Are Canadian cable TV providers legally obliged to provide local channels in QAM

[PhotoJim]

Hi all,

I've perused the existing QAM threads and this issue isn't completely addressed so I thought it would be appropriate to create a new topic.

In the analog days, Canadian cable television providers were obliged to provide local (and in some cases regional) television channels as part of basic cable services (without additional charge). This worked well.

However, today we have HD broadcasts in ATSC and as far as I can tell, the vast majority, if not all, of Canada's cable TV providers are requiring customers to pay extra to receive these channels on their cable TV services. Furthermore, an external cable box is required as they are carried in an encrypted fashion. My instinct is that cable TV providers have an obligation to provide the local channels in a format that is similar to that in which they are broadcast - so a 4:3 480i unencrypted version of a channel that's on the air in 16:9 720p or 1080i is falling flat. (And the sound is often 5.1 on ATSC, but never more than 2.0 with ProLogic on the 480i broadcasts.)

Even in the absence of this argument, though, here's something I found in the Broadcasting Act:

17. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3) to (5) or under a condition of its licence, a licensee shall distribute the following services in each licensed area as part of its basic service, in the following order of priority:

(a) the programming services of all local television stations that are owned and operated by the Corporation;

(b) the educational television programming services that are received by the licensee over the air or by some other method, the operation of which is the responsibility of an educational authority designated by the province in which the licensed area is located;

(c) the programming services of all other local television stations that are not being distributed under paragraph (a) or (b);
===

(I assume "the Corporation" is the CBC, but clause c picks up other local stations anyway.)

And further:

(5) The licensee’s obligation to distribute the programming services of a local television station or a regional television station under subsection (1) also includes the obligation to distribute the digital programming service of that television station that is received by direct feed if the programming service of the local television station or regional television station is also received over the air by the licensee in its licensed area.

Full text of the Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../FullText.html

It would seem that if a local TV station provides its signal digitally to a cable TV provider, the cable provider is obliged to carry it under basic cable. I think there would be a large presumption that the cable TV provider wouldn't be allowed to greatly reduce its quality (from HD to SD, e.g.) in the process.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm hoping that with the help of some of you, we can parse the Act and see if we can come up with a consensus that I might be right. If so, it would be worth taking to the CRTC.

I'd like to see local channels as clear QAM for everyone - that would mean HD televisions would be more useful with cable TV service without needing digital cable boxes, and it would give customers more options for distributing the content in their homes (e.g. using tuner cards and media players or PCs). More flexibility is always good.

Yes, we can use antennas (and I do) but that's not the point - and for some, an antenna isn't practical, such as for many apartment, condominium unit and basement dwellers.

Jim

[magnet]

Short answer,
No and the CRTC doesn't care.

[57]

This has been discussed many times as you know.

1. Most cable providers still provide the basic analogue channels which can be tuned by an NTSC tuner in a TV (or PC card)

2. Where this is not the case (small areas like Eastlink that have gone completely digital) they provide a digital STB or a DTA (adaptor), usually for free during the switchover.

3. Satellite services have never provided any analogue channels, so it was always necessary for the customer to purchase or rent a digital STB.

4. In light of point 3, why should the cable provider be obliged?

5. Most providers provide the basic HD channels at no charge, provided you subscribe to the basic (SD) channels (other than the purchase/rental of an HD STB which should be part of your equation when you purchase an HDTV). For example, see the "green" channels in the Rogers FAQ below: This is actually far beyond the local channels since it includes a lot of specialty channels.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=76073

6. I don't believe it's an obligation in the US either. What happened there was that many cable service providers supplied a few local channels in the clear (not the same as a basic package since it might be just a couple of channels depending on location). This was done to avoid having their basic cable customers going OTA when OTA switched to digital, several years before it happened in Canada. It was a business decision. In Canada the providers see no such "advantage" since so few people (relatively) go OTA and also, the providers make so little money from basic customers they probably don't mind losing them to OTA.

...apartment, condominium unit and basement dwellers...

These people have access to basic cable or any cable service they want.


So, the answers to your questions which are no longer in your post since you edited it, as already mentioned in the previous post, and in many previous clear QAM threads, are:

No (there is no requirement for providers to supply clear QAM) and the CRTC doesn't care.

[majortom]

Contrary to point 6:
In the US it IS mandatory for a cable operator to provide the local channels within the market the cable operator is operating in on even the most basic packages, in the same form it is broadcast in. Meaning if HD OTA, then HD on cable and unencrypted, so any user without the aid of a cable box has the opprtunity to tune them in with their QAM capable television set (also mandatory of TV mfrs to provide both atsc and QAM tuners). They do not however have to send the original EPG information as sent over the air.
I am sure if they could they would, and they can't so they don't.

