Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766

    American Television Stations Call For Fair Canadian Import Trade Practices

    Press Release

    American Television Stations Call For Fair Canadian Import Trade Practices

    - Coalition calls for equitable and nondiscriminatory consent and remuneration rights for American over-the-air TV channels imported and retransmitted in distant markets across Canada -

    OTTAWA, November 8, 2012 - Today, a coalition of American television stations has come together in support of fair treatment for U.S. channels imported and distributed in Canada.

    “It is regrettable that imported U.S. TV stations are denied consent and remuneration rights under Canada’s new distant station retransmission regime,” said Marla Drutz, Vice President and General Manager of WDIV-TV in Detroit, Michigan.

    “Given the success and importance of the Canada-U.S. trade partnership,” said Susan Wenz, Program Director at KSTP-TV in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “we remain hopeful this unfair situation will be put right by Canada and our U.S. stations will be included under the consent and remuneration provisions.”

    “Our channels deliver value for Canadians,” said Chris Musial, General Manager for WIVB and WNLO-TV in Buffalo, New York. “We expect the right to negotiate appropriate compensation for the full value that our signals and programming deliver to Canadian markets.”

    Canada’s Broadcasting Distribution Regulations were amended in 2011 providing retransmission consent and new remuneration rights for operators of distant TV stations. American TV stations imported into Canada are being denied an equitable and nondiscriminatory right of remuneration exercisable under conditions set out in the new distant station regime.


    About the U.S. Television Coalition

    The U.S. Television Coalition is a trade alliance of American TV stations with signals imported and retransmitted in markets across Canada. The coalition is calling for fair treatment including consent and remuneration rights under Canada’s distant station regulations.

    For further information:
    (...}

    Source: http://www.ustvcoalition.org
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766
    I warned TVViewer about this !

    By allowing canadian broadcasters to obtain fee-for-carriage, american broadcasters will also ask for it.

    American broadcasters will ask for a high fee mainly due to the network primetime programming, but we have 4 conventional canadian networks simsubbing on cable/satellite all 5 american networks, from 9am to 2am, just like a smurf attack, except for the news.

    Who will want to pay 1$ for CTV, 1$ for Global, 1$ for Citytv, 1$ for CTV2, 1$ for CHCH, 1$ for ABC, 1$ for NBC, 1$ for CBS, 1$ for FOX, 1$ for The CW, but watch canadian networks logos on the american networks they are paying for? To add insult to injury, TVViewer was also in strong support for the proposed "blackout", meaning if a canadian broadcaster can't simulcast a show, the show will be rescheduled sometime in the next 7 days but the american network airing that show will be blackout... but CTV can't be bothered offering a local CTV Two station in other canadian markets than Toronto and Vancouver.

    If american networks want fee-for-carriage from canadian BDUs, canadian networks should lose their simsub rights. That fee is for the quality of programming offered by the station. There's no point in paying an american station for programming simsubbed by canadian networks.

    Go on, Canadians, you have money to waste.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    They can ask, but the US stations are wasting their time. Who needs them? As long as the US networks give Canadian stations the rights to broadcast their content in Canada, just blackout the US stations. Many Canadians already have OTA access to many US stations (I don't have Fox), and there's always the Internet ... which is why most US stations ask for higher carriage fees.

    The Internet is already wreaking havoc on the traditional TV broadcast system and the carriage fees might help the stations hang on.

    I dare WIVB to pull its station from Canadian BDUs and cut into its own advertising revenue!

    I'm going to stop posting here unless channelcanada pays me $1 per post. Yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen.

    If the US stations want fair treatment for supporting our entire Canadian TV industry, they should just negotiate with CBS, ABC, etc. to get them to stop selling Canada the broadcast rights for US content.

    Boo hoo. Go suck on an egg, WIVB. By the way, Rogers has your volume set too low to hear anyway (for more than 10 years) ... thankfully we have simsubs and OTA feeds to counter that problem.

    The US Television Coalition is begging us to support the US stations? Is this an early April Fool's Day joke?

    C'mon, we have more important things to worry about ... like, what's going to happen on The Bachelor Canada?

    Certainly an interesting topic, but I doubt that a press release by the US TV Coalition is going to be enough to put this on anyone's radar.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-08-2012 at 02:09 PM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    They can ask, but the US stations are wasting their time. Who needs them? As long as the US networks give Canadian stations the rights to broadcast their content in Canada, just blackout the US stations.
    You're kidding, right?

    American *stations* (not networks) are selling local advertisements and receiving subscription revenues, paying their newsteam and giving part of their revenues to the network headquarters, which uses part of that money to finance scripted, unscripted and national news shows.

    Boston (distributed by Bell) and Minneapolis stations are too far away from the border, so they just act like their canadian viewers are not existing. Detroit (distributed by Shaw) is too big for Windsor, but Buffalo and Burlington are border stations, so they sometimes include informations to their neighbour canadian viewers. Sandy storm coverage last week was a good example, while BC stations didn't bother covering the earthquake. Super Bowl is WAY much better with the commercials than the same repeating Canadian Tire and Tim Hortons commercials.

    Do we *really* need them? Not necessarily. But at least you know your favorite shows will not be dumped on a secondary network (CTV2) you don't even receive locally due to a 2-hours American Idol special they have to simsub. It's just ridiculous that you'll now have to pay them when they're being simsubbed every single day.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    I hear ya.

    The CTV2 situation is ridiculous because even if you pay for cable or satellite TV, there are often late changes that make it very difficult to figure out which CTV station will be carrying a certain show. And yes, it certainly is annoying to follow a series on CTV and then get the cold shoulder when it's suddenly dumped to CTV2.

    The Super Bowl commercials can all be seen online and the big ones are often repeated several weeks after the Super Bowl is over (on the major networks). Yes, the few Canadian commercials that are shown to us during the Super Bowl are annoying and useless, but I tend to leave the room and skip the commercials anyway (even when I was watching the American OTA feed this year).

    The Internet is the best thing since sliced bread, but that's only because most of us are going around the system by streaming and downloading content that isn't supposed to be readily available ... and since live Internet feeds can suddenly disappear before the programs end, it would still be nice if Canadians had more control over what we had official access to.

    If WIVB decided to reduce its signal strength and made it more difficult for me to receive its over-the-air signal because Canada refused to pay US carriage fees, that would indeed be disappointing. However, I just find it hard to believe that this whining will do any good ... unless years go by without a satisfactory result, causing the US stations to band together and shun Canada.

    What legal right do these US stations actually have in Canada? They hope this and they hope that and what do they actually think is going to be done about it? Somebody has to actually do something drastic, in order to show how serious a problem this actually is. Until then, this seems like a lot of hot air.

    PBS stations tend to pay more attention to their Canadian viewers, so perhaps we should stop giving them any of our "dirty" Canadian money and instead just call them to complain about the "evil" that WVIB is planning to unleash.

    Canadian stations have been hijacking the US stations for years. So now just because the Canadian stations have the right to negotiate for carriage fees, we suddenly have to let the US stations get them? Why? Is the US government going to get involved?

    This will become a fascinating issue if actual governments become involved, otherwise, I'm going to assume that this whining will fall upon deaf ears.

    If the new and supposedly consumer-oriented CRTC is now on the side of the Canadian viewers, this sudden cry for handouts from the US stations will probably be laughed at by the new CRTC Grand Poobah.

    If the BDUs are worried that the loss of the US stations will drive enough Canadians to look for alternatives, then yes, they may indeed cave to the whining and indeed gouge us even more. However, I'm thinking that our BDUs might be more likely to let the US stations pull their stations and limit their OTA reach into Canada, so that our BDUs will have even more control over what the average Canadian watches.

    Yes, this is a very interesting topic, but since we are only at stage 1 of what may become a long drawn-out battle (much like the NHL lockout), it's too early to assume that anything major will come from the whining. I'm waiting to see what these US stations are willing to do once Canada merely strings them along and promises things that they never deliver upon (our BDUs are very good at stalling).
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-09-2012 at 05:13 AM. Reason: a few touchups
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59186]
    I warned TVViewer about this !

    By allowing canadian broadcasters to obtain fee-for-carriage, american broadcasters will also ask for it.

    American broadcasters will ask for a high fee mainly due to the network primetime programming, but we have 4 conventional canadian networks simsubbing on cable/satellite all 5 american networks, from 9am to 2am, just like a smurf attack, except for the news.

