Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC's Conversation on "Television"

123K views 593 replies 109 participants last post by  Dan_Lee 
#1 ·
Peter Menzies, Vice-chairman of Telecommunications at the CRTC, had, what I thought were some interesting comments in his speech yesterday to the CCSA.

Could it be that the CRTC is realizing that resistance is futile?

One of the old assumptions was that the CRTC could act effectively as a gatekeeper. Those who wanted to broadcast to Canadians had to do so under our rules, and Canadians — Martha and Henry — had little access to broadcasting that hadn't been channelled through those rules.

But now the Internet and all the devices that can reach it directly have created a borderless world. We can no longer define ourselves as gatekeepers in a world in which there may be no gates. We can't tell Canadians what to watch, nor should we. They are free to enjoy a much wider range of information and entertainment than ever before. And they are.

How can we act as an enabler of Canadian expression, rather than as a protector?
 
#112 ·
Interesting thread. One catch?

Why blame Bell,Shaw Or Rogers for rights to US shows? If anything blame the US networks for selling them to Canadian Networks, Those same networks know very well(ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,CW & My Network)are available in Canada and viewers could easily watch them, but know viewership in Canada doesn't count for US Neilson ratings.

They can make more money selling the Canadian viewership rights to Canadian networks.So if you want blame anyone blame the US nets for being money grubbers.

As for being "forced" to buy channels you don't want that's a different story/

But it's quite simple. The Canadian nets will & providers will do two things:

1) jack the price up for individual channels(popular ones) from $2.99/channel to $8.99/channel

2) spread the US programs over all their channels they own and simo sub every single program with the same time slot as the US time slot so you won't be able to actually see the US version.

IE

CTV-Thursday 8PM--CBS Thursday 8PM
Big Bang Theory-----Big Bang Theory

Mystery TV Friday 8PM-----ABC Friday 8PM
Program A------------------Program A

etc
etc
etc

Both regular nets & specialty Nets will be filled with First run & repeat shows of US ones.

The Canadian nets win both ways.

As for the internet watching process, that part I can't really comment on as I'm not that familiar with that part of Tv show watching as to how popular or how easy it is to watch.
 
#118 ·
Ugh! Just went through my list of regularly watched shows for the past three decades. What I've discovered up to now is that with the arrival of the Internet, my viewing habits shifted dramatically from American shows to British shows.

Among the shows I've watched on a regular basis for the past two years, 8 (44.5%) are from the USA, 8 (44.5%) are from the UK, and 2 (11%) are from Canada.

If I were living in the UK, I'd be watching mostly UK shows due to the immediate availability.

Now to go through the BBM's Top 30 lists for some recognizable patterns. I can already state that, regrettably, Canadian television has its equivalent of Canadian radio's "Beaver Hour", the day and time when broadcasters dump their Canadian content into low ratings time slots in order to meet their CanCon obligations.

That time slot is Saturday night.
 
#119 ·
I've just went through almost a year's worth of French and English Numeris TV ratings for my CRTC presentation. I had already done this exercise back in 2011, and the patterns are still consistent three years later.

If the TV ratings of the most popular French Canadian produced TV shows were scaled up to match the English Canadian market (x4), a cop show would get 8 million viewers, and two shows playing at the same time on Sunday night would get a combined 12 million viewers.

Each and every week.
 
#120 ·
Pick and Pay consultation by CRTC

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2014/2014-190-3.htm

Issues for discussion at the public hearing

A wide range of issues will be addressed as part of this process. However, after reviewing the submissions, the Commission considers that the issues set out below, in particular, require a more complete record. It will therefore focus its questioning on the following issues at the public hearing:

Maximizing choice and flexibility (pick and pay)
Relationships between broadcasting distribution undertakings and programmers
Ways to foster local programming, including a regulatory model for conventional television
Ways to foster compelling Canadian programming, including program production, promotion, exhibition and Canadian programming expenditures


A step towards the 21st century.
 
#122 ·
I agree. In addition to missing the ads on the Superbowl, TSN and some other channels butcher live sports so badly they are not worth watching. The US feeds are bad enough but the hacked Canadian versions are usually way worse. It's not just live sports either, Canadian stations hack other live events to shreds.
 
