Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/1381729

I'm glad to see the issue of lost CBC over-the-air service is gaining political traction in New Brunswick. It has yet to come out in London.

Now that CBC's Vice President has admitted they do not plan OTA anywhere they do not have a station in CRTC mandatory markets, I'm going to work on a letter to the editor for the local newspaper, and perhaps also I'll contact a couple of local media contacts I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Good post mjjl! Very telling that the vice-president and chief regulatory officer is now on the record as saying:

television in the 21st century is a cable, satellite or Internet-based service, and that people shouldn't be concerned about the decline of over-the-air service, but rather the affordability of accessing cable and satellite service
:mad:

Maybe it is time that the members of this forum make this guy aware of the popularity of digital OTA. As a side note, I keep seeing antennas going up in my neighbourhood. I'm convinced that the more people know about digital OTA, the more it will grow (if it's available for them :rolleyes: )

I just found his resume online. Take a look at this: :eek:

Prior to that, he had been Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs at the Canadian Cable Television Association.
It all makes sense now.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
Those comments from CBC Exec Steven Guiton would seem to be willfully wrong to me. I see the top CBC brass making OTA choices based on simple arithmetic: it is cheaper to have no new DTV transmitter than to have a new one. Sigh... there seems to be deep hurt from them that they were ordered to transition in the mandatory markets!

Regarding the Ian Morrison quote, I'm wondering if the article writer may have misinterpreted him because the choice of words is very past tense regarding OTA. I would expect that Mr. Morrison would be aware of the increasing popularity of OTA in Canada as a present and future market force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,410 Posts
If CBC's directive is to be based on promoting only the pay tv market, and snubbing the continuance of national OTA coverage, then maybe national public funding should either come to an end for CBC altogether or maybe that same public funding should be shared equally among all Canadian broadcasters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,935 Posts
Start an uproar rumor...
A Hockey Night in Canada Subscription?
See how quick the politicians / CRTC do an about face.
Could be like dominos in Egypt:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I have determined there are approximately 90,000 people living in Southwestern Ontario who stand to lose CBC English service at the end of August. That's a lot of people.

As of 2006 there were approximately 862,000 people living in the dual coverage areas of CBLN-TV (London) and CBLN-TV-1 (Kitchener) not covered by other CBC transmitters, according to Industry Canada contour data and 2006 Census data. Assuming a population growth rate of 4% in this region every five years, I estimate this area will have a population of 897,000 this year. Assumption is 10% OTA viewership; I have no idea how many cable/satellite subscribers also have second or third TV sets relying on OTA.

This geographical area includes Middlesex and Elgin Counties, as well as portions of Huron, Perth, Waterloo, Brant, Haldimand, Norfolk, Oxford, Chatham-Kent, and Lambton. The population of this area represents 2.7% of Canada's population, or 7.1% of Ontario's population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,410 Posts
Start an uproar rumor...
A Hockey Night in Canada Subscription?
See how quick the politicians / CRTC do an about face.
Could be like dominos in Egypt:)
Make CBC's Coronation Street a 'pay-per-view' cable only subscription packaged with the doodle-bops, and some 3rd rate kid's stuff. That will get the old mammas knickers in a knot :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
What really irks me about this is that CBC has never made it known directly that these analog repeaters will be shut down and not replaced by a digital transmitter. One needs to have a list of mandatory markets and then cross out where they've indicated a digital transmitter will be installed to figure this out.

I expect there will be a lot of upset people who have no idea this is coming in 6 months. It seems as if they are waiting until the last moment to tell people by which time it will be too late to do anything about it (I'm guessing it may be too late already so they've won this battle :mad:).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
"affordability of accessing cable and satellite services"

Whiskey tango foxtrot? Not sure what planet this guy is from but affordability of these services has been eroding for many years.

So let me get this straight: CBC is effectively telling its viewers that in order to keep receiving CBC broadcasts in these areas the viewers will have to shell out the "affordable" amount of $40-50 a month to their local BDU.

If CBC has no interest in being a broadcaster to all Canadians, perhaps it's time to close the funding spigot.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Did I read the same article?

Where is the "dissing" coming from? The CRTC is shutting the CBC analog station down.

You can't realistically expect to keep chopping the CBC budget every year and then expect them to put up expensive transmitters where the audience is exceedingly small.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Just some thoughts to provoke the debate.
An over the air transmitter network to small rural and remote communities in this vast country is very expensive to operate. Not only just for the equipment, but the technical staff to service these transmitters, and the power costs as well. It has been suggested in some circles within the broadcast community to abandon all OTA transmitters in rural/remote locals and just keep the larger urban locations. The alternative would be a number of channels accessible for free via satellite. Basically what is existing now with Canadian OTA channels. Over the long run it would be cheaper to provide HD service to rural and remote areas using that form of transmission and provide the basic receiver and dish free of charge to those viewers. With mpeg 4 becoming the standard over time on the satellite carriers, regional channels can be uplinked for less than equipping and maintaining a terestrial system. The ultimate goal would be to provide the same service to these viewers, but using a different platform to deliver the signal.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
For those that are interested, this discussion has been had several times over the last few years including one very lengthy thread so you may wish to search.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
An over the air transmitter network to small rural and remote communities in this vast country is very expensive to operate. Not only just for the equipment, but the technical staff to service these transmitters, and the power costs as well.
Last time I checked the City of London wasn't rural or remote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,257 Posts
You can't realistically expect to keep chopping the CBC budget every year and then expect them to put up expensive transmitters where the audience is exceedingly small.
I agree that we can't expect CBC to put up DTV transmitters in "exceedingly small" markets; however I don't consider London, Saskatoon, Moncton and St. John and to be exceedingly small markets (unless of course you live in China where small fishing villages have populations of over 100,000 people ;) ).

The real question is, what is the minimum size of market we want the CBC to provide service to. The corollary is, which markets should have an originating CBC station.

In markets the CBC doesn't want to provide service them-self, they should be required to allow a private affiliates (something the CBC is gradually trying to eliminate).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
I don't consider Red Deer, Alberta to be "an exceedingly small community" either. What would be wrong with a rule that states the minimum market size? e.g. 100,000 people.

In the UK exists a program for communities to provide "Self-help" transmitters where numbers of homes pay for the installation of the equipment.

I'm not sure what the actual cost is or what maintenance is involved but this service has existed during the analag era of broadcasting in the UK for a number of years!
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
The real question is, what is the minimum size of market we want the CBC to provide service to.
Markets where the actual OTA audience can pay for the cost of the transmitter.

What does a transmitter cost to build and maintain?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Last time I checked the City of London wasn't rural or remote.
Most people I've talked to from outside Southwestern Ontario who have even heard of London think it's a small remote community. I would not be surprised if CBC brass felt the same way.

*****

For the record, I did not start this thread or come up with the title of the thread. I had posted the first post in this thread in the CBC thread and it was transferred to its own thread by someone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,257 Posts
What does a transmitter cost to build and maintain?
Estimates for upgrading existing transmitters (what the CBC is doing) range from $100,000 to over $3,000,000 depending on a variety of factors (size of transmitter, re-usability of existing equipment, channel allocation, distance from control centre, transport mechanism, accessibility of transmitter, etc). I have no idea how much it costs to maintain it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Markets where the actual OTA audience can pay for the cost of the transmitter.
Unfortunately, that is not the CBC's mandate.

From the Broadcasting Act, 1991:

.... vi. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose ...
It seems to me that the CBC is interpreting "the most appropriate and efficient means" as "the most appropriate and efficient means is by letting the the viewer pay for it (again)".

I agree with mr weather; time to turn off the tap.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top