I am surprise that this forum being about Canadian OTA TV Stations has yet to comment on the ongoing PR Ad's Campaing. It reminds me of election time where instead of focusing on one's positive side the Ads are all about showing the rivals dark side and of course at the same time mislead the public.

To be honest I could care less If all Canadian Stations are shut down tomorrow, except for the CBC, since almost all the programming they show is US based anyways. But I feel for the non-metropolitan area TV viewer that has no access to US OTA signals and will also loose their local news.

I just finished reading about it on several online sources and have a few points to remark.

1- The LPIF Fund (1.5% of my Bell TV bill) was not mandated to be passed on to the subscribers by the BDU's. As a matter of fact the CRTC on Public Broadcasting Notice 2008-100, Section 357, stated that the Commission does not see a reason for the BDU to pass that fee to their subscribers and as such it does not mandate them to do it. Of course , being the CRTC a canadian personality (juridical in this case) as tipical canadian , it did not forbid the BDU to collect this fund from their subscribers , what a laywer will probably call a loophole. As such I will call Bell TV and discuss this with them , but I imagine the answer. (Within the 2 year contract we can screw you as much as we want , read the fine print ignorant?) Oh I forgot , canadians are very polite , they all add please at the end.

2. The LocalTVmatters.ca recently created campaing (its members are the major local OTA broadcasters) claims that Simultaneos Substitution is not a benefit for them but rather a necesity due to distribution rights. This is also misleading. It indeed benefits them.

In my opinion both entities, TV Stations and BDU's, are the culprits on this problem and it does not bother me at all , since on this lands greed is the norm rather than the exception. What bothers me is the hooker-like actitude that the regulator, CRTC in this case, shows when dealing with this issues. It is them who are mostly responsible for all this. The, let the market fix it aproach or policy, is nothing but an excuse to do nothing and like a coward just step aside and enjoy the view.

The regulator was the one who over 60 years ago sold our (or should I say yours, lol) RF spectrum to the OTA broadcasters and ever since the broadcasters have been ripping off the benefits of it.

Since major Canadian markets has access to US OTA signals then we do not even need OTA canadian stations in those markets (CBC being the only one that shows more canadian content even on prime time), therefore it should be number one priority for the OTA broadcasters to guarantee a local station else where throught out the country and on that condition if I were the regulator then I would grant the spectrum licenses.

I am, as you can see, all for the Goverment not only to regulate but to control and decide what has to be done and how. Maybe because I was educated or "brain washed" on a communist regime, who knows , but the fact is , that nor the Regulator nor the OTA nor the BDU acctually care about the non-metropolitan TV viewer and its needs because if they did , we would not be watching this ads in the first place.

Enjoy your local TV station while you can, of course if you do not happen to live in Brandon, Manitoba.

Ouch.

That really stinks. I'm not really keen on the politics regarding OTA TV. For us, it has always been as simple as hooking our antenna to our TV sets, from the old rabbit ears for analog to the large tower now for DTV.

My dad had a brief stint with Rogers in the 80s when apparently cable bills were still 'reasonable' before I was even born, but that was it. For the msot part, our household has always enjoyed the benefits of OTA.

It's good that you brought this up though, it's a completely new perspective to OTA!

(PS - Does anyone know if StarRay TV is still on UHF15? I never got it from my location, but people seem to never mention it. Hopefully I'm not violating any forum rules by mentioning it, but I like their mission...)

As far as I understand there are two issues currently at stake.

1) The LPIF fund (1.5% of your TV bill). This was first introduced in 2008 at a level of 1.0%. I heard nothing from the cable/satellite companies at that time. Then it was decided to increase it to 1.5% for this year. Based on the reported profits of the BDUs the CRTC saw no reason for them to pass the cost on, but stupidly didn't say they couldn't pass it on. So they are - the full 1.5%. This is purely a cash grab by the BDUs. Bad Rogers. Bad Bell.

2) The "Local TV Matters" thing initiated by the broadcasters, who want "Negotiation for Value" in addition to the CRTC mandated "Fee for Carriage". Basically they want cable companies to pay more for the "right" to distribute CTV, CBC, Global, etc., as if they were premium cable channels. This is all in *addition* to the LPIF fund.

The problem here is that without the BDUs, those broadcast stations are nothing. They get their money by advertising. If I'm going to have to pay for the channel on cable, then I also want the right to NOT pay for it, just like I don't pay for The Movie Network or Oasis. Which means they get fewer eyes on their advertising, which means they can't charge as much for it, which means they get less money.

Of course they want to *force* us to buy it, but I don't *want* to pay for it. I'd be perfectly happy without so-called Canadian TV and only the myriad of alternatives available - internet, radio, premium cable news channels, and of course the US.

I find this whole "loss of local TV" an odd argument in the first place, as I've heard many times in the past that in the US some of the most lucrative television for stations is local news... which is why most of them have 4 to 6 hours of it each day. I'm sure they're not starting their morning shows at 5:00 AM just to lose money.

Of course, if this happens OTA becomes even more popular since all of these fees are only leveraged on those paying for cable or satellite service.

