CBC FTA?

[Arthur Dent]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The CBC needlessly spends millions of dollars on equipment to scramble their signal because they don't care. It is a big conspiracy since the president of the CBC is BFF with the owner of the company who sells them the equipment.

We were talking about the possibility of Bell putting the signal in the clear, not CBC itself putting new unscrambled feeds on Ku. Bell would probably be paid something for the trouble (although I'm 100% it doesn't cost them a dime to turn off scrambling on the CBC channels), but it would be pennies compared to having to replace all shut down analog OTA transmitters with digital. Also, I said that I accept the possibility that such written provisions exist in the contracts with the content providers, but they could be easily re-negotiated given the new realities, but only if CBC cared at all.

[classicsat]

If CBC doesn't pay them to unencrypt the CBC channels, or offer them open key, it will cost Bell, as it costs them to have those channels there, costs they recover from paid subscriptions. No subscription means no money. Or Parliament will need to make an bill to amend the Broadcast Act, to obligate BDUs to carry public channels for zero cost to home viewers, if the CRTC cannot do it.

[tvlurker]

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

We were talking about the possibility of Bell putting the signal in the clear, not CBC itself putting new unscrambled feeds on Ku. Bell would probably be paid something for the trouble (although I'm 100% it doesn't cost them a dime to turn off scrambling on the CBC channels), but it would be pennies compared to having to replace all shut down analog OTA transmitters with digital. Also, I said that I accept the possibility that such written provisions exist in the contracts with the content providers, but they could be easily re-negotiated given the new realities, but only if CBC cared at all.

Perhaps someone could suggest that Bell offer free CBC on Bell TV as part of their tangible benefits package the CRTC requires in the Astral takeover.

[Obed]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to require Bell to transmit all of their own public OTA CTV / CTV2 services in the clear on BEV?

If Bell stand behind their products and truly believe in the commercial value of their specialty channel offerings they surely know that no one in their right mind would ever install a BEV system and not take advantage of the wider subscription offerings.

[mrvanwinkles]

Thinking and reading more about it now ...

I don't see why ANY or ALL National Broadcaster(s) would not consider at least ONE (1) FTA "National" channel, unencrypted, free, and in the clear, transmitted across the whole Nation on BOTH C-Band and Ku Band.

C-Band - I am learning, reading posts by others, requires a large dish, but is affected less by weather conditions. Good for those who already have a C-Band setup and a large dish. And also good for more reliable reception by communities, organizations, or even individuals who want to do a OTA low power re-broadcast for their local area.

Ku Band - can be received with a much smaller dish - so good for individual residential setups and reception, but apparently Ku band is affected more by weather conditions.


Also, having the National Broadcast channel(s) on both C and Ku band will provide some redundantcy / diversity. If one service fails, the other is still there (hopefully) - esp. for low power, OTA, local community rebroadcasters.

A broadcaster could reach quite a large audience, quite reliably, in theory, if they broadcast their signal on both C-band and Ku band. [ Maybe on a couple, or a few different satelites and frequencies - to cover the whole nation reliably ??? ]

Think about it ...

A Broadcaster could approach a Sponsor / an Advertiser and say:

To the Sponsors / Advertisers:

"On our National Channel, we can reach practically the whole nation, on both C-Band and Ku Band satelite - simultaneosly and redundantly - and on a couple, or a few different satelites and frequencies."

Might be a good revenue generator. Yes ? No ?


And to our Politicians:

Things of National Importance could be broadcast direct, reliably, to the entire nation. Even out in the boonies - where there are *NO* Service Providors. hint hint - Political Ads, debates, messages and programming ... to get votes ?

Again ... true National Broadcasters to Unite and Promote the Nation.
[ Direct to the Citizens, and free from any middle-men "Providors" ]


To the Citizens / The viewers:

Finally, again, at least a way to tune into the National Broadcasters anywhere.

Isn't that what we are paying all these taxes for in the first place? To provide some VISION and POLICY and Direction regarding National Broadcasting ?


Seems like a winning situation all around.

Why don't they just DO IT ?

[ our nation has been building all these Space Shuttle Canadarms and other Mars Rover sensors and Telescopes, and Neutrino Observatories deep down in mines in Sudbury, and all sorts of other Space Technologies ... and you're telling me we can't broadcast direct, FTA via satelite to the Citizens our own Nation ? Come'on. Please . I think we should settle for nothing less. ]

[DrSat]

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

We were talking about the possibility of Bell putting the signal in the clear, not CBC itself putting new unscrambled feeds on Ku. Bell would probably be paid something for the trouble (although I'm 100% it doesn't cost them a dime to turn off scrambling on the CBC channels), but it would be pennies compared to having to replace all shut down analog OTA transmitters with digital. Also, I said that I accept the possibility that such written provisions exist in the contracts with the content providers, but they could be easily re-negotiated given the new realities, but only if CBC cared at all.