    Who will want to pay 1$ for CTV, 1$ for Global, 1$ for Citytv, 1$ for CTV2, 1$ for CHCH, 1$ for ABC, 1$ for NBC, 1$ for CBS, 1$ for FOX, 1$ for The CW, but watch canadian networks logos on the american networks they are paying for?

    lol.

    U.S. locals (and apparently you) are in for a wakeup call if they think that A) The CRTC will impose a regulation like this for U.S. OTA signals, and B) that Cdn BDU's will pay anything to stations that provide such little value to Canadians. The vast majority of their hit programming is owned by Canadian networks, and the vast majority of their non-simulcast programming pulls in few Canadian viewers.

    Just to prove how unrealistic this request is, The "U.S. Television Coalition" only consists of FIVE U.S. television stations (WIVB and WNLO (from Buffalo), KSTP (from Minneapolis) WDIV (from Detroit) and WHEC (from Rochester), and the group only consists of three companies since WIVB and WNLO are owned by the same company, as are WDIV and WHEC). There are hundreds of U.S. locals, so even if this was granted (and there is probably a 0.1% chance) all BDU's need to do is find one set of east and west locals willing to provide their signal for free, which shouldn't be hard considering it would give their non-simulcast programming access to millions of viewers. Also, some U.S. locals sell Canadian advertising during non-simulcast programming, well they wont be able to do that if Canadian BDU's pull their signal and replace them with a local affiliate willing to provide their signal for free. There is a reason only 5 local U.S. stations are members of this "coalition", the vast majority of U.S. stations that broadcast into Canada know how unrealistic carriage fees from Canadian BDU's are. If they thought they had a chance then this "Coalition" would have more than 3 companies consisting of 5 local stations.



    To add insult to injury, TVViewer was also in strong support for the proposed "blackout", meaning if a canadian broadcaster can't simulcast a show, the show will be rescheduled sometime in the next 7 days but the american network airing that show will be blackout... but CTV can't be bothered offering a local CTV Two station in other canadian markets than Toronto and Vancouver.
    Nobody is asking for this at the moment and it is not even a remote possibility. The CRTC denied the request and even Canwest knew the chances of it actually happening were slim to none.

    If american networks want fee-for-carriage from canadian BDUs, canadian networks should lose their simsub rights.

    This will never happen.


    That fee is for the quality of programming offered by the station. There's no point in paying an american station for programming simsubbed by canadian networks.
    Exactly, which is why U.S. locals will have little success with their attempt to receive carriage fees, even if they could convince the CRTC to impose regulations for channels they don't regulate they simply don't provide enough value and there are hundreds of U.S. locals for BDU's to choose from.

    Go on, Canadians, you have money to waste.
    When I heard about this weeks ago I knew you would have this kind of reaction. There's a big difference between "asking" for carriage fees and actually "getting" them. Viewers have nothing to worry about and shouldn't pay attention to your misleading fear mongering

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Just to prove how unrealistic this request is, The "U.S. Television Coalition" only consists of FIVE U.S. television stations. (..) There are hundreds of U.S. locals, so even if this was granted (and there is probably a 0.1% chance) all BDU's need to do is find one set of east and west locals willing to provide their signal for free
    Yup. Five of them are in the coalition, none of them are PBS. Unless you know something we don't, no station in Vermont, Erie, Spokane and Seattle participated either. Have they been approached? have they said no or are they waiting a few months?
    In fact, Boston, Vermont, Detroit, Erie, Minneapolis, Spokane and Seattle are the only US stations allowed in Canada, most of them received via fiber optics, plus a few odd stations (Denver and Cleveland). The CW stations in Chicago, NY and LA are "superstations" and are receiving subscription fees. There are 200+ affiliates per network indeed, but you're missing the point in "border station" : Vermont need to sell local advertising in Montreal, and Buffalo also need to sell local advertising in Toronto/Niagara Falls due to their geographic location (notably over-the-air viewers) in order to attact cross-border shoppers, something that can't be done with a Miami or Little Rock station, so it would be a dumb move to pull out.

