold for two main reasons. One was the CBC disaffiliation, which as you correctly pointed out, killed their ratings. Had they remained with the CBC, they would have done just fine under local ownership. The other reason was the CRTC. Around 1989 Blackburn attempted to buy CHCH in Hamilton, and they also applied for a license for an independent station in Ottawa. The CRTC denied both applications; the new station in Ottawa was awarded to Baton Broadcasting (which ultimately chose to buy CJOH instead of starting a new station). Those two ventures cost Blackburn a lot of money, immediately before a major recession. Had the CRTC approved one or both of them, Blackburn could have become a major media player in Southern Ontario.

CKVR was bought by CHUM in 1969, nine years before they even owned CITY. CKVR's biggest problem as a CBC affiliate was that it had a lot of signal overlap with other CBC stations, most notably CBLT and to a lesser extent CHEX. CKVR's position so close to Toronto makes it more difficult to figure out how that station could have fared better. Perhaps it should have been based in Orillia and not tried to compete in Toronto at all.

CFPL will thrive best if it is sold to a local owner and can affiliate with CBC, CTV, Global, or even CHCH.
 
#219 ·
...
CKVR was bought by CHUM in 1969, nine years before they even owned CITY. CKVR's biggest problem as a CBC affiliate was that it had a lot of signal overlap with other CBC stations, most notably CBLT and to a lesser extent CHEX. CKVR's position so close to Toronto makes it more difficult to figure out how that station could have fared better. Perhaps it should have been based in Orillia and not tried to compete in Toronto at all.
CKVR wanted to be a Toronto station decades ago. Back in the late 60s or early 70s, CKVR applied to move their transmitter site to Bolton but was refused permission because of expected interference to channels 2 and 4 from Buffalo. The current CKVR transmitter location makes it must carry in Newmarket and it gets program substitution throughout the GTA on Rogers Cable. The Rogers EPG shows it as /A\ Toronto. Carriage on cable throughout the GTA on basic cable is a very valuable asset.

Barrie and Newmarket are fast growing communities. The time may have come for increased investment in local programming coupled with better US shows. CTV has been focused on their "main network" rather than local programming but the time may have come for a change.

CFPL will thrive best if it is sold to a local owner and can affiliate with CBC, CTV, Global, or even CHCH.
None of those affiliations are likely to happen. All of the networks have coverage into London so why start paying CFPL to affiliate?

CTV has to make /A\ (CTV-2) into a decent network with must-watch programming. CTV under Ivan Fecan wanted to get rid of all OTA broadcasting and turn everything into a BDU only distribution model. All these things will be on hold until Bell takes full control of CTV.
 
#217 ·
Have any of these stations thought that there is more than the US producing english speaking programming, some of the British, Australian, and New Zealand programming may do reasonably well in Ontario and some other big market areas like BC which have a lot of ex pats from these regions. Why rebroadcast the same stuff from the US on twenty different stations?
 
#220 ·
None of those affiliations are likely to happen. All of the networks have coverage into London so why start paying CFPL to affiliate?
It would represent a new distribution model for the London market for any one of those networks. In other words, if CFPL affiliated with CTV, CKCO would be dropped from cable in London itself, although likely kept in other areas.
 
#221 ·
If this was the US, both London and KW would have it's own CTV, CBC, TVO and Global affiliates as well as /A\. Just look at the south side of Lake Erie. Their are major network affiliates in Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit, many of which overlap. What do we have in SWO, two stations, total, between Toronto and Windsor and not much in Windsor either. Plus CTV is trying to shut down existing stations. I believe they already have in Windsor. It's not only about market size because Erie is smaller than London or KW and the Erie region has OTA competition from Buffalo, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Let's face it, the Canadian broadcasting system is broken, thanks in part to poor regulation from the CRTC. CTV already handed out termination notices to /A\ employees, though I doubt it was anything more than a bluff to get LPF and FFC past the CRTC.
 
#222 ·
GeorgeMx, I wonder if Corus does well in Kingston because the only Canadian competition on analog cable is CTV and Global -- no A, CH, SunTV, OMNIs, etc. It looks like digital only adds CITY, and not the others? Corus in Peterborough probably gets propped up by Oshawa.
 
#223 ·
ScaryBob: I agree that there are systemic issues with the conventional broadcasting regulatory framework here in Canada.

However, part of the issue here is cultural. Most Canadians believe that the only way to receive TV is via a BDU.

Perhaps the BDU's themselves are to blame for this culture. Or perhaps the current generation is so removed from the peak of the antenna television days that the concept of OTA TV is off their radar. And perhaps the government has had their hand in this as well; certainly BDU's generate jobs and tax revenue. Auction revenue from vacated spectrum is also a big motivator for government.

Whatever the reason, Canada certainly doesn't have the 4+1 national conventional broadcast networks that the US has. Nor the secondary conventional broadcast networks (CW, "Superstations", etc). The money here in Canada is in BDU-only channels--where advertising plus carriage fees trump advertising revenue alone.

Perhaps it's time for our government to revisit allowing carriage negotiation for local channels, as is the case in the US.
 
#224 ·
The reason many Canadians believe that the only way to receive TV is via a BDU is due to lack of local channels. For 40 years, London and KW only had one local channel each. In London proper, at that time, it was almost impossible to receive any stations except CFPL and CKCO. CKCO was pretty weak in London, as was CFPL in Kitchener. That situation pretty much created the CATV cable industry. If Canadian cities had been better served by local TV, it would have delayed the development of cable TV and slowed the inroads of US network TV into Canada.