On a related note, it's no wonder why all of the Canadian OTA channels are so low powered, without even a single channel in Toronto remotely close to the power levels of essentially every channel in Buffalo. It's so much better to kill off OTA broadcasting, or at least cripple it into unusableness, and reap the benefits from everyone forced to pay to watch them on cable and satellite.

OTA & FTA are my solutions to this. I don't feel like paying ANY recurring costs for television viewing. I feel for the broadcasters but often question their judgment. Case in point, CITY is carrying Jay Leno when its available already on WGRZ. What's up with that?!

It is the lack or inability to produce high quality Canadian Content, and that is why I blame the regulator as well, since in the first place a licence should be granted on the basis of creating canadian or local content to not only stimulate the economy but also for cultural reasons. (I am actually thinking or considering studying the availability of applying for a new OTA channel licence in the GTA but sorry guys only intended for the spanish speaking crowd (english CC or SAP when posible), so I should not be flaming the regulator I guess, lol, this is just a dream for now but this is a free country isn't it?)

BTW Daniel you said "Basically they want cable companies to pay more for the "right" to distribute CTV, CBC, Global, etc., as if they were premium cable channels" and the reality is that BDU's do not currently pay anything at all to the local OTA stations for carriying those on their lineups. The word more is the problem here.

On the last note, How come if CTV and the likes feel so strong about local TV they do nothing and are waiting until the very last minute to provide a quality digital service that includes proper EPG services as well. Which I do not think they will when the switch over comes since apparently on the regulations they are not forced to. Another loop hole I guess.

Jay Leno only? , Almost every show on prime time on any canadian network (again CBC being the exception) is a repeat of an american show. Just to give you an idea , in 1950 , 2 years before the CBC , Cuba started TV services and got to have 3 national networks and 7 local stations in havana (23 accross the country) and they were at the time producing and broadcasting local content and shows created in Cuba , they were not in any case a mere repeat of US shows like here in Canada (World Series and MLB games an exception although they broadcasted cuban baseball games as well) and the TV and Radio industry was booming at the time so it was profitable even when most people did not have a TV.

Now the cable and satellite industry indeed represents some how a challenge or competition but heck think about it , with the exception of major sporting events the rest of the programming is produced exclusively by guess who? , the major national OTA networks not the premium channels. As a matter of fact it is prime time on a major OTA network still the highest paid for Ad segment and think about even your own viewing habits , more likely , prime time shows take up most of your TV viewing (I remember co-workers that IDK why still beleive that those Dexter and the likes shows on premium channels are brand new without realizing those are repeats of shows already featured on national OTA networks, HBO being the exception probably)

This is too long already and we could have so much to talk about. Hopefully we will at least continue to do so.

Well, this is what I thought before visiting the localtvmatters.ca site as well, but it said:

What is “Negotiation for Value”?
Negotiation for Value (“NFV”) is a term used to describe a free market negotiation between cable and satellite companies and local television stations to establish the appropriate compensation to be paid by the cable or satellite company for the distribution of the local television station’s signal. At present, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the signals we provide. This is not the same as “fee-for-carriage”, which is a term used to describe a regulated rate to be set by the CRTC for the distribution of local television signals.

I was initially a bit confused by this paragraph. It says they pay "nothing to local television stations" but then says that there's a "regulated rate to be set by the CRTC for the distribution of local television signals" implying that there's some sort of payment.

Now I see that they mean that the CRTC is proposing a "fee for carriage" that's fairly high, and the stations are claiming that the BDUs can "negotiate lower" than that rate. Yeah, sure.


Local TV does not equate to OTA TV. Remember, all viewers receiving their signal over OTA aren't paying them a dime, and this whole thing is about getting cash from viewers. Honestly, if you think about it, why in the world would they want to improve their OTA services? It's a conflict of interest.

I hope I'm not bringing the discussion away here, but I'm still curious about StarRay. What's going on with them? I haven't heard a peep.

It's a pity that Jan Pachul got squashed by the CRTC. His station seems to be the only one that cares about producing true, local Canadian content. (with some exceptions on the major networks on certain times).

I finally corrected the mispelled word on the title.

Yeah the FFC (fixed, regulated , non negotiable) is not yet implemented and will be discussed on the on coming public hearings.

The whole thing is about getting funding or cash or somehow a new business model that will support OTA TV in non-metropolitan markets. Major markets have no problem at all apparently and are very healthy moneywise. I agree it is a conflict of interest and that is why the regulator is so important to solve this. But remember, if they loose their OTA licence then they loose the BDU's distribution benefit so in orther to be distributed nationally on BDU's they have to exist first and foremost OTA. And they seem to forget this, who to blame IMHO, the regulator who fails to remind them this. But the BDU's are also to blame on this. Look at the profits numbers over the years for them. the regulator should enforce minimum broadcasting standards for the whole industry specially for OTA channels owned by BDU's like CityTV and OMNI just to mention a few instead of allowing them to get away with substandard service although to be fair we are still on a test period for the digital signals.

At least we can voice our opinions on the public hearings or via CRTC website if we want to.

The truth is, times have changed and therefore new rules for the broadcasting game should be put in place. As a matter of fact this has happened already in the USA where the stations have freedom to negotiate this with the BDU's. Canada as usual is just following suit behind the US.

Little-Infinity, google them and you will get more info and so many applications get denied every year that it would be impossible to address all of them. Besides it is off topic. You could start a thread about it though. As a potential applicant you should study the impact your station would have on the existing stations, the potential market , the technical aspects of the project , the economical viability, the impact on society or its benefit (even for a business at the end of the day the owner is more likely a professional therefore you should abide by ethics and law) , and so much else, that for a proper opinion you would need all the facts. I honestly searched their website and it was not clear to me exactly what happened. It is not even clear whether they are on air or not BTW, which would be illegal. I beleive they stream online though.

The issue is cable/sat pay for speciality channels (TSN...), and I think US stations (ABC....) as well. On the other hand they don't pay OTA stations (CTV....)

the argument from the stations point of view is that the cable company is making money off of their back (they pay for the transmitter and transmissions, they pay the staff that takes care of programming they pay to buy/produce the shows) while the cable sat make the profit (get it for free and then charge the customers for basic services)

the argument from the cable/sat is that OTA is free for the guy with an antenna, if they charge the cable/sat carrier then that is the same as charging the guy that uses cable or sat instead (and let's face it we all know any fee that is added will most likely be passed along as a hike)

For Quebecor which owns videotron (cable) and TVA (TV network) (which is also why they are not seen on either campaign), I agree with Daniel and they want to push people to cable. But I think for the rest Global/CTV, a bit of it could be that it probably helps when you go to the CRTC asking for $ to play popper and have a reason for why you need it :). In the end large markets like Toronto or Montreal the fee could add up to a lot but for smaller markets it probably would not put that much into their pockets and in the end if you are not broadcasting you don’t have a channel anymore.

I worry that there's an underhanded reason why the majority of Canadian broadcasters are so minimizing their ATSC efforts. Look at the population numbers in the GTA, the population numbers in Buffalo, and then compare the reach of their corresponding stations.

Lost my long post. Power levels were assigned temporarily during the transition period to accomodate both signals , analog and digital, and to avoid interference. After the canadian date full power signals should cover the same area that the old analog version covered.

My problem is with the regulator allowing the canadian stations not to at least test the full functionality of the available services. the CRTC should have mandated that services like EPG and such should be implemented and tested in fases before the switch date and even if the regulator failed to do so it is even disgusting to see that the BDU's owned OTA stations are the ones who are not providing or testing at least such important services. They are owned by big BDU companies and as such should at least be ahead of everyone else. I would even imagine that such Telecommunication companies are owned and operated by Telecomm Engineers and as such they should abide by ethics and law unlike the average joe who ownes/runs a coffe shop. But apparently I am wrong, either they are not engineers or ethics was not a class taken at their respective professional courses.

Daniel you call it conflict of interest , I obviously call it something else. Too bad I can not find the proper words either because I am an ignorant or an immigrant and as such do not have the proper language skills.

don't forget that the US started the move earlier and it has been moved back several times and many areas where not ready on time that was why they added a few more months this year, so it is not a fare comparison. On the other hand Canadian TV stations are trying to get the digital switched pushed back. To me it looks political, the "crappier" something looks the more sympathy it garners.

Sorry, just wanted to throw this out there.. . We had an issue here in Buffalo a couple years ago with Time Warner and Lin TV, the company that owns WIVB as well as several other stations throught the US. Seems that Lin TV wanted more "carriage fee" than Time Warner wanted to pay. Negotiations broke off and Lin TV stations around the US were pulled from TWC. Here in Buffalo, TWC replaced WIVB with the CBS College Football Network. Also, TWC, as a nice gesture, gave away rabbit ear antennas at their main and branch offices here so we could watch the Bills every Sunday. If I recall correctly,WIVB was blacked out for a few months! Eventually Lin TV and TWC reached an agreement, and as a result I lost my CBS college football network!

As for OTA digital power levels: here in the US, most digital stations were broadcasting at 1/4 to 1/2 power before the conversion date and ramped up to full power at the analog cutoff. Ideally, the same thing should play out up there. I will keep by fingers crossed with you.. .

I don't know about that. I know you get "more bang for your buck" with digital versus analog, but as I understand it 8VSB can have the same coverage as NTSC for as little as 25% of the power. In ideal situations.

CFTO is dropping from 269kW to 2.4kW on 9. That's 0.9%.

CITY is dropping from 280kW on 57 to 23kW on 51. That's 8%.

CIII is dropping from 1475kW to 100kW on 41. That's 7%.

CBLFT is dropping from 1760kW to 99kW on 25. That's 6%.

CFMT is dropping from 1138kW to 99kW on 47. That's 9%.

For a comparison, WUTV went from 3890kW to 1000kW on 29, or 26%. WNLO went from 955kW on 23 to 1000kW on 32, about the same.