CRTC Release on Fee For Carriage Issue (March 22, 2010)

[LONSat]

Bell is about the only BDU that simsubs TSN over an American OTA signal. Not sure if it is even allowed or addressed by simsub regulations. Pretty Shaw Direct doesn't do this and I am not sure about Rogers and the rest.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Wayne

Isn't one example of this when a non-OTA Canadian channel (TSN, Rogers Sportsnet, etc) broadcasts an event that is available on US OTA TV. Should not such an event by blacked out in Canada if you don't subscribe to that Canadian cable channel?

Simsub rights are only given to local OTA channels as a benifit for broadcasting OTA. Cable channels and distant OTA channels are not given this benefit, though bell tends to do it anyway for their own reasons.

And this is another example of a Canadian broadcaster spending Canadian dollars on something that is of no benefit to the Canadian consumer. We all get the tournament on CBS anyhow, wouldn't we be better off if TSN showed something else that we might be interested in, like hockey games or CIS basketball? Having TSN broadcast a show that is already available to Canadians just reduces the amount of choice you have on your TV as a consumer but it may help TSN as they can pull in more viewers, assuming that they can simsub everyone in the country.

Canadian stations show American programming due to an if you can't beat them, join them mentality. They can't compete with top rated US programming so they instead choose to buy the local broadcast rights so they can show it and earn money from it. If we didn't get the big 4+1 American networks here, the economics would change and local stations would likely show more Canadian content.

Unfortunately TSN is not the greatest example of this since I would imagine that almost every BDU subscription in the country already includes TSN. But the basic Rogers Cable HD subscription does not include TSN HD so this will apply to those Rogers HD subs who only get the basic HD package.

No, TSN is only part of basic service in about half the country. The other half gets Sportsnet instead.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by LONSat

Bell is about the only BDU that simsubs TSN over an American OTA signal. Not sure if it is even allowed or addressed by simsub regulations.

Interesting. They aren't required to do this, but I am not sure if there is any regulation preventing them from doing it either. Most BDU's hate simsub as it is a source of customer complaints, especially when errors occur (often due to last minute schedule changes).

[PFD]

Originally Posted by roger1818

DOH!!! Also Knowledge in BC. Access is owned by CTVgm (which is/will be owned by Bell) though I heard an unsubstantiated rumor that it is being sold.

Oh and there are also the CTS and JoyTV stations.

I also didn't look at the French stations.

Fair enough. Let's agree that there are a handful of channels not (yet) owned by the BDUs. Still, my point is valid, that the majority of broadcasters, including those making a lot of noise, are owned by companies that own the BDUs.
I guess I'm really just sickened by this whole nonsense. Multi billion dollar companies looking for ways to squeeze more out of us; and disguising it as something else.

[PFD]

Wayne said:

But the broadcasters are getting something today - mandatory carriage and placement in the "prime" spots is certainly of value to these broadcasters. For example, everyone that subscribes to cable gets their local stations and they get them in the analog band that is viewable on all TVs without external equipment.

The "quid pro quo" here is that BDUs get the channels for free and that makes their service more attractive and the broadcasters get the premium placement that increases their ratings since their channels are available to 100% of BDU subscribers.

EXACTLY. The BDUs should just tell the broadcasters..."Bugger off, find your own means of distributing your content without us and see how you fair. It it wasn't for us, your ad revenue would plummet even more."

But then, of course, we forget the broadcasters and BDUs are one-and-the-same.

[Negus]

Bell is allowed to simsub for any cable station, however they are not supposed to give preferential treatment (to TSN)

ie. substituting the TSN feed over FOX for a NASCAR race but not substituting the sportsnet feed over FOX for say a World Series game

resulting in increased audiences for TSN but not Sportsnet

[jaxon9032]

Originally Posted by Negus

... they are not supposed to give preferential treatment ...

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the broadcaster must request that the BDU simsub. So if they are not simsubbing Sportsnet, it is because it was not requested in that instance.

[majortom]

Buy more shares in Bell and Shaw.

Maybe buy some stock in a Canadian tower manufacturer?
I read on a WIKI entry 4/5 th's of the Canadian Population lives within 93 Miles of the US Border. There's probably a significant portion of that just out of reach of US OTA stations' coverage. A small tower in every yard, would increase the coverage of both US and Canadian stations significantly

[ScaryBob]

4/5 th's of the Canadian Population lives within 93 Miles of the US Borde

A significant portion of that population is likely geographically challenged for OTA. While some cities, such as Toronto are on the lake, many further inland are built in valleys that pose significant challenges due to intervening high ground. While London is within 93 miles of the US, there are no stations in that direction or they are very weak. Many more stations are over 100 miles. All are are 2 edge or worse.

[Blackloz]

The Broadcasters are now owned by the BDU's(Minus CBC) are they not? Shouldn't FCC just go away now?

[ScaryBob]

So should the LPIF but it's not. Shaw Direct just added it to their BDU service. Is it a coincidence that Shaw acquired Global and added LPIF at about the same time? Will FFC be far behind? I think not. BDUs are the cash cows that feed the acquisition of broadcast services and rollout of internet infrastructures. Meanwhile, broadcasters, BDUs and ISPs appear to be treated as individual entities by regulators instead of the vertically integrated oligopolies that they have become.