Rogers applying to simsub CityTV Toronto in NB and NL (Denied)

[ralph_sinclair]

Rogers applying to simsub CityTV Toronto in NB and NL... and how you can say No!

This has been mentioned in the simsub thread but I think it deserves its own thread.

Rogers has applied to start simsubbing CityTV Toronto over the Boston US networks on its NB and NL systems. This means we could look forward to simsubbing of the late afternoon NFL game and other popular US shows. In order to perform simsubs, a station usually needs to install an over the air station or repeater in each city that will be simsubbed. And this usually requires the production of local news. So Rogers is trying to reap the benefits, without providing the service. NB and NL viewers will be the victims, with yet more simsubs.

Here's the application.

https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/DocW...ppNo=201206441

Here is a link allowing members of the public to submit interventions. The deadline is July 3.

https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Inte...06441&ET=A#SE0

If you don't want to see yet more simsubs, then now is your chance to intervene against this application. In your intervention, try not to argue against the idea of simsubs in general. Just remind the CRTC that simsubs are a privilege granted in exchange for serving communities with an over the air signal, and local news - things Rogers isn't offering to do.

[lajohn27]

Comment in opposition sent. Text below

It was my general understanding that simultaneous substitution was a privilege granted by the CRTC in exchange for serving communities with an over the air signal, and local news - neither of these things are being offered in this instance.

Further - to what benefit is it (beyond Rogers) to show subscribers in New Brunswick and Newfoundland the advertisements from Ottawa or Toronto? There is ZERO benefit for the local advertisers in those cities, nor is there any benefits for the viewers in NB or NL. IE: It's not likely for me as a resident of New Brunswick to patronize businesses in those cities nor to participate in any promotions they may be executing.

This seems like a blatant ploy by Rogers to expand the reach of those stations without making any investment in local over the air signal or local news. This viewer strongly suggests the commission, in light of your own policies and guidelines, deny this application.

[Danster]

Very well written. Kinda reminds me when I opposed CTV to get Discovery HD. Sadly, my opposition to it never changed anything.

[lajohn27]

Thanks Dan.

Worth noting, if it gets approved I believe it will eventually affect Bell customers in a similar way ... CTV2 Simsubs over similar USA feeds for example.

I read in the Rogers application ... that the CRTC has opened the door to exactly this kind of simsubs in a decision last year.. so odds are, it will be approved.

[kirjtc2]

Got a response from Rogers. Basically said (among other things) they're too cheap to start a new station, and how dare you question our plans for world domination.

They also said they won't rule out deals with other providers, so if any FibreOp or Eastlink subs are reading this, watch out.

[lajohn27]

yes, I too got the reply that indicated that our concerns were 'of no consequence' because we entirely missed the 'point' of their application. Nice.

Basically the reply said Rogers Broadcasting has negotiated this deal for simsubs with Rogers Cable to save the consumer money. Because if we execute in this fashion then we don't have to pay for the carriage of the distant signal. Handy that.. when you own both parties negotiating you can say whatever you bloody want!

Having no clue how to reply to the Commission for a closed thing.. I just replied ALL to the email with this:

Originally Posted by LaJohn27

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm not trying to be difficult. I understand the complex nature of this
application and the joint benefits for both Rogers & Shaw. To see you
write that I missed the point indicates, that my point was also missed.

My original intervention should have asked pointedly, "What is in this for
the consumer?“ Remember us, your customers ? We buy your products and
services and pay the bill each month?

Rogers Atlantic customers already have significantly fewer HD channels than
Rogers Ontario customers.. New features and services like Rogers Anywhere?
Set your PVR with a smartphone app? Only if you live in Ontario.

As a Rogers Atlantic customer for almost ten years (!), it gets a bit
frustrating when all the effort and "best" stuff goes to Ontario customers,
repeatedly.

And then, this application comes along and I took the opportunity to share
our collective frustration with Rogers treatment of their Atlantic
Customers.

Thank you for your time. Good luck with the application. Please consider
how this impacts your Atlantic clients, who already feel forgotten
and second class.

John Knox

[kirjtc2]

Amazing, isn't it...a company can tell their paying customers, basically to their face, their concerns don't matter.

The easy solution is to switch to FibreOp, but would they really be any better?

[Tridus]

They seem to be. FibreOp is far from a perfect service on the TV side, but they seem to give a damn more then Rogers does.

As a bonus, the Internet side of it is so far ahead of Rogers that it's crazy.

[lajohn27]

Because I'm apartment-dweller ... FO isn't an option. Arg. I'm almost to the point I'd put up with the softer picture quality.

[lajohn27]

Here is the non-b/s part of the Rogers reply to my note above:

Originally Posted by Rogers PR Machine

Although currently there are fewer HD channels offered by Rogers in Fredericton than in Ontario, a broad selection of HD channels is available, similar to the number of HD channels offered by Bell Aliant in New Brunswick. Rogers is continually enhancing our cable service in Atlantic Canada.

In the coming months, improvements will include the launch of a significant number of HD versions of popular specialty channels before the end of summer and the launch of Rogers Live TV (tablet TV via WiFi for iPads and Samsung Galaxys) in the fall.

Later this year, we also intend to upgrade our on-screen Interactive Program Guide (IPG) that will support additional features, including: 1) SD-HD Recording Options including "Auto-HDing" channels so that you can watch the HD version of services by tuning to the channel where the original analog/SD version is normally located; 2) Rogers On Demand poster art for movies; and 3) a new, integrated VOD search feature.

In 2013 we intend to launch a new IPG. Also, we will announce details on how we will be moving to an all-digital network. By doing this, we will be able to offer many more HD services, faster Internet, and prepare for our future next generation IP (Internet Protocol) video services.

[kirjtc2]

DENIED!

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-551.htm

[habskilla]

Hey lajohn27 and others, your opinion was heard and agreed with.

Originally Posted by The CRTC

6. Bell Media, the CBC and several individuals argued that the application does not adhere to the simultaneous substitution policy, which grants simultaneous substitution privileges to only local and regional stations. Moreover, according to those interveners, approval of the application would grant RCP the benefits of having a local station in Atlantic Canada without investments in service to the region. The CBC also argued that RCP has not substantiated its claim that there would be no impact on the revenues of incumbent broadcasters in Atlantic Canada.

[Classof83]

Nice... a victory for us small folks!

[lajohn27]

Originally Posted by habskilla

Hey lajohn27 and others, your opinion was heard and agreed with.

AWESOME! I figured for sure this was a rubber stamp and we'd be ignored again.

Wow.. Just wow.

[lajohn27]

Rogers wrote in their reply to interventions:

Originally Posted by RogersReply

Would RBL obtain the benefits of a local presence without any
obligations to provide local service?

18. Opposing interveners generally take the position that, in order to benefit
from simultaneous substitution privileges, RBL should be required to
build local stations in the Atlantic region and provide local programming
to viewers in this region. Otherwise, they argue, RBL is obtaining the
benefits of a local presence without any obligations to provide local
service.
19. RCP submits that this argument completely misses the point of the
application and is therefore irrelevant to the analysis of our proposal

I'd say.. given the CRTC's determination.. we did NOT "completely miss the point" -- I'd say we nailed it.

Just saying.