 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes | |
|
|
||||
2012-08-13, 01:30 PM
|
#16 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
|
Then if not OTA, how about FTA? Better chance of reaching your target audience in remote areas.
That's assuming the trees in BC aren't too tall. 
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
2012-08-13, 01:43 PM
|
#17 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
|
There could be a business case for potential OTA viewers. Unfortunately, Canadian broadcasters are not that forward thinking. Or are the networks simply protecting their BDU operations from competition like OTA and internet streaming?
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary |
|
|
2012-08-13, 03:19 PM
|
#18 |
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fredericton, NB
Posts: 567
|
Forward thinking, how? If I'm a broadcaster and I can reach my audience either by letting Rogers/Bell/etc handle getting the signal out, or I can set up an expensive OTA operation, the decision on which one I prefer is pretty easy. Especially when most of the audience is already on the BDUs.
For any station that can get fee for carriage, it's even easier. |
|
|
|
2012-08-13, 04:41 PM
|
#19 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
|
It's too bad we don't have an equivalent to Sky in the UK. You can get the receiver without a subscription or subscriber card, and you get all of these audio and video channels almost for free (you still have to pay the yearly BBC license fee):
How much do we have to pay per month for a similar selection here in Canada? The 240 Free-to-Air channels are truly free! The only technological difference with traditional OTA broadcasts is that there's only ONE transmission antenna high up in the sky, and it's exploited by multiple channels. No glut of expensive terrestrial antennas all over the place. We're so far behind the times, it's just not funny anymore. 
|
|
|
|
2012-08-13, 05:09 PM
|
#20 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
|
We are simply paying for the cost of media concentration in Canada. Someone must pay for all those multi-billion dollar takeovers. Too bad it's always the consumer and, often, employees. With the exception of a few US dramas, we certainly aren't paying for, or getting, premium content on Canadian network or specialty channels these days. It's mostly moved over to premium and PPV channels. That's why I've pretty much given up on OTA. There is practically nothing I want to watch on what's available locally.
OTOH, I'm getting lots of interesting TV series from Netflix and the local library. The stuff I am watching on satellite TV is virtually all of US origin. This Summer, it's been TBS and AMC almost exclusively. The bulk of streamed, rented or borrowed series originally aired on BBC, PBS, USA Network, Showtime, HBO, TNT, etc. Some of it has never aired in Canada, even after several years.
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary |
|
|
|
2012-08-13, 09:48 PM
|
#21 |
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belleville. Ontario
Posts: 692
|
Unfortunately, that is what they want. Little or no expense, just fiber to Cable Companies and Satellite, and keep your OTA licence. It's really bull, when you consider the small cities, in the U.S. close to Kingston, have all converted their signals to digital. I have to laugh, when I read that they needed to convert, because they were part of a big network. So the CBC, paid by taxpayers, is not a big market network? Of course, they have their hands out, from satellite and cable companies for cash, to keep their channels on the air. So where is all of this money going, that I'm paying for, in regards to local channels? Maybe the CRTC should detatch the locals from must carry and make them an ala carte service. Maybe then, the consumer can pass on the crappy SD signals, on satellite and cable. That might get their asses going, to upgrade their transmitters to digital.
One other thing. The complaint about satellite companies not picking up their higher resolution feeds......Doesn't CORUS have a stake in Shaw Direct? Another misnomer, he quoted that once the Upstate New York channels went digital, their viewership tripled, using OTA. So logic says, if you go digital, you get more viewers. I guess they're not interested in higher viewership locally, or the people in Northern New York State, who can get their signal. By the way, CKWS and CJOH is on Time Warner Cable in Watertown, in SD.
__________________
Winegard PR8800, YA1713, Zenith7777 Preamp, 42" Aquos 120hz, Samsung UP5000 Blu Ray/HDDVD, C/Ku Band, Directv H21, 22. Last edited by 57; 2012-08-13 at 11:36 PM. Reason: UQR |
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 11:58 AM
|
#22 |
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC - CIS 430-500
Posts: 142
|
@francais that must make sense since television broadcasting was invented in UK, although US was not far behind either. But i guess uk treats their people with more respect more then us and canada.
|
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 12:03 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Craig Henry (Greenbank/Hunt Club), Nepean, ON
Posts: 2,733
|
Quote:
The only thing crossborder viewership is good for is selling unsold inventory at the local market's price. In the case of places like Buffalo selling into Toronto or Burlington/Plattsburg selling into Montreal, this could be a good deal. For comparably small markets like Kingston and Watertown, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 12:25 PM
|
#24 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
|
Broadcasting in England is a lot different than Canada. For one, England has over 50 million people in an area slightly larger than the island of Newfoundland. For another, broadcasting in Great Britain was tightly controlled for many years, with the BBC being the only broadcaster and state owned. (By contrast, the CBC consisted of a mix of CBC O&O stations plus independently owned affiliates.) Another is that England has a small number of broadcasters that serve the country as a whole plus, sometimes, regional services. It's kind of like serving all of Canada with a few large networks out of Ottawa with local news added in other areas. We are headed toward that kind of system but the history of regional diversification and locally owned broadcasting makes for much different government policy. In Canada, the consolidation of broadcasting operations has cost broadcasters and consumers dearly, in many respects. By following a US model of deregulation, without protecting small broadcasters, Canada has created monster corporations that are destroying it's broadcasting system beyond repair.
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary |
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 02:34 PM
|
#25 |
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fredericton, NB
Posts: 567
|
The UK also has the TV license, which is where a huge chunk of BBC's budget came from.
Unlike here, where OTA people pay nothing at all. |
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 03:17 PM
|
#26 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
|
CBC funding is taken out of general revenues. That makes it a political tool and subject to cuts by governments who don't like it (or the whims of politicians who determine funding.) The UK system is fairer, especially in the early days of TV since, people who own(ed) a TV pay for it while those who don't are exempt. It also makes funding more consistent and, since funding is direct, makes the service more responsive to tax payers. Do you think the BBC would get away with closing down transmitters to millions of people that fund it directly? Not bloody likely mate?! The current CBC situation is absurd. It's purely a political organization that's run by politically appointed bureaucrats and it shows. CBC management knows that it is responsible to a few people in Ottawa and cares nothing about its viewers. In addition, it's current technological direction is misguided. The CBC is spending millions of dollars on poorly implemented delivery systems that few Canadians want while ignoring its mandate. If the CBC wants Canadians to access it's content online, it should make it available on YouTube and quit wasting millions of dollars on half baked in house systems.
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary |
|
|
|
2012-08-14, 11:23 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belleville. Ontario
Posts: 692
|
Quote:
I don't know why, we can't have digital in this area and also start using subchannels, to save money for more then one broadcaster.
__________________
Winegard PR8800, YA1713, Zenith7777 Preamp, 42" Aquos 120hz, Samsung UP5000 Blu Ray/HDDVD, C/Ku Band, Directv H21, 22. |
|
|
|
|
2012-08-17, 01:58 PM
|
#28 |
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern Ontario (Ottawa/Kingston)
Posts: 1,381
|
In Kingston this week ...
And ... Going now to try and locate my Member of Parliament - to talk about this matter. He's probably not around right now ... Mid August vacation time y'a know ... But I'll find him eventually and chat about a few things concerning me. Kingston's current MP is a member of a different party ... than the party of our current "illustrious leadership". Majorities - scary. Gotta go. bye for now. |
|
|
|
2012-08-17, 02:18 PM
|
#29 |
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belleville. Ontario
Posts: 692
|
That would be good. The majority of televisions now, have digital tuners, so that's no excuse to continue on with analog? It's all about not wanting to pay the money for the upgrade. It's not like they have to build a new tower, they just need the transmitter. On saving money, don't they only have to broadcast at a lower ERP, using less electricity? There are savings to be had, by going digital.
__________________
Winegard PR8800, YA1713, Zenith7777 Preamp, 42" Aquos 120hz, Samsung UP5000 Blu Ray/HDDVD, C/Ku Band, Directv H21, 22. Last edited by Jase88; 2012-08-17 at 02:41 PM. Reason: Unnecessary quoting |
|
|
|
2012-08-22, 02:32 PM
|
#30 | ||
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto/Etobicoke - Bloor/Royal York/Queensway/Islington
Posts: 1,386
|
Quote:
This issue could probably better framed as: a) media concentration b) regulatory capture of the CRTC by the same media companies The issues you see in OTA television are a direct result of above and these are much more likely to gain traction with the public at large. In my near 50 years of life, both parties that have held the federal reigns don't seem to differ much on this topic. In order to push the remaining analogs to digital or restore OTA to areas where analog was shutdown with no digital replacement, there has the be some downside to the broadcaster for not having a digital transmitter. Quote:
__________________
Orig 4221, A-D C5, CM 7778, Aquos LC37D62U, TiVo Premiere, DTVpal DVR |
||
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:07 PM.
Search Digital Home