If that is true ... if this is what the CRTC has as it's current "Policy".

Then [ personal opinion ] that is a "Cop Out".

And the CRTC's policy needs to be revised.


Hence why political action/discussion may be necessary.

This thread is all about QAM - because that is the (current) underlying technology that allows any of this.

[ And maybe Free to air Satelite too ? Via the Satelite providors ? Or broadcasters or networks themselves ? ]

If *THAT* is the CRTC's response / if that is their new "policy".

Seems myopic / short sighted.


Let me see if I understand this ...

If this is indeed the "new" current policy of the CRTC ...

CRTC responds:

1. We don't regulate cable services at all anymore.

[ so by inference, the providor is free to do whatever they want now, they don't even have to provide ANY locals ]
[ still finding this a little hard to believe ... ]

2. If it's HD, it's "premium", and we don't regulate premium services, and never did.

[ CRTC sticking head in sand, saying: it's HD, and so it's premium, and so there's even one more reason why we don't have to regulate it. So the CRTC is taking the side of the providor, using HD as the "Purple Koolaid" "Freshie" premium new product - which washes their hands of any responsibility or mandate to oversight and regulate - and sets in motion a whole new set of "rules" ... ie. no rules ... and EXCUSES why we don't have to do anything about anything ... or even get involved at all. Yup - sounds like laisser-faire to me.]

DUH - it's HD now - so now that means it's a premium service - don't you know?


3. But you should be happy ... because, you know ... based on the old rules, which no longer apply anyway ... you're getting it Analog - so we're all O.K. with that.

[ CRTC falling behind the times / and behind the technologies - perhaps just playing smart - not wanting to get involved. ]

[ And did anyone remember to let the CRTC know, that the providors are converting their networks to digital, and slowly reducing Analog services - if not shutting down Analog completely? Converting their existing clients to digital service - of some kind? By hook or by crook? Digital box, or digital adaptor? So like it or not - if you're a subscriber, you're gonna get the KOOLAID and the FRESHIE - get ready, here comes the funnel .]

So along with the (partial, incomplete) conversion to "digital" services - we also got "no regulation" now. What kind of KOOLAID or FRESHIE is that?


Don't they realize ? That Local and Regional broadcasts, "LOCALS", can be ALL these things now, and even a combination of these things. HD, SD, and even still ANALOG too. And that the Providors can [ technically ] easily provide them in whatever format the broadcaster broadcasts them ?

Because Broadcasters can provide Over-The-Air digital broadcasts with:
A main HD broadcast - and with SD subchannels? On the same RF channel?
Or even still ANALOG in alot of places still.

Come'on ... please.


So if there are truely *NO* regulations now on the Providors, then it becomes even more important for the Customer to speak with the "Service Providor" in great detail about what they would like to see in their "Basic Package".

And to say to their Providor / or possible, prospective Providor:

I know about Clear QAM / Unencrypted Digital services.
I have a nice HDTV now with a tuner that can receive that stuff - without the need for one of your "Digital Boxes".

Do you provide a basic package with all the main Locals and Regional channels over Stable, CLEAR QAM?

I'd really like that !

So you guys should consider yourselves lucky for being able to to get the Buffalo Locals in HD. ie it could be worse.
For us it's not even an option. Even if they were, if showing the same programming as a local US station, the Canadian One will be blacked out
(no simsub, just black).

I lied, it's even worse than black, they insert infomercials in place of the duplicate program.
Thinkin I'd rather deal with simsubs, than infomercials 'eh


Oh Man ...

I really feel sorry for you, if that is what is happening sometimes to you.

So think about that then ...

Paying a Providor to provide a channel / a signal - and instead, getting nothing - Black Screen - or even worse - subbing in constant advertisements / infomercials.

You are actually paying someone for service so that someone else can advertise (100%) to you.
And maybe being taxed (by Gov't) on what you pay your Providor for that too.
And if you're actually watching it - investing your personal time in it.
And paying for the power/electricity to run your set - if watching it.


... and not receiving (losing out) on what you paid your Providor for in the first place.
[ ie. say if you'd rather watch the Canadian channel coverage of that broadcast - or even be able to switch back and forth and see a little of both]

... all because someone else has some "program rights"?
Paid for? And then Made money on that program in a different way ... by hoarding it on their channel or network, in their "region", and excluding it from all other channels or networks - in that region.