Regarding point4: In my opinion and it's only my opinion, if they receive the content free of charge from the broadcaster, there is nothing to "protect", and they should provide it to you unencrypted.

[Danno100]

Obviously the CRTC will first and foremost support the monopolistic cable companies and their profits rather than the consumer. That is their mandate.

[57]

In the US it IS mandatory...

Do you have that FCC or other reference link?

[majortom]

I think I read that on the dtv.gov site.
Also keep in mind, in the US it's not just the FCC that can apply such a mandate. In the US Cable Providers, no matter how large, have to negotiate individual "franchise agreements" with every municipality they wanna run a business in. Kinda like a a license to string wires in your town.
Theoretically I think there could even be more than one franchise in one municipality, i.e. more than one operator but not typical in practice.
They are typically long term agreements, and the local municipality does the negotiation on the public's behalf as to what packages they have to offer, tiering, public access, so on. The Franchise thing is for certain here in New York. Not sure if all states have "franchises" or not.
But I think this works OK here. Would not be very popular for a local politician should they just give in to their every whim. The News media would be all over it, and they'd be history in no time flat.

You guys should try it sometime

[mrvanwinkles]

Regardless of what the Government and the CRTC do now.

And regardless of "legal" opinions on what Cable Providors are "obliged" or "not obliged" to provide.

My Personal Opinion:

I feel it is the role of Government to provide oversight and Yes, regulate this industry in Canada.

My personal opinion therefore LEANS on the side of the Original Poster.

I wish Cable Providors had some basic obligations, as mentioned / like mentioned by the Original Poster, as a condition of their LICENSE to operate.


I can also appreciate very much what member MajorTom wrote / the system he describes in the U.S.


Cable companies / Providors [and broadcasters too for that matter] should have some obligation to "serve the public" as part of their mandate and license to operate.


The Canadian Sheeple should step up to their politicians and various levels of government, like they do in the U.S. - and make this happen.


Cable Companies / Providors should be ruled / regulated by the Government, and therefore, by default, ruled by the people they serve - and should therefore have obligations.


Instead, what we have now, at this moment, in Canada, is a half finished, laisser-faire, Digital - Over the Air Conversion. With not much help from the government (no coupon program for OTA Digital Convertor boxes) as in the U.S.

OTA Analog NTSC still exists in many smaller centres with no clear "end date" (? or is there one?)

So we've still got a mix of OTA Digital ATSC signals, and Analog NTSC signals.

We've got cable companies doing "digital converstions" on their Cable networks - getting rid of analog slowly - and causing some disruptions for customers.

We've got cable companies "foisting" / forcing more expensive channel packages and expensive HD boxes on people - just in order to get the few channels of interest to them / or the couple local channels they wanna see.

Cable companies that don't wanna provide the "local" signals anymore - like they used to.

ex. In Kingston and Ottawa we are fed U.S. networks from furthur away like Buffalo and Detroit - rather than closer more relevent ones like Watertown or Syracuse NY (or from other smaller cites just across the border).

And I will mention also the Ottawa "debacle" / bru ha ha over PBS - when the cable providor was going to stop carrying WPBS from Watertown NY and instead give a PBS affiliate from alot furthur away - and much less relevent to the local area.

And we don't even get those Major U.S. networks clean anyway thru Providors - because in some convoluted argument / convoluted way ... they Sim Sub and Substitue the crap out of them anyway - in some attempt to control the Canadian Sheeple and get more profits for Canadian interests.

( In the so called interests of "Canadian Program Rights and Canadian Content" )

I'm with the Original Poster.

And I think the Canadian people need to step up a little on this matter.

Sorry if I have offended anyone here on the Forum - with my "opinion".

[mrvanwinkles]

I think part of the problem is also with all of the new technology ... and with all the recent change too - all the digital conversions happening.

Not all of the public understands it all completely- or what all the implications are.

Government and regulators too - may not understand it all.
... and so, regulation falls behind the technology.


QAM itself - the way it is implemented and presented to the user, in alot of the tuners - can be confusing and not so user friendly to your average person.

USER, trying to figure out QAM:

Channels like 102.xx ? Huh? What?

And they keep moving around and change?

So I have to keep re-scanning and re-learn them all?

And there is no list or guide?

And even if I make a list it soon changes and goes out of date?

What's all this nonsense?


No wonder your average person gets frustrated.

And of course, the local providor is not going to want to use Clear QAM, or explain it to the users, or make them aware of it, or keep it stable and useable.

Why? Because it is just not in their business interest to do so.

The providors would rather make profits on Subscriptions and Long Term Contracts on Digital Box rentals / HD Box / PVR rentals and Channel Packages.

And the Providors would also like maintain CONTROL over everything - including the user.

Digital Box RENTAL / hardware rental - is another source of ONGOING / CONTINUING income for the Providor.

They *LIKE* that.

