Interesting story, particularly the CBC reference.

I check website cbc.ca, and go to the channel & frequencies, select Toronto Ontario as my area...and, according to this, I still need BDU service to recieve cbc in HD. (Its been this way for a long time) Fortunately, I know that's not the case.

I think I'll email them, and ask them to update this oversite.

Here is a good read.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rabbit-ears25-2009dec25,0,5668446,full.story

^^^^
"The best evidence that the broadcast audience is growing may be the flowering of new local channels, said Francis X. Wilkinson, general manager of KJLA-TV, an L.A. station."

Yet, in Canada, the broadcasters say they can't continue broadcasting without FFC. Perhaps if they did something useful with the extra channel capacity digital provides, they could do something to take a notch or two out of the BDUs. An example might be CFTO in Toronto carrying CP24 as well as their regular shows. This way, people could watch CP24 without subscribing to cable or satellite. Maybe Global could set up a rerun TV show channel, showing old stuff in the original 4:3 SD format. Those broadcasters have a lot of cheap content available that could help them, if only they'd use it.

An example might be CFTO in Toronto carrying CP24 as well as their regular shows. This way, people could watch CP24 without subscribing to cable or satellite.Do they get subscriber fees from BDUs for CP24? If so then how could you also give it away for free? Since CTV also owns TSN then why not do this with TSN?

Answer - it is not a good business decision to give something away for free to some people when you are charging others for the channel.

I think I'll email them, and ask them to update this oversite.


good luck. I've been bugging them about this for years.

Answer - it is not a good business decision to give something away for free to some people when you are charging others for the channel.

Isn't that precicely what they want with FFC? They seem to think the BDU customers should pay to watch their shows, while the OTA viewers don't have to.

Not only do they want BDU customers to pay for their programming, they want to force OTA viewers to subscribe to cable/sat. They do that by cutting local stations and putting their best programming on their specialty channels. Witness CTV showing the Grey Cup on their more profitable TSN cable channel.

I support the FFC if it is tied to the broadcasters investing in their facilities, in particular, digital TV. But it may be a perverse economic incentive for them to completely abandon the still profitable ad-based model for the even more profitable subscription model.

That is why we need to to show all our friends the value in OTA. Competition is the best way to keep cable/sat rates down.

indeed CP24 gets BDU subscriber revenue and is licensed as cable/satellite service, so not an option to be OTA

and as you stated the Canadian OTA stations do want to charge the BDUs for their signal/channel meaning those watching on cable/satellite would pay for the channel while the OTA crowd watches for free

in fact, FOX just recently arrived at a deal with Time Warner Cable to get paid for their OTA signal -- unlike Canada however the OTA stations in the States are not "must carry" and FOX was threatening to pull off TW Cable

OTA has always been free and whats wrong with that ?

Take a look at a lot of free software to the individual out there , the distributor only asks money if you are using the software to make a profit in your bussiness.... a model that Canaidan cable companies should be made to adopt ....

rather than use it as an excuse to terminate ota local transmission .... if you are cable only you are not a local station anymore and should not be able to freeze out anyone else who wants to be .....

The ota market continues but without the greedy ...:cool:

after all the sponsor paid for it for you already , just buy american cars or detergent or local potatoes or ygetit hahaha

There's nothing wrong with free OTA. The problem is the broadcasters think that those without antennas have to subsidise them. I live in a condo, so I cannot put up an external TV antenna. Therefore, I need cable to receive broadcast stations. A neighbour, in his own house, can put up an antenna and get those broadcasts for free. Why should I, who cannot put up an antenna, have to pay for what he gets for free? Also, lets not forget that a) BDUs bring the broadcasters a much larger audience and b) by owning many of the cable channels, the broadcasters are their own competition that's supposedly sucking the ad revenue away.

BTW, while I can get stations ranging from St. Johns to Victoria on cable, I very rarely watch those from outside of the local market. Generally, I watch those distant stations only when I missed a show on a local station and catch it from out west a couple of hours later.

Further, the current situation was the one requested by the broadcasters a few years back. Now they want to change their mind and BDU customers are supposed to pay for it.

@James: Why not put up an indoor antenna? The Source still sells the much coveted RS-1880.

in fact, FOX just recently arrived at a deal with Time Warner Cable to get paid for their OTA signal -- unlike Canada however the OTA stations in the States are not "must carry" and FOX was threatening to pull off TW Cable

Just a clarification -- in the US, local stations have the option of EITHER "must carry" OR "retransmission consent". In practice, most big network affilliates opt for "retransmission consent", but it's not always money they ask for -- sometimes it's prime placement of secondary channels (like a sister CW, ThisTV, or MyTV station, or a weather channel). See this FCC fact sheet (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html)for details.

In Canada, local stations benefit from a form of "must carry" called "carriage of priority stations".

Why not put up an indoor antenna?