Unfortunately, I don't believe Bell will offer any services in the clear on its Nimiq satellites due to the satellite piracy issue they are fighting against. Surprisingly enough, offering unencrypted services on Bell TV provides a legal defence for satellite pirates that they only got their system in order to receive the FTA channels on their satellites. This is due to the fact that both Bell and Dish Network in the US use the DVB standard which can be received by any FTA receiver.

Dish Network which uses the same technology as Bell TV had issues in the past where satellite pirates claimed in court that they only setup their system to receive NASA TV, ION and a few other channels which were ITC on their Echostar satellites. Since then, all of these services are now encrypted.

The CBC and Radio Canada really need to keep their television service available on FTA satellite independent from any satellite BDU in order to provide a true alternative to the many OTA transmitters that were shut down.


Regards,

Dr. Sat

[Arthur Dent]

Originally Posted by DrSat

Dish Network which uses the same technology as Bell TV had issues in the past where satellite pirates claimed in court that they only setup their system to receive NASA TV, ION and a few other channels which were ITC on their Echostar satellites. Since then, all of these services are now encrypted.

I don't think that is a plausible explanation. What difference does it make what satellite pirates claimed in court? The question for the motives for purchasing the satellite system is meaningless - you can answer "I bought it because I liked the beautiful color of the box." What good is this to the plaintiff? Basic logic commands that the plaintiff needs to prove that the box was hacked in order to pirate the signal, and the question about the motive for the purchase does nothing to prove it.

[Pinza]

Explanation or not I know it happened as I have replaced several Dish set-ups in Apartment Buildings that were supplying NASA into the system from the ITC Channel on 119/110.

I am happy as I made money adding a bigger Dish and a legit FTA Receiver.

[frenchhomer]

In Europe namely the U.K., all the top broadcasters such as ITV, BBC are free on Satellite , the same with TV1 and 2 in New Zealand. In Canada not even one of the top three offers anything yet in the clear with a promise it will remain free.

[majortom]

same in the USA.

[classicsat]

The private commercial channels cannot transmit on satellite FTA, because they carry so much US programming. I have said it before, they can encrypt and offer free to view zero cost subscriptions.

None of the major US broadcasters have open satellite transmissions, just feeds which people aren't supposed to know about.

The UK, much of Europe, and NZ, largely have different cultures in the broadcast industry (especially with public broadcasters), plus as said elsewhere, are practically content islands of their languages.

[DrSat]

Much of the reluctance of the CBC freely offering its signal is based on the fact that it operates more like a private commercial broadcaster rather than the public non-profit broadcaster that it's supposed to be (i.e. similar to PBS in the US). If this was not the case then I'm sure there would be no objection to officially broadcast on FTA satellite as their funding would increase with more viewers.


Regards,

Dr. Sat

[Obed]

And the irony of that being that
- however much the CBC management tries to act like a commercial broadcaster it will never satisfy the ideologues of the right-wing who oppose all public ownership; and,
- it will soon become despised by the left-wing for having betrayed its public service mandate for what is a pittance of a cost saving forcing hundreds of thousands of Canadians to monthly line the pockets of state sanctioned private oligopolies (or do without).

The commercial antics of current CBC management will simply seal the eventual demise of the CBC.

The CBC's own promotion of Shaw's LTSS subscriber entrapment scheme testifies to their own recognition of CBC FTA as the 21st century public broadcasting solution and their own failure to adopt it.

[PrinceLH]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The biggest would be the NHL. The CBC only has rights to show games in Canada.



The question is the acceptable amount of spillage. Some say a spot beam would be acceptable, and others say it would have too much spillage. I am not sure if anyone here truly knows for sure and it is largely speculation.



Instead of simsub, the American broadcasters can request a blackout of programs they have the rights to.



Hard to compare the UK situation. First of all cable penetration is low. Secondly they have a large body of water to act as a buffer for spillage. Thirdly, their neighbouring countries speak other languages, so spillage becomes less of an issue anyway.

On the NHL Rights issue. The same goes for NBC, stateside, but it's viewable in Canada. I don't see an issue, because these are National televised games, as are the CBC games.

[roger1818]

Regardless of what people think should and should not be issues, Marc (a CBC employee) said the following:

Originally Posted by Marc

The satellite footprint goes well into the USA where other people own the program distribution rights. They want you to watch their channel, not ours. Film distributors became extra cautions with the rollout of HD, fearing piracy. They wanted our video servers to be physically locked in a separate room and encrypted. Honestly one company wanted our ATSC over air signals encrypted (didn't happen of course.)

In the end, the holder of the content sets the rules. Don't comply...no show for you!

I don't know when it will happen, but the system was built with encryption just like SD. It just needs to be switched on.