[ And who knows ??? Maybe the Providor even made a "kick-back" on the scheme - their CUT for being one of the "enforcers" / "heavy's" in the scheme]

Turfs and "products" and "enforcers / heavy's" - sounds like Gangsterism to me.

Man ... what's it coming to ?

Put yourself in Rogers / Shaw's shoes for a second. Is there any incentive for them to do that when it is a request for a very small fraction of the customer base/population? Others said that this was done in the U.S. to prevent people from going to OTA antenna, in Canada, this is obviously not even close to a real threat, and that is really too bad.

The only recourse is to pressure the CRTC to update the BDU Regs to reflect the new technology that is available OTA.

In light of ATSC digital and high definition, how (if at all) should the BDU Regs be adjusted to reflect this shift in OTA technology?

IMHO this is the question that this whole argument boils down to.

The only other argument I can think of is monopolizing the market to ensure 3rd party equipment providers such as TiVo and CableCARD are squeezed out and unable to innovate in this section of the market. They will more than likely argue that it is the right of the BDU to protect their signals from theft however.

Others said that this was done in the U.S. to prevent people from going to OTA antenna...
No, clear QAM for local HD is an FCC mandate. Part of the reasoning was since the cablecos did not have to pay for getting the local stations, they should be available to all cable subs. Today that's a moot point, as retransmission fees for local HD stations are now common in the US.

Many cablecos initially encrypted local HD channels, but over time the FCC made it clear it was not allowed.

Thanks for that clarification.

Does someone have or can find a link to this information over at the FCC? Perhaps that same justification can be applied to us in Canada?

It would be nice to see a grass roots movement of the people v.s. the cablecos and the CRTC having to sort through it! ;-)

There's a link and discussion earlier in this thread. Posts 11, 12. If you take the time to read that link and post 12 you'll see that the FCC is actually headed in the opposite direction (away from clear QAM, towards encryption) and that chances of clear QAM in Canada are slim as the CRTC has already responded, earlier in this thread.

Now, if you like beating your head against a wall for a while, feel free... ;)

j0dest3r - your question is a good one.

I took some time to think about it before responding.

Put yourself in Rogers / Shaw's shoes for a second. Is there any incentive for them to do that when it is a request for a very small fraction of the customer base/population?


Since I believe this should be regulated / mandated somehow by Government and the Regulator ... then one very good incentive is:

1. To be able to stay in business.

Offering the Locals and Regionals in a basic package, reasonably priced, should be the Law.
And that if the Providor wishes to keep their license to operate, granted to them by Gov't, the Regulator, and by default the Public they serve - then they would have to comply with it.


That argument aside ...

Another good incentive:

2. Because it just might be good Business practice / good Business sense to try and provide what your Customers would like and are asking for.

If you keep your Customers happy, they will buy your services, and be happy to pay a fair price plus profit for those services.

All will benefit, profit and be happy.



The concerns about signal theft are valid concerns.

I can appreciate it is quite expensive to build, maintain, run and operate such a network.
To have individuals just using the signals provided by that network for free - is wrong.

So it looks like inevitably there will be some sort of Providor "Hardware" or "Box" in the home - for the purpose of security.

I still don't have to "like it" ... and that box / device better not be used for "Profiteering" or "Control" or "Spying" on the Customer - it's purpose should only be to prevent signal theft. Perhaps also for "non-payment" shut offs. Perhaps for the ability to control channel selections - as per the customer's requests.

[ It was not immediately obvious - but you might have customers that want to "OPT OUT" completely from Locals and Regionals. Because they want to receive Locals and Regionals themselves - with their own antenna, OTA - Over the Air or some other way (ex. FTA ? Free to Air Satelite). Or just might not want them at all ! And might *NOT* want to pay a Providor for them ! Or maybe they just want *SOME* of the local or regional channels. Channel by channel choice and payment might be the ulitmate option. "Make and manage your own Local / Regional channel package, and be billed accordingly." - perhaps with some Online Internet user self management application, or with the help of "Customer Service". The point is the customer should have choice and options - regarding those local and regional channels. ]


Here is where Government Regulation could come in to play.

Government could regulate / provide oversight and control of that Box, it's costs / charges ... and it's functionality - as well as keep an eye on the which channels , Local and Regional - the Providor should provide - on a region by region basis.