Actually, I have done so and can receive some, but not all GTA stations. However, there are many people who cannot even do that. I friend lives in a condo, facing away from the CN Tower. Because his building is in the way, he can't even receive Toronto. Another friend, who lives in a house could easily get the Toronto stations if she chose to use an indoor antenna. However, my point is there are many people who cannot use an antenna, either indoor or outside and have no option but to use cable. Also, most of my viewing is either PBS, which I cannot get with an indoor antenna or the cable channels, such as History & National Geographic, which cannot be received on any antenna. I have little use for most of what's on the broadcast stations, so why should I be forced to pay for them with FFC?

I wonder what people did back in the day when there was no cable TV, just via antenna, but because of there locale- they couldn't get any signals? I wonder if back then people said, "jeez my location is terrrible for TV, I'm moving." People are now so use to having cable/satellite TV, it seems like it has become a right to have- "don't take away my cable TV, and don't ever increase the rates; I can't get it with an antenna, so I must have cable/satellite TV, etc."

A friend of mine who works for the cable company has told me he gets service calls for people who lost their cable TV, and were calling every ten minutes asking when he was getting there, and when he got there, the person was pacing and very anxious about getting the cable back on, and this was late at night...?

Back when I was a kid, we had a roof top antenna on the house. We could get 2 Toronto stations, one from Hamilton and 3 from Buffalo. I knew some people who relied on "rabbit ears" and got only the 2 Toronto stations and perhaps Hamilton. One big difference with cable is people are paying for the service and expect it to always be there. However, as I indicated in another thread, some people are a bit too focussed on some TV shows. I recall, as a kid, I'd interupt my mother, watching her soaps, at my own peril. ;-)

People should remember that, for the most part, television is simply nothing more than entertainment that it wouldn't hurt to do without occasionally.

television is simply nothing more than entertainment that it wouldn't hurt to do without occasionallyAmen to that. :)

To bring this around back to the thread topic it seems to always be a matter of how well/ill-informed consumers might be about their local TV reception options. If OTA became common knowledge amongst consumers we'd be seeing big changes in the Canadian TV industry pretty darned fast, but this is not happening for a variety of reasons already discussed in this thread.

Here in the OTA Forum we've been holding the OTA beacon high for almost six years, and yes there has been a huge growth in awareness during that time, but we still face the same consumer information issues.

Popularizing OTA is thus of great concern to us.

People are now so use to having cable/satellite TV, it seems like it has become a right to have- "don't take away my cable TV, and don't ever increase the rates; I can't get it with an antenna, so I must have cable/satellite TV, etc."

hmmm seems like the landlord thingy happened like this in ontario too, especially when rates go up at
400 % the rate of inflation people start to demand -- more or equal value for money charged....soon some politician will make a career out of controlling the wealth as in other sectors...

ness pas ? you know what happens after that ... a landlord czar errr.... Cable czar will have to apease the mob unless cable greases the palms of the many starving politicans ( with all the extra loot they may be able to) till the mob is tired of watching "cake"

---- and vote in the hard liners under the moto "Equal access to information for all"

Wish the broadcasters (FCC and CRTC too) would realize just how popular OTA REALLY is. Just this past weekend, I was at Sayal in Burlington. In the span of a 1/2 hour to 45min of being there, I saw two CM4221 antennas go out the door, a slew of people looking at antennas, mounts, amps and cabling. I myself picked up a roll of RG6 and crimp ends to make my own cables for my antennas. Should have asked the store clerk what their demand on the antennas are like.

Sucks that there is all this talk of killing off OTA or compressing channels into SD on a small band of frequencies, when it is getting very popular, and peoples demand is there for the best PQ without spending an entire paycheck to get it.

Here in the OTA Forum we've been holding the OTA beacon high for almost six years, and yes there has been a huge growth in awareness during that time, but we still face the same consumer information issues.

Popularizing OTA is thus of great concern to us.

Something I am wondering about. And I first have to say how excellent this forum is. It is the sole reason why I can choose between 22 channels, 6 in HD... and that's just local (I'm working on getting a US station or two!).

But... I don't think in itself it does a lot for popularizing OTA in Canada. It is quite techie, and there is more information than your average person about to buy a cable package needs. (ihaterogers.com still doesn't mention OTA by the way!)

Saveandreplay's section here is about as good as it gets: http://overtheair.saveandreplay.com/

A website dedicated specifically to popularizing OTA in Canada (ie it's an alternative to cable / satellite if you want x,y and z but you don't want a,b,c) is needed. It strikes me that the discussions in this thread have covered all the 'issues' that are important to get across, but what's lacking is the place to popularize and publicise it online. Any Website developers out there?

I understand what you're saying and yes, this forum is exactly what you have described. We were here talking about digital OTA when nobody else was. It was never meant as a direct PR vehicle for OTA, and it will remain at arms length from that sort of stuff. The Digital Home web site is devoted to all types of TV and Radio Broadcasting in Canada, and we cover one facet of that. This thread is for discussing the PR side of OTA, such as sightings, ideas, etc. so feel free to bounce your ideas off our other members here.

Away from the OTA Forum I do media interviews, BTW. ;) See the following thread:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=107221