Future of the /A\ stations

[GeorgeMx]

Originally Posted by mjjl

It would represent a new distribution model for the London market for any one of those networks. In other words, if CFPL affiliated with CTV, CKCO would be dropped from cable in London itself, although likely kept in other areas.

You still haven't given an economic reason for the owners of CTV to affiliate with a new locally owned CFPL. Why give up free BDU carriage to pay an affiliate?

[ScaryBob]

There is no way CTV will allow a CTV affiliate in London. They currently qualify for simsubs and FFC with their Toronto and KW stations. It would be a loss of revenue for them.

[GeorgeMx]

Originally Posted by ScaryBob

The reason many Canadians believe that the only way to receive TV is via a BDU is due to lack of local channels. For 40 years, London and KW only had one local channel each. In London proper, at that time, it was almost impossible to receive any stations except CFPL and CKCO. CKCO was pretty weak in London, as was CFPL in Kitchener. That situation pretty much created the CATV cable industry. If Canadian cities had been better served by local TV, it would have delayed the development of cable TV and slowed the inroads of US network TV into Canada.

Canadian broadcasters have pretty much reaped what yhey sowed. That is, Canadians with a taste for US TV channels and programming. The current situation, where networks like /A\ are still NTSC, while all US networks are all high definition ATSC, just carries on the old tradition of Canadian broadcasters under-serving Canadians. This drives Canadians to watching US stations on a BDU.

Cable was operating in London before CFPL came on the air. Canadians simply wanted more choice in television - the same reason that they subscribe to BDU service today. As soon as a BDU service becomes available there is a steady decline in OTA viewing. Historically, cable was the only BDU and service was only available in relatively populated areas. The availability of cable topped out the level of BDU penetration until direct Ku band satellite service became available. The level of BDU penetration climbed again as almost the whole country has access to BDU service.

The real issue for local broadcasting is competition for eyeballs with BDU services. Broadcast network viewing has declined steadily over the years because viewers want the programs on BDU specialty channels. Watching a BDU service rather than broadcast is the direct consequence of choice.

If this was the US, both London and KW would have it's own CTV, CBC, TVO and Global affiliates as well as /A\. Just look at the south side of Lake Erie. Their are major network affiliates in Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit, many of which overlap.

In the US, local stations have programming exclusivity in their own markets through any BDU service - telco, cable or satellite. While OTA households on the edge of markets can receive stations from adjacent markets, most of the viewers use BDUs or have minimal antenna systems (rabbit ears) to get local stations. In Canada, out of market stations are imported in bulk by BDUs from all over the country and the US. Market exclusivity is destroyed resulting in lost viewership and lower advertising revenue. The only way to change this situation is substituting or deleting every program shown locally by a Canadian broadcaster from any other channel. The Americans provide program exclusivity protection for one week before or after local airing of a show.

[Jase88]

If CTV were smart, they'd put their /A\ channels on CTV sub-channels where /A\ doesn't have transmitters (i.e. Kitchener, Toronto, etc). And vice versa for CTV where only /A\ has transmitters.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Jase88

If CTV were smart, they'd put their /A\ channels on CTV sub-channels where /A\ doesn't have transmitters (i.e. Kitchener, Toronto, etc). And vice versa for CTV where only /A\ has transmitters.

First of all, I doubt if the CRTC would approve this since one owner having two English (or French) language stations in the same city is frowned upon (though not completely prohibited).

Secondly, this would degrade the picture quality of both stations, especially in scenes with fast motion.

[Jase88]

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, I doubt if the CRTC would approve this since one owner having two English (or French) language stations in the same city is frowned upon (though not completely prohibited).

Secondly, this would degrade the picture quality of both stations, especially in scenes with fast motion.

There wouldn't be two stations in one city. It would be comparable to having a repeater in a distant area--which many stations do in southern Ontario.

The PQ issue is debatable.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Jase88

There wouldn't be two stations in one city. It would be comparable to having a repeater in a distant area--which many stations do in southern Ontario.

Might work for London and Kitchener as they are about the same size. Barrie and Toronto wouldn't fly as the CRTC knows that over time CKVR would end up becoming a Toronto station.

Also the CRTC discourages the use of sub-channels.

The PQ issue is debatable.

Here is what Marc (a broadcast engineer for the CBC) says about it: subchannels are the work of the devil!

[wilspin]

Roger1818 that is a myth I’ve heard here before. I contacted CRTC about that and was pointed to a couple of official documents that said nothing about discouraging sub channels. What’s the source of your comment? I wonder what someone in the private broadcast industry says? I do think the US will show us how the business model works with sub channels.

[Jase88]

Agreed with Wilspin: I've seen nothing that indicates the CRTC is discouraging sub channels.

With regards to PQ when sub channels are in use: My discussions with the technical staff at both CKVR (/A\ Barrie) and CFPL (/A\ London) indicate there are no immediate plans to go with high definition. They will be broadcasting in digital standard definition. I have viewed stations with two SD sub-channels, and the primary HD feed looks great (WNED PBS Buffalo, for example).

[ScaryBob]

They will be broadcasting in digital standard definition.

That sucks. I guess that also means that CTV will not be broadcasting and major prime time shows on /A\ since they won't qualify for simsubs. It also means /A\ will likely continue to lose money.

I've seen nothing that indicates the CRTC is discouraging sub channels.

The CRTC stated some time ago that it would not license subchannels for existing OTA services. OTOH, the CRTC more recently stated that it favoured subchannels for providing new services.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by wilspin

Roger1818 that is a myth I’ve heard here before. I contacted CRTC about that and was pointed to a couple of official documents that said nothing about discouraging sub channels. What’s the source of your comment?

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-31 says:

The Commission's predisposition will be to license new and innovative multicast services, in preference to those that duplicate existing over-the-air services, pay or specialty services.

[MoreDB]

This document is typical of all those involved in the Canadian digital conversion, ie. more of the same vagueness and lack of direction. The word "predisposition" defines to tendency or inclination, so I suppose one could assume that the CRTC will "favor" sub channels for new or novel applications BUT also not completely rule out existing OTA channels. How typically bureaucratic and wishy washy of them.

The "weak" wording could also keep the door open for some "good ole boy" behind the scenes maneuvering, as nothing is written in stone, and each sub channel application would be handled on a case by case basis. Anywho, that is my own interpretation.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MoreDB

The word "predisposition" defines to tendency or inclination, so I suppose one could assume that the CRTC will "favor" sub channels for new or novel applications BUT also not completely rule out existing OTA channels.

I agree and that is why I said the discourage (not prohibit) the use of sub-channels.

[wilspin]

This is why US channels are so important to our OTA crusade.