    Once that pool of US stations enter the coalition and decide to pull their stations from Canada, it will be very difficult to ask the CRTC to request a new set of US stations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Exactly, which is why U.S. locals will have little success with their attempt to receive carriage fees, even if they could convince the CRTC to impose regulations for channels they don't regulate they simply don't provide enough value
    Without simsubs, they provide high value programming. Border stations covering some news stories from their canadian neighbor market is an extra value. Whenever CTV is dumping shows to CTV Two (which doesn't exist outside Ontario and Vancouver) for a dumb live awards show, I'm thankful the US stations are there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    There's a big difference between "asking" for carriage fees and actually "getting" them. Viewers have nothing to worry about and shouldn't pay attention to your misleading fear mongering
    There's indeed a difference (the last part is just a bully move), but why should give BIG MONEY to canadian BDUs give money to CTV, Global and Citytv, but give a big zero to the american stations? How fair is that? If they weren't distributed on cable/satellite, there would be no need for canadian broadcasters to air the same shows at the same day and time, wouldn't they?
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    I don't think that CTV or CBC get any carriage fees from the Buffalo cable systems, so why should the American stations get anything from us? As long as Canadian stations own the Canadian broadcast rights to US content, the US border stations are simply used as pawns in our simsub game. If you remove the US stations from the Canadian BDUs, it would make it tougher for Canadians to find out when and where all of their favourite shows are airing, due to the even more frequent schedule juggling that our Canadian stations do.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...91/?cmpid=rss1
    [Canada’s been stealing U.S. signals. Why change now?]

    But there are cultural exceptions in that agreement we struck with the U.S. And if we establish a policy of equity between Canadian and U.S. stations, we might have to allow a tax write-off to Canadian companies who buy ad time on those foreign stations. That could be disastrous for the domestic industry. Just as importantly, the CRTC doesn’t regulate foreign-owned channels, so it’s hard to see how the coalition’s members might get any traction in Ottawa.
    Which means we’re going to keep on grabbing something for nothing. That’s been good for both our broadcasting system and our culture. Why change now?
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59202]

    Yup. Five of them are in the coalition, none of them are PBS. Unless you know something we don't, no station in Vermont, Erie, Spokane and Seattle participated either. Have they been approached? have they said no or are they waiting a few months?
    Of course they have been approached. If there was a realistic chance at this actually happening there would be more than 3 broadcasting companies lobbying for it. Almost every U.S. station that broadcasts into Canada has not joined because A). The chances that the CRTC will impose these regulations on channels they don't regulate are extremely slim, and B). They know that even if the CRTC does go insane and impose regulations that they will be dropped from their lineup and replaced with another station willing to provide their signal for free, which wont be hard to find, in fact, it wont be hard to find border stations willing to provide their signal for free since it would give them an advantage over the border stations that are no longer carried in Canada.

    In fact, Boston, Vermont, Detroit, Erie, Minneapolis, Spokane and Seattle are the only US stations allowed in Canada,
    BDU's can easily apply to add more local U.S. stations to the approved list, which they don't need to worry about in the first place since the CRTC isn't going to impose such a ridiculous regulation.

    but you're missing the point in "border station" : Vermont need to sell local advertising in Montreal, and Buffalo also need to sell local advertising in Toronto/Niagara Falls due to their geographic location (notably over-the-air viewers) in order to attact cross-border shoppers, something that can't be done with a Miami or Little Rock station, so it would be a dumb move to pull out.
    This is my point, this is why they will not be successful with carriage fees in Canada even if the CRTC allowed it. These stations benefit from carriage on Canadian systems, it would be dumb for these stations to demand a carriage fee because the result would be them losing access to the Canadian markets as they would be replaced with another set of U.S. stations. They are successful with carriage fees in the U.S. because A). Their programming provides value, and B). If they pull their signal the BDU is not allowed to pull in a station from Miami to replace that programming. Here in Canada not only does their programming provide little value but BDU's can easily add another set of U.S. affiliates from another market.

    Once that pool of US stations enter the coalition and decide to pull their stations from Canada, it will be very difficult to ask the CRTC to request a new set of US stations.
    First, you are again assuming that the CRTC would impose regulations for channels they currently don't regulate, regulations that would harm consumers, which is ridiculous, even more ridiculous would be to then deny Canadian BDU's to add more locals to the list of approved stations. Why would the CRTC go out of their way to make consumers pay more when they don't have to? They don't regulate U.S. stations and the financial viability of U.S. stations is of absolutely no concern to the CRTC, why would they do something that benefits U.S. stations when the result is consumers paying more and harms the companies they actually regulate?

