Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2008-358 - Regarding Simsub of Super Bowl

[hugh]

In this decision, the Commission addresses a complaint by CTV Television Inc. (CTV) regarding the simultaneous substitution, by Shaw Cablesystems Limited (Shaw), Star Choice Television Network Incorporated (Star Choice) and Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership (Bell TV), of CTV’s 3 February 2008 high definition (HD) broadcast of the 2008 Super Bowl.

This will come up a lot in coming weeks. Essentially it stipulates the regulations around Simsubbing of this years game.

[hugh]

This thread is about the rules surrounding Super Bowl Simulcasting only.

If you wish to find out if your BDU is simsubbing the game or not, see this thread

[gobisbay]

"The Commission notes that, in order to request simultaneous substitution over an HD program, the television station must have an operational digital transmitter, which CTV does in both Vancouver and Toronto, and must also be broadcasting the program in HD."


Wow, there it is! Does this mean I can fully expect Cogeco to not sim-sub the Super Bowl in HD here in Windsor? Maybe I should forward this point directly to Cogeco (who actually did not sim-sub either Championship game on the Detroit channels yesterday - that is until 10:00 when The Mentalist kicked in on Global and we lost 3 minutes of the AFC Championship game).

I think I might call them on February 1st and remind them that they cannot legally sim-sub the game in Windsor. Anyone outside of Toronto & Vancouver (and not with BellTV, I guess) should do the same with their local cable/satellite provider).

[hugh]

Does this mean I can fully expect Cogeco to not sim-sub the Super Bowl in HD here in Windsor?

Yes it does.

[taxtwit]

Friggin' CRTC - decision means essentially everyone outside of TO and VCR gets unsimsubbed superbowl (and TO/VCR people can get it via OTA from the US, if they're really desperate) EXCEPT BEV subscribers. So if you're a BEV subscriber and you're not within an hour or so of the border, the CRTC says "*&^%$ you!", essentially.

Here's the money paragraph from the CRTC decision:

It is evident that Bell TV deviated from its usual practice in its simultaneous substitution of the HD versions of the 2008 Super Bowl broadcast by performing that substitution on a local basis and limiting it to the Toronto and Vancouver markets. Although this method of simultaneous substitution may be seen by some as more consistent with the way that cable BDUs perform it, the Commission is of the view that Bell TV should not be permitted to choose the applicable regulatory approach depending on what works to its greatest advantage in a given set of circumstances.

Mull that last sentence over in your head for awhile - basically the CRTC doesn't think Bell should be allowed to make business decisions that "work to its greatest advantage". Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the CRTC prefers for-profit businesses to "choose...regulatory approach(es)..." that work to their DISADVANTAGE.

Note to Stephen Harper - I know you've got a lot on your plate right now, but please don't bump "abolishing CRTC" from your "to do" list.

[Mr. Perfect]

the CRTC says "*&^%$ you!"

It is Bell who has been too cheap to invest in the proper technology to correctly simsub within the Grade B contour only. Put the blame where it lies - with your provider.

[hugh]

Building technology to deal with capricious bureaucratic decisions is always problematic.

Bev can do exactly what the CRTC originally wanted (simsub CTV Toronto over NBC Buffalo) but now the CRTC has changed the requirements.

[Classof83]

But last year, Bell TV wanted to provide viewers outside of Toronto and Vancouver a non-simsubbed version of FOX HD, in addition to a simsubbed one. However, that non-simsubbed FOX HD channel was viewable in Toronto and Vancouver.

If Bell TV thought they had the technology / capability to provide an alternate US feed of FOX HD that was uninterruptable outside of Toronto and Vancouver, then they shouldn't be too far off in providing simsubs only to Toronto and Vancouver.

But then again, it's tough to say, as their plan failed and viewers in Toronto and Vancouver also saw that alternate uninterrupted FOX HD feed.

[gobisbay]

I think the real concern is why the broadcasters play hardball using the CRTC regulations to force the distributors to sim-sub as much as possible, but those same broadcasters are unwilling to invest in HD transmitters. They know it's not worth the cost to most of the BDUs to purchase technology that allows them to only simsub the required areas (basically Toronto and Vancouver) so they essentially get national sim-subbing for free.

I would be willing to stake my (admittedly tarnished) reputation that CTV sells advertisers on the fact they can get national coverage by buying a commercial in only one or two markets in HD. They probably even charge more for this, without having the outlay of transmitters anywhere else in the country.

The regulations are not there to line broadcasters' pockets, although they certainly could be construed as such.

Back to the thread topic, I'm crossing my fingers that Cogeco will not be sim-subbing the game in Windsor. I've fired off an email to them asking for confirmation. If I get anything of substance, I'll post the response. Actually, I'll post it whether there's substance or not. Frankly, I could really care less about the U.S. commercials, but it's not like there are any decent Canadian commercials for us to talk about.

[taxtwit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Perfect

It is Bell who has been too cheap to invest in the proper technology to correctly simsub within the Grade B contour only. Put the blame where it lies - with your provider.

What exactly do you mean by "correctly simsub"? You apparently share the CRTC's view that there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" way to simsub. Why isn't it open to Bell or any other person subject to government regulation to arrange their affairs in any way they want, as long as they are in compliance with those regulations? Certainly, with respect to the government regulations with which I am most familiar (as per my username ), it is a longstanding principle that you can conduct your business affairs however you wish, even if it gives you an "advantage", as long as you are in compliance with those regulations.

[Classof83]

CTV definitely doesn't complain about getting national simsubs when they shouldn't be thanks to Bell TV not using VCO technology and just simsubbing via the uplink feed.

And regarding this statement: "It is evident that Bell TV deviated from its usual practice in its simultaneous substitution of the HD versions of the 2008 Super Bowl broadcast by performing that substitution on a local basis and limiting it to the Toronto and Vancouver markets."

From what I gather though, Bell TV did not plan to just simsub on a local basis. Instead, they simsubbed nationally as they normally do, and then provided alternate channels to watch the FOX feeds directly. They planned not to make those alternate channels viewable in Toronto and Vancouver, but they were.

Again, if Bell TV thought they had the capability of providing a non-simsubbed channel to areas outside Toronto and Vancouver, they should fully develop and test this capacity, and then provide 2 separate channels for viewers outside of the GTA and GVA all the time. This might take up more bandwidth, but satellite providers add and subtract channels all the time. Or switch to the ability to simsub locally.

[Kootenayguy9]

I don't understand why Bell can't just Blackout the NBC feeds to those living in Vancouver/Toronto. They seem to be able to do that for CFL games for example for people living in Vancouver while the Lions are playing on TSN SD and TSN HD. Just doesn't make since to me. Also they blackout out hockey games on Sportsnet to viewers outside the viewing area.

[TJ77]

You are missing the point.

Bell TV's normal method for simsub is to simsub at the uplink; everybody sees the simsub. The CRTC has ruled that they can not change their method just for the Super Bowl.

[Classof83]

Well, then Bell should provide non-simsubbed channels everywhere except in Toronto and Vancouver always, or switch to VCO technology.

[GeorgeMx]

What exactly do you mean by "correctly simsub"? You apparently share the CRTC's view that there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" way to simsub. Why isn't it open to Bell or any other person subject to government regulation to arrange their affairs in any way they want, as long as they are in compliance with those regulations? Certainly, with respect to the government regulations with which I am most familiar (as per my username ), it is a longstanding principle that you can conduct your business affairs however you wish, even if it gives you an "advantage", as long as you are in compliance with those regulations.

The CRTC requires local substitution capability for everyone except Bell. Cable operators and Star Choice developed and implemented this capability. In the case of Star Choice, it means they can substitute a local station over a U.S. or distant Canadian station on a market by market basis. For example, a U.S. station from Detroit would be substituted with a Toronto station in the Toronto area and a Halifax station in the Halifax area. Markets with no local station would not be substituted at all. In comparison, Bell would substitute a Toronto station over the U.S. station and all markets would see it, whether they had a local station with the same programming or not.

Bell got permission to ignore the usual substitution regulations and perform the single substitution based on their claims that they did not have technological capability to perform market by market substitution. Market by market substitution is more complicated and more expensive to implement so they received an economic advantage compared to Star Choice and the cable companies.

The table turns with HDTV. No local HD station means no substitution requirement for Star Choice and cable operators outside the coverage of the Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver digital stations. Bell still has to substitute into all markets because of their low cost, unsophisticated substitution system. They suffer a marketing disadvantage because the competition is not required to substitute on HD channels in most parts of the country.

The CRTC gave Bell permission to use the single national substitution approach based on their claimed inability to do otherwise. In effect, Bell was given its own set of substitution rules. In the case of the Superbowl, Bell's specially granted rules turn out to be a problem, so they decided to follow the substitution rules that apply to all other BDUs using capability they claim not to have.

The CRTC is saying that you cannot follow the rules you like best from time to time - you have to be consistent. In other words, Bell is being told that the normal substitution rules that apply to other BDUs do not apply to them. Remember, they got special rules because they said they did not have local substitution capability. Now that they find it convenient to have local substitution capability they have created a solution. Bell is gaming the regulations. If the Commission thought that Bell might do local substitutions when it suited their purposes, they could have specifically denied Bell the right to follow the regular rules in their Decision.

The time has probably come for the CRTC to review Bell's special substitution rules to determine if they can reasonably be expected to implement local market substitution. Technology has changed substantially since the original decision so it is reasonable to ask Bell for an update on their technical capability. The HD boxes are more powerful than early SD boxes and should be able to support software for local substitution. The Commission could require local substitution for HD but permit the existing arrangements to persist for SD with the large population of legacy equipment.