#126 · (Edited by Moderator)
License fees for television sets, as charged under the models of other countries, have never been applied in Canada, nor are they being considered in these CRTC proceedings. That is a moot discussion for this thread.
That's like arguing that there is no road levy because drivers don't pay tolls when they enter a highway. Rather than apply a special TV license, Canada chooses to take national TV subsidies out of general revenues and applies special levies for TV programming production.

People watching OTA are getting nothing for free that cable and satellite subscribers do not also get for free. The traditional cable/satellite model is that customers simply pay for delivery of OTA signals. That changed somewhat with specialty channels that charge a fee but (excluding the LPF fee is being removed) cable and satellite subscribers pay nothing for OTA TV either. They also get a lot more OTA channels than non-subscribers. If anything, cable and satellite subscribers are the problem with OTA in Canada. Distant OTA channels, introduced with cable and extended significantly with satellite, destroyed the revenue base for many local OTA stations. In that light, an argument could be made that cable and satellite subscribers should be subsidizing OTA in Canada because they destroyed the OTA business model of most OTA stations in smaller markets.
 
#130 ·
... In that light, an argument could be made that cable and satellite subscribers should be subsidizing OTA in Canada because they destroyed the OTA business model of most OTA stations in smaller markets.
On that basis, anyone who moves to a new and improved technology should be forced to pay a fee to the supplier who continues to use an older less efficient technology to make up that supplier's revenue loss? I don't think so.
 
#131 · (Edited)
This is not a technology war between OTA, CATV, and DBS

jaxon9032, OTA's ATSC digital standard, IPTV, and Cable's digital QAM are not particularly newer nor greater nor less efficient than the other. Having said that, in major centres across North America the OTA picture quality in HD is routinely found to be visibly superior to that seen via Cable providers and particularly so of Satellite providers. Your comment about older, less efficient technologies therefore makes no sense. If you are referring to old NTSC analogue OTA transmitters still operating as low power repeaters in some rural areas of Canada it is ridiculous that they have not been ordered changed over to the vastly more efficient and modern ATSC. Those old NTSC analogue repeaters are not the local stations being discussed in these CRTC proceedings.

In today's Canadian broadcasting reality the concern amongst some of the large CATV and DBS companies is not that they are saddled with ownership of inferior local OTA stations but rather the opposite: that they hold ownership of local OTA stations that directly cost nothing to view (as has been the case for over 60 years in Canada) yet offer superior viewing to consumers from their own internally competing products. This is driving them crazy, because they know that some Canadians are cutting the cord in favour of a mix of OTA and Internet content. But, they cannot just have the rules changed because they don't like them. OTA is the original TV system and they undertook business models that recognized that. Now they want to cripple OTA for their own profit-based reasons, but many Canadians will tell them no. Canadians do not owe the Cable and Satellite corporations a living. Canadians expect to continue to get free-of-direct-cost OTA TV with its glorious picture and sound quality.

Here's a great thread about consumers reacting to the potential loss of OTA: Fate Of OTA Again In CRTC Discussion - Aug. 2014. We can carry on this discussion in there if you like.

As for ExDilbert's views in Post #126, they are his.

To remain on topic, let's look long and hard at what is at stake here for Canadian consumers as proposed in the CRTC discussion topics.
 
#132 · (Edited)
^ Just a quick comment that I would say the death of OTA in Canada began in the 70s when broadcasters in Canada began relying on cable to supply their signals (partly due to the penetration of Cable and partly because of the protection the CRTC provided) unlike in the US where OTA has remained strong. In areas such as the one I live in there is no viable OTA and hasn't been for decades.

PS: The on topic part of my posts is that people using different technology should not be paying a fee to use the technology that works better for them. (Hopefully leaving out the "better / more advanced" will help to clarify the my point as I agree that current OTA tech is better.)
 