Keep a watch on Substitution / Sim Subs / Quality of signals.
[ I am of the opinion Substitution / Sim Subs should not be allowed. ]

Stop the practice of "Forced Channel Packages" - regarding those Locals and Regionals.

Keep an eye on Box rental fees, charges, or purchase prices. And channel packages.
( Idea: there should always be an option to purchase or rent a basic box, at a reasonable cost, which can provide only the Locals and Regionals, or any combination thereof. If the customer chooses, in a basic package - to make those channels available to all who would like them. Or the option to "opt out", not receive them, and not pay for them - if they wish. )


Another Incentive:

3. To Keep their own Customer base and Viewership - or even increase or improve it.

Yes, because if you're not providing what the Customer would like, then they will seek alternatives.

Many more may switch to OTA and Antennas - or other sources, like Satelite Providors or FTA Satelite, for their Local and Regional channels.

So the Providor could lose market share and revenue.

That might be something for the Providors and their Sponsors to think about as well.


I am continuing to work on my personal Antenna Setups.

I would like to be able to receive anything possible Over the Air, in the best quality I can, from as far away as I can.

I am not waiting around on Government, Regulators, or the Providors, to provide me with whatever signals I can receive myself.

Maybe that is something for all of the above to think about.

Everyone is in a Competitive marketplace - and that might just be a good thing.
Competition can be a good motivator, and can bring options, variety, quality, innovation, and change. Also Excellence.


All the best.

^^ Yeah, I saw that, but shhh we don't need to tell the CRTC. Doesn't Canada lag behind on most other things anyway! ;)

^ mrvan some good thoughts however:

1. To stay in business.

It is clear to Shaw and the others don't need OTA to stay in business. Listen to the profit reports that come out. There are no issues there. If anything OTA costs them money.

2. Give customers what they are asking for.

It is only a very few % that wish to have this. The costs are greater than the benefit of the very few subscribers they would gain. These gained subscribers are also more than likely only interested in basic services anyway so the return on investment would be lousy.

3. Inevitably there will be some sort of Provider "Hardware" or "Box"

In my testing of clear QAM channels on Shaw, channels can be encrypted or sent in the clear on the providers end so it should be as protected as it can be. If they are worried about someone sticking a pirate box on the end of the cable to unencrypt the signal illegally, what is preventing that now?

STBs need to be activated before they are authorized so protection is covered IMHO.

4. Government Regulations

There are already government regulations BDU Regs. They just need to be updated. Government also doesn't want to start meddling in the operations of private companies. I don't agree with "Government provide oversight and control of that Box, it's costs / charges." That is what competition is for.
Like it or not, Shaw Rogers are in business to make money!

5. Keep viewership.

Again they don't see OTA or alternatives as competition. The only OTT that they remotely see as competition is Netflix. Perhaps one day the costs will get high enough and the alternatives become easy enough that there will be more cord cutters, to force these guys to change their ways, but clearly we are not there yet.

Clear QAM is there, we know about it, and if the Providors want to start using it - they can.

And if Governments want to start mandating Clear QAM's use, and regulating it's use, for all the same policy reasons as before ... they can.

... But it would still be nice to be able to see a nice good simple affordable package of Local and Regional broadcast channels, without substitutions or sim-sub's, as a basic level of service that all could enjoy.

To answer the Original Poster's question, and title of this Thread:

Are Canadian cable TV providers legally obliged to provide local channels in QAM ?

Ya ... I think they should be obliged.
For all the same Government and Policy reasons of the past ... Technology aside.

By forcing all their cable customers to get a box in their home to watch TV, the cable companies increase the likelihood of customers ordering VOD and PPV.
Just like Shaw, which doesn't remove unsubbed channels from their guide. They do this so you see what programs you are missing by not ordering a particular tier.

By forcing all their cable customers to get a box in their home to watch TV, the cable companies increase the likelihood of customers ordering VOD and PPV.
Just like Shaw, which doesn't remove unsubbed channels from their guide. They do this so you see what programs you are missing by not ordering a particular tier.
Or in my case, the reason I don't subscribe to Shaw cable anymore. But I guess I'm in the minority.

Question might be where's the theft now? Assuming cable BDU's might lose $418M/year
in theft (as of 2002), sure that's debatable 10 years later.
So let's make Canadians pay $830M extra to make up for it by in effect forcing every user to have an STB.
Just sayin...Gotta be a better way to secure ur signal in the year 2012. Does that make any sense?