    Without simsubs, they provide high value programming.
    But they do have simsubs and simsubs are not going anywhere. U.S. locals do not own the broadcast rights to their non-local programming in Canada. They only own the rights to their non-local programming in the U.S. market they are based.

    There's indeed a difference (the last part is just a bully move), but why should give BIG MONEY to canadian BDUs give money to CTV, Global and Citytv, but give a big zero to the american stations? How fair is that? If they weren't distributed on cable/satellite, there would be no need for canadian broadcasters to air the same shows at the same day and time, wouldn't they?

    Because U.S. locals don't provide enough value to their service. The vast majority of their popular programming is already available on Canadian stations. It's fair to pay Canadian locals because they actually add value to the Canadian cable or satellite service. Canadians locals own the exclusive Canadian broadcast rights to all of their U.S. programming and produce highly rated local programming. U.S. locals DO NOT own the broadcast rights to any of the U.S. programming in Canadian markets and therefore none of that programming contributes to the value of their service, the only content they own is the local news they produce, and their local news does not provide enough value to Canadians to warrant a carriage fee, it makes more sense for the BDU to drop the border station and find another set of U.S. stations.

    You are making a big deal out of nothing and for whatever reason trying to scare people into thinking that they will have to pay more. When the reality is Canadians have nothing to worry about and should not pay attention to your fear mongering.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-10-2012 at 04:52 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    I don't think that CTV or CBC get any carriage fees from the Buffalo cable systems, so why should the American stations get anything from us? As long as Canadian stations own the Canadian broadcast rights to US content, the US border stations are simply used as pawns in our simsub game.
    Exactly. In fact, if a U.S. BDU carries a Canadian channel they are required to black out all U.S. programming, even if it airs at different times. Why? Because the Canadian station does not own the broadcast rights to that programming in U.S. markets. Well it's the same thing here in Canada, U.S. locals do not own the Canadian rights to any of their non-local programs. Expecting to be paid for programming they don't own the rights to is ridiculous.

    U.S. locals are lucky that they even have ANY carriage in Canada. We are the only country where local broadcasters don't have their exclusive broadcast rights 100% protected. It's beyond absurd for U.S. locals who already benefit from carriage in Canada to then ask to receive carriage fees. If Canadian locals wanted to be treated the same way in the U.S. as U.S. locals are treated here in Canada the U.S. locals would go nuts, so it's pretty funny to see them to ask to be treated fairly by the CRTC (although again, let's remember, out of the 40+ U.S. stations that broadcast into Canada, only 5 (FIVE!) are stupid enough to attempt this)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463

    WIVB is a known troublemaker ... I hope they get replaced with another US affiliate.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures, but the WIVB owners seem to be obsessed with carriage fees.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIVB-TV

    Copied from the above wiki link:

    Cable disputes

    WIVB has had significant contract disputes with both of the major cable television providers in the station's coverage area, Time Warner Cable (which covers most of Western New York) and Atlantic Broadband (which covers much of its Northern Pennsylvania area as well as the rest of the Western New York region). In both cases, WIVB is demanding a rights fee of 25 cents per month per subscriber (in addition to another 25 cents for sister station WNLO) and is refusing to allow the carriers the right to carry the signal. The agreement with Time Warner expired October 2, 2008.[4] WIVB and WNLO were taken off Time Warner Cable at 12:30 in the morning on October 3 and were replaced with CBS College Sports and HBO Family respectively in the channel lineup when an agreement between LIN Television and Time Warner Cable could not be reached. According to this station, LIN Television and Time Warner Cable were still trying to work on a deal even after the channels were dropped. Time Warner Cable says negotiations broke off at the time of the shutoff.