Canadian broadcasters have pretty much reaped what yhey sowed. That is, Canadians with a taste for US TV channels and programming. The current situation, where networks like /A\ are still NTSC, while all US networks are all high definition ATSC, just carries on the old tradition of Canadian broadcasters under-serving Canadians. This drives Canadians to watching US stations on a BDU.
 
#228 ·
Cable was operating in London before CFPL came on the air. Canadians simply wanted more choice in television - the same reason that they subscribe to BDU service today. As soon as a BDU service becomes available there is a steady decline in OTA viewing. Historically, cable was the only BDU and service was only available in relatively populated areas. The availability of cable topped out the level of BDU penetration until direct Ku band satellite service became available. The level of BDU penetration climbed again as almost the whole country has access to BDU service.

The real issue for local broadcasting is competition for eyeballs with BDU services. Broadcast network viewing has declined steadily over the years because viewers want the programs on BDU specialty channels. Watching a BDU service rather than broadcast is the direct consequence of choice.

If this was the US, both London and KW would have it's own CTV, CBC, TVO and Global affiliates as well as /A\. Just look at the south side of Lake Erie. Their are major network affiliates in Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit, many of which overlap.
In the US, local stations have programming exclusivity in their own markets through any BDU service - telco, cable or satellite. While OTA households on the edge of markets can receive stations from adjacent markets, most of the viewers use BDUs or have minimal antenna systems (rabbit ears) to get local stations. In Canada, out of market stations are imported in bulk by BDUs from all over the country and the US. Market exclusivity is destroyed resulting in lost viewership and lower advertising revenue. The only way to change this situation is substituting or deleting every program shown locally by a Canadian broadcaster from any other channel. The Americans provide program exclusivity protection for one week before or after local airing of a show.
 
#225 ·
Perhaps it should have been based in Orillia and not tried to compete in Toronto at all.
When CKVR was started, they had a lower antenna and didn't cover anywhere near the area they do now and so didn't overlap very much. This changed when they put up a new tower. In that original situation, Barrie was the more suitable location as it had a larger population. Also, CBLT moving to the CN Tower increased the overlap area.
 
#227 ·
There is no way CTV will allow a CTV affiliate in London. They currently qualify for simsubs and FFC with their Toronto and KW stations. It would be a loss of revenue for them.
 
#229 ·
/A\ Channel Possibilities?

If CTV were smart, they'd put their /A\ channels on CTV sub-channels where /A\ doesn't have transmitters (i.e. Kitchener, Toronto, etc). And vice versa for CTV where only /A\ has transmitters.
 
#230 ·
If CTV were smart, they'd put their /A\ channels on CTV sub-channels where /A\ doesn't have transmitters (i.e. Kitchener, Toronto, etc). And vice versa for CTV where only /A\ has transmitters.
First of all, I doubt if the CRTC would approve this since one owner having two English (or French) language stations in the same city is frowned upon (though not completely prohibited).

Secondly, this would degrade the picture quality of both stations, especially in scenes with fast motion.
 
#233 · (Edited)
Roger1818 that is a myth I’ve heard here before. I contacted CRTC about that and was pointed to a couple of official documents that said nothing about discouraging sub channels. What’s the source of your comment? I wonder what someone in the private broadcast industry says? I do think the US will show us how the business model works with sub channels.
 
#236 ·
Roger1818 that is a myth I’ve heard here before. I contacted CRTC about that and was pointed to a couple of official documents that said nothing about discouraging sub channels. What’s the source of your comment?
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-31 says:

The Commission's predisposition will be to license new and innovative multicast services, in preference to those that duplicate existing over-the-air services, pay or specialty services.
 
#234 ·
Agreed with Wilspin: I've seen nothing that indicates the CRTC is discouraging sub channels.

With regards to PQ when sub channels are in use: My discussions with the technical staff at both CKVR (/A\ Barrie) and CFPL (/A\ London) indicate there are no immediate plans to go with high definition. They will be broadcasting in digital standard definition. I have viewed stations with two SD sub-channels, and the primary HD feed looks great (WNED PBS Buffalo, for example).
 
#235 ·
They will be broadcasting in digital standard definition.
That sucks. :eek: I guess that also means that CTV will not be broadcasting and major prime time shows on /A\ since they won't qualify for simsubs. It also means /A\ will likely continue to lose money.

I've seen nothing that indicates the CRTC is discouraging sub channels.
The CRTC stated some time ago that it would not license subchannels for existing OTA services. OTOH, the CRTC more recently stated that it favoured subchannels for providing new services.
 
#237 ·
This document is typical of all those involved in the Canadian digital conversion, ie. more of the same vagueness and lack of direction. The word "predisposition" defines to tendency or inclination, so I suppose one could assume that the CRTC will "favor" sub channels for new or novel applications BUT also not completely rule out existing OTA channels. How typically bureaucratic and wishy washy of them.

The "weak" wording could also keep the door open for some "good ole boy" behind the scenes maneuvering, as nothing is written in stone, and each sub channel application would be handled on a case by case basis. Anywho, that is my own interpretation.
 
#238 ·
The word "predisposition" defines to tendency or inclination, so I suppose one could assume that the CRTC will "favor" sub channels for new or novel applications BUT also not completely rule out existing OTA channels.
I agree and that is why I said the discourage (not prohibit) the use of sub-channels.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top