Rough guess what it might cost Canadian cable subscribers to operate an STB for one year, assuming $5 a month rental + 15 cents per KWH electricity.

pwr per stb (Watts) Daily Usage (%) STB Households* Hrs/Year KWH $/KWH ** Cost to run Cost to rent Total Cost to operate
50 50.00% 6607000 8760 1446933000 0.15 $217,039,950.00 $396,420,000.00 $613,459,950.00
50 100.00% 6607000 8760 2893866438 0.15 $434,079,965.70 $396,420,060.00 $830,500,025.70



* rough guess based on # of subs in 2005 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/radio/cmri.htm
** just a swag
*** nuther swag at $5/mo rental

http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/new-evidence-suggests-serious-revenue-loss-from-cable-tv-signal-theft

The study - an Analysis and Estimate of Annual Lost Revenue Due to Theft
of Service in the Canadian Cable Television Industry - conducted on behalf of
Bell ExpressVu by Pathlink Engineering, found that of the 8.1 million Canadian
households with cable television service, 4% of single family homes and 10% of
the multiple family units steal cable services. Against these percentages,
Pathlink estimates an annual loss of $290 million.

Or in my case, the reason I don't subscribe to Shaw cable anymore. But I guess I'm in the minority.
Minority yes, but there are a few of us around. There could be more if some tried. I totally understand the resistance and the WAF but once the family makes the change they adapt. I love my home brew triple play. I have all the same features and benefits streaming to tablets, remote recording, voip home phone etc. but for a fraction of the cost. The only real drawback is less access to live sports.

^^ I can't believe in 2012 there is still piracy gear around that actually still work. I would have thought the door would have been long closed on that. 10 years ago the two guys I knew that did it quit because it was too time consuming and a PITA factor to keep ahead of the ECMs of the providers.

i agree, not likely there is much real cable theft going on anywhere in 2012.
I only posted that because some claim the only reason for requiring an STB is to secure the signal from theft.
Cable providers have had addressable taps at their disposal for years to shut off any unauthorised service remotely without any site visit.
No mistake about it, no payment, off you go..No truck roll, No RF = No theft. Pretty simple concept.

So it's a pretty weak argument if ya ask me.

http://www.electroline.com/en/products/addressable/index.html

In addition, around here with an STB, they always send a technician to "install" it and demo to the user how to use it.
For cancellations, the onus is on the end user to return it anyhow.
Get rid of the STB = no truck roll.

Cable providers have had addressable taps at their disposal for years to shut off any unauthorised service remotely without any site visit.

They were taking them out years ago. I do not know of very many locations that still have them in the Rogers Network around the GTA anymore.

around here

With no location in your info, it is hard to know just where "here" would be.....

Got a letter in the mail this week from Rogers offering me a free digital box for any of my TV sets that are still directly connected to cable. I have several digital boxes already but the number of subscribed extra outlets is greater than the number of digital boxes. The letter says they are removing the analog channels later this year. The free boxes are not the regular Rogers offering rather they are a limited capability unit for the analog conversion.

Theft is a big problem for cable companies. People put themselves in danger by climbing poles to connect drops or remove filters on aerial plant. In multiple dwelling units they break into the security panels and do the same thing. Signal encryption stops these problems.

Eliminating analog is a big win for cable as the theft problems go away and the 50 or more channels release will handle a lot of new HD services.

GeorgeMx: Here's the thread on the topic of the letter from Rogers:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=146605

They are offering free DTAs and, as discussed in the last few posts of the thread (page 9), I believe Basic Channels (roughly 2-28 plus a couple of others) will remain analogue for a while longer, but that is not 100% certain.

I can't believe in 2012 there is still piracy gear around that actually still work. I would have thought the door would have been long closed on that. 10 years ago the two guys I knew that did it quit because it was too time consuming and a PITA factor to keep ahead of the ECMs of the providers.
For Dish & Bell TV, they are still subject to piracy, but they have made it difficult enough that it's not much of an issue.

For DirecTV, it's not an issue at all, ~99% secure since Black Sunday. Not an issue for Shaw Direct, since they are 100% secure on a Motorola platform.

For analog cable, it depends on how diligent the cableco is with traps and disconnects.

For digital cable, the system is 100% secure, but what does happen is that one customer can have more boxes on their account than they actually use, and give /sell / rent them to others, within certain geographical limitations. Same can apply for the DBS systems.