And they're using " HD " as the "premium service" (purple koolaid / freeshie) to get the public to agree sign up.

And of course ... they're using the " HD " thing to milk it for all it's worth ... naturally.


Some ideas:

Maybe QAM, from a user interface point of view, needs to be cleaned up and standardized.


And also maybe we need to make sure that:

All the People and the Government and the Regulators - are aware that ...

Clear QAM can be used to deliver digital TV signals - in many different formats - SD and HD - to the public - over a Cable Providor's network - even after the Providor has done their network "Conversion to Digital".

WITHOUT THE NEED FOR:
- A SEPARATE PROPRIETARY CABLE COMPANY DIGITAL BOX - or associated expense / rental fee / purchase price / another box, one more remote, more wiring and complexity behind the TV / or the user "control".

WITH the existing QAM tuner already provided in many of the new HDTV's !

( and then once everyone is aware ... make sure everyone is made aware that we're all aware ...
and then ... everyone is AWARE. )

[Dr.Dave]

In the US it IS mandatory...

Do you have that FCC or other reference link?

I've read it on the the FCC web site as well.

[Dr.Dave]

It looks like the FCC is reconsidering "Basic Service Tier Encryption". Here is a 21 page PDF document for anyone that wants to read more on the subject:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-11-153A1.pdf.

[57]

Dr.Dave: Thank you for finding that document. It provides a very good history of encryption, digital cable systems, etc. The document discusses the fact that almost all consumers are not adversely affected if the service provider provides "free" STBs (or CableCARDs) to providers.

This also appears to only affect service providers who are 100% digital since those who continue to provide analogue signals obviously do not need to provide STBs or DTAs (even though many cable providers in Canada do provide these for free when they move the "tier" analogue channels to digital).

There seems to be no distinguishing between HD and SD since the analogue channels are obviously SD. The FCC seems to be mainly interested in protecting the poor, who I guess have SDTVs, not HDTVs.

The only "difference" of course is that in the US CableCARD is an option for consumers that is not available in Canada (the topic of a different thread).

One item that the service providers have always mentioned is that truck rolls are costly and environmentally unfriendly. With encryption, the majority of truck rolls become unnecessary, as discussed in the PDF - quote below from the top of page 8:

Cablevision stated that basic service tier encryption led to a reduction of 2,763 truck rolls, and predicted that it eventually will perform over 70 percent of all deactivations remotely

Therefore with the US headed "towards" not "away from" encryption, the likelihood of clear QAM regulation in Canada is very small.

[majortom]

don't drink the kool-aid, for sure.

When I scan in the OTA digital channels on cable here, they remap to their normal virtual channels, with callsigns, same as they would OTA, 2-1, 4-1, so on...further they do not move around. The SD versions of the Locals are scattered around based on their physical QAM and analog channels, but not the HD versions.

I scan in 32 digital via QAM, and 62 Analog channels here with no STB.
Occassionally there are even some PPV that scan in from time to time.
I wouldn't say it's utopia, but it works and it seems a far cry from what u guys have to deal with up there.

I think the key is having some local control, someone has to look out for their constituents, the consumer.

[PhotoJim]

I'm well aware that right now, no one seems to think that the cable TV providers have an obligation for clear QAM, but I think arguments can be made. All someone needs to do is push the issue a little bit (politely but firmly).

As noted in my first post, I think one can argue that cable companies with direct digital feeds of local TV stations may already be obligated to provide them on basic cable - and basic cable today would mean clear QAM (i.e. no extra charge, and more or less as you get them from the source).

[nakedgord]

Originally Posted by majortom

The Franchise thing is for certain here in New York. Not sure if all states have "franchises" or not.
But I think this works OK here. Would not be very popular for a local politician should they just give in to their every whim. The News media would be all over it, and they'd be history in no time flat.

You guys should try it sometime

You're advocating a system which provides direct accountability to the subscriber and not bowing to the whim of the media companies.

It's the same type of system which has allowed virtually all affiliates not to be owned by their parent network.

In a broader context it's allowed even medium sized cities which are down on their luck like Buffalo to have five major media outlets (WGRZ/Gannett, WKBW/Granite, WIVB/LIN, WNED, The Buffalo News/Warren Buffet) compared to the often called "world class metropolis" of Toronto which has only one more with six (CBC Toronto, Global Toronto, Rogers (City/Omni), Bell (CTV/CP24), Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun). Then there's the only couple of media outlets a comparable city to Buffalo like Hamilton has with CHCH/Channel Zero and The Hamilton Spectator/Torstar.

In short it'd run counter to the back alley abortion that we like to call subscription TV and mass media in Canada.

If you could please feel free to mock and ridicule Canada to as many of your fellow Americans as you can. Perhaps if enough Americans start looking down upon us we'll be shamed into doing something.

Nothing else has worked so far...