#133 ·
the death of OTA in Canada began in the 70s when broadcasters in Canada began relying on cable to supply their signals
That's not exactly correct. Canadian broadcasters did not rely on cable, especially not in the 1970s. It was a consumer choice. Cable became the preferred method of receiving both local and distant stations for most Canadians. Cable delivered distant signals that competed with local stations for viewers and ad revenue. Then cable started delivering dozens, then hundreds of alternate non-OTA channels that also competed for programming, in addition to viewers and ad revenue. When satellite came along it made the situation even worse by offering US only carriers (later banned in Canada) and even more distant signals from across the continent. The CRTC has been trying to patch the damage to OTA by applying make shift fixes ever since. None of them have worked. The CRTC has simply made things worse by meddling with market forces (protectionism) and allowing increased market concentration instead of keeping OTA in the hands of smaller, local owners. Probably the biggest mistake the CRTC made was by allowing out of market stations to be available across Canada. In the early days of cable, the only out of market OTA station carried were those available with a local CATV antenna. Satellite technology caused an uncontrolled OTA channel explosion in Canada.

The current problem with OTA in Canada is lack of commitment by broadcasters. That's a multifaceted issue. The reason OTA is alive and well in the USA is because out of market competitors are not allowed on cable or satellite. That is the single biggest factor in the decline of small market OTA in Canada. The second is that networks and BDUs do not care about local markets. All they care about is making money and that is easier to do without small market OTA. That brings up the second reason OTA is alive and well in the USA. Unlike Canada, US networks are not allowed to own a majority of affiliate stations. The networks own a few flagship stations in major markets and that's it. In the US, local ownership and lack of out of market station competition keep OTA alive and well. The CRTC dropped the ball on that and no amount of tweaking will fix it now. The only glimmer of hope is the LTSS plan offered by Shaw Direct. If Canadian broadcasters want to shut down OTA, then this is an acceptable alternative, provided it it applied to all BDUs, especially those that also own broadcasting interests.

As for ExDilbert's views in Post #126, they are his.
Notice that I said the argument could be made for OTA subsidies by BDU subscribers. I didn't say I agreed with it. I hates the LPIF as much as anyone. The local OTA issue was created by broadcasters and should be fixed by them.
 
#134 ·
... It was a consumer choice. Cable became the preferred method of receiving both local and distant stations for most Canadians. ...
My premise is that once consumers defined cable as the preferred method of receiving all signals in the 70s, the death of OTA in Canada began. At that point ensuring a strong OTA signal was no longer required to reach most viewers.
 
#136 ·
jaxon9032, I agree. I'm just saying that it was the way signals were carried on cable and satellite that caused the demise of local stations. As far back as the 1970s, it became apparent that distant signals were undermining the viability of local stations. The US got it right by banning distant signals that competed directly with local stations. Canada implemented a patchwork of ineffective measures. By the 1990s, the writing was on the wall but Canada still failed to act. Instead, it allowed the situation to get worse. 10 years later, local Canadian stations were in crisis.
 
#139 ·
The US got it right by banning distant signals that competed directly with local stations.
This is all true. Im still hoping that The CRTC will mandate a system like this. As an example I will use myself. When I sign up for TV service my provider would offer me my locals only, & if all my locals were not available on that provider I could then apply for a waiver from said Canadian local in which they could approve or deny it. If approved I would then be free to have my provider give me either the east or west distant feed depending on the time zone. By doing things this way the provider would also NOT be allowed to simsub across the board as many do today, but only on my own locals. Also for those that still want time shifting the US nets would still be available to all in east & west formats as they would be unaffected by this. Although in this day & age of 5-8 tuner DVR's(Rogers comes to mind) time shifting really isn't needed anyway.
 
#140 ·
New video update. The script is FINALLY done. Took longer than expected, but that's normal when you try to squeeze as much information as possible in under 10 minutes.

Now to do the narration and the animation, both of which should be finished during the week. After that, it's just a matter of assembling everything in Sony Vegas.
 
#141 ·
Further option B stipulates "for a set price between $20 and $30."
At that price, BDUs will be making money. Since BDU owners also currently own OTA stations, it will simply provide an incentive to shut down their OTA stations. When satellite launched, they charged about $15/mo for essentially the same service with lots of distant stations added (including US networks.) Technology costs have dropped dramatically since then so it's not unrealistic to provide skinny basic for $15 or less (factoring in the savings for shutting down OTA.)
 
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