    After that, WIVB openly advocated for Time Warner customers to switch to DISH Network. Time Warner, in turn, gave away free antennas and struck a deal with the Buffalo Bills Radio Network to simulcast the audio of the games on cable channel 4. Buffalo Bills games and some CBS programs were restored in Niagara County through Toronto-based CFTO-TV (and in other parts of the region through WROC-TV and WSEE-TV). In Erie, Cattaraugus, Allegany, and Western Steuben Counties, WIVB continues to (in addition to block its signal) enforce its syndication exclusivity on Bills games preventing them from being brought in from another market. An agreement was reached between LIN TV and Time Warner Cable on October 29 allowing WIVB and WNLO to return to Time Warner channel lineups. Terms of the deal were not made available.

    There is no agreement or negotiation with Atlantic Broadband but that company continued to retransmit WIVB without permission through 2008.[5] Atlantic Broadband announced it would discontinue carrying WIVB in favor of WSEE-TV on January 1, 2009 and were apparently making no effort to negotiate a new deal.[6] However, due to this date being over a holiday, WIVB granted a thirty day extension at the end of which was an agreement that allowed WIVB to remain on-air uninterrupted.[7] The agreement, originally set to expire in January 2012, was presumably renewed, as the channel remains available on that company's providers. WNLO was not included in the agreement, and CW service is now provided in these areas by WSEE-DT2.

    On March 4, 2011, LIN Media pulled WIVB and WNLO from the lineups of DISH Network (the same service WIVB and WNLO explicitly advised viewers to change to during the Time Warner dispute) due to the expiration of the existing retransmission consent agreement; the blackout lasted nine days.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-10-2012 at 05:37 PM. Reason: spacing
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    Just to prove how unrealistic this request is, The "U.S. Television Coalition" only consists of FIVE U.S. television stations (WIVB and WNLO (from Buffalo), KSTP (from Minneapolis) WDIV (from Detroit) and WHEC (from Rochester), and the group only consists of three companies since WIVB and WNLO are owned by the same company, as are WDIV and WHEC).


    Doesn't mean that other local station aren't watching it closely, there just letting WIVB owners do all the work. ;)



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    There are hundreds of U.S. locals, so even if this was granted (and there is probably a 0.1% chance) all BDU's need to do is find one set of east and west locals willing to provide their signal for free, which shouldn't be hard considering it would give their non-simulcast programming access to millions of viewers.


    I think it would still have to pass the CRTC for approval.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    Also, some U.S. locals sell Canadian advertising during non-simulcast programming, well they wont be able to do that if Canadian BDU's pull their signal and replace them with a local affiliate willing to provide their signal for free. There is a reason only 5 local U.S. stations are members of this "coalition", the vast majority of U.S. stations that broadcast into Canada know how unrealistic carriage fees from Canadian BDU's are. If they thought they had a chance then this "Coalition" would have more than 3 companies consisting of 5 local stations.
    I think they know full well that the CRTC is going to deny them, however legal matters never end at just one ruling; meaning they have to first exhaust all traditional legal avenues before they can take this to court, or in a trade dispute, the NAFTA board in their case.


    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Yup. Five of them are in the coalition, none of them are PBS.
    I don't think PBS stations get FFC under there educational license. Only commercial stations do.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Exactly. In fact, if a U.S. BDU carries a Canadian channel they are required to black out all U.S. programming, even if it airs at different times. Why? Because the Canadian station does not own the broadcast rights to that programming in U.S. markets. Well it's the same thing here in Canada, U.S. locals do not own the Canadian rights to any of their non-local programs. Expecting to be paid for programming they don't own the rights to is ridiculous.
    WIVB doesn't have the power to begin with blacking out, or pulling American programming from Canadian networks, that would be up to the American networks themselves, not their affiliates.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    U.S. locals are lucky that they even have ANY carriage in Canada. We are the only country where local broadcasters don't have their exclusive broadcast rights 100% protected.
    You realize geography has a major role in why this is. If the U.K was in Newfoundland timezone, or Australia was in Hawaii timezone the same thing would happen. Otherwise the law is pretty much powerless in this regard.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;59218]
    Doesn't mean that other local station aren't watching it closely, there just letting WIVB owners do all the work. ;)
    My point is, the vast majority of television stations who broadcast into Canada have not joined this joke of a lobby group because they know how unrealistic what they are asking for is.

    I think it would still have to pass the CRTC for approval.
    But it's a sure thing the CRTC would allow more stations in. They are not going to put the profits of U.S. stations ahead of Canadian consumers and the Canadian companies they actