Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,119

    CRTC Denies HDTV Networks & YES TV

    CRTC Nixes High-Def Bids

    The CRTC disappointed HDTV Networks and YES TV yesterday. The big loser was John Bitove's HDTV Networks, which had proposed to deliver HD programming to viewers in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax .....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Good, even though I wish the best of luck to Doug Hoover, Canada really didn't need HDTV Network, it just was not fair to local CTV,Global,Citytv,A-Channel,E!,ect stations that have to produce a much bigger amount of local programming.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,146
    It's almost better off if they didn't get the licences, I mean how successful could these networks really be anyways. They were to broadcast in HD which largely limits the audience that can view their station in the first place, which works even less to their advantage in Canada with a smaller population, and b/c they would have been an OTA station or network then they would have to rely solely on ad revenue to make money, and they would have to find an alternative source and quite possibly less popular programming to the American big networks since I doubt very much that they would be able to gain any b/c they will be all taken up by CTV, Global, etc. It seems like everything would have been against them, I think the CRTC did them a favour, saving both their time and money on these projects.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    It's almost better off if they didn't get the licences, I mean how successful could these networks really be anyways. They were to broadcast in HD which largely limits the audience that can view their station in the first place, which works even less to their advantage in Canada with a smaller population, and b/c they would have been an OTA station or network then they would have to rely solely on ad revenue to make money, and they would have to find an alternative source and quite possibly less popular programming to the American big networks since I doubt very much that they would be able to gain any b/c they will be all taken up by CTV, Global, etc. It seems like everything would have been against them, I think the CRTC did them a favour, saving both their time and money on these projects.
    Agreed. They wouldn't have a whole lot of programming available as most anything decent is already airing on either OTA or an existing HD channel. I think they should have went for a cable channel instead, although even that would be a tough path due to bandwidth running out for existing channels let alone a new slate of HD channels.

    Right now room is needed so that some of the current SD channels can spawn their HD versions, this is gathering steam stateside already with USA, TNT, TBS, SciFi, Food, HGTV, Discovery, History, TLC, A&E, Animal Planet, Science Channel, Speed, NatGeo and many other basic cable channels already broadcasting HD channels. HBO is launching all their sub channels in HD, Starz already has all their suite in HD and SHO probably plans on doing the same for their suite of channels. Upcoming MTV, VH1, Comedy, FX, Cartoon Network and others likely to follow and likely this year.

    Although, this also means there is going to be a huge amount of new HD programming produced to fill all those channels. Still, not really room for a OTA channel to air that stuff when most will get soaked up by the existing cable channels anyway.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,146
    I agree more effort should be put into creating HD versions of current channels. But how about creating SD versions of current HD channels. I'm not sure why High Fidelity HDTV for example would launch their 4 all HD channels without creating SD versions of them as well. HD channels are very limiting at the moment, at least if they were to create an SD version of these channels then it would open up the doors to allow more people to view their channels and bundeling with others for subscription fees. If it's a case of, there isn't enough room for 2 SD extreme sports channels for example, how about drop X-Treme Sports for an SD version of Rush HD.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    I agree more effort should be put into creating HD versions of current channels. But how about creating SD versions of current HD channels. I'm not sure why High Fidelity HDTV for example would launch their 4 all HD channels without creating SD versions of them as well. HD channels are very limiting at the moment, at least if they were to create an SD version of these channels then it would open up the doors to allow more people to view their channels and bundeling with others for subscription fees. If it's a case of, there isn't enough room for 2 SD extreme sports channels for example, how about drop X-Treme Sports for an SD version of Rush HD.
    I think they saw a window of opportunity license wise and rolled with it, basically being a mini VOOM-HD clone of sorts. They would likely have also faced a bit tougher time getting carriage for any SD channels, but I am sure they likely have considered allowing the cable/dth company to offer downres'd versions of their channels. Maybe even only as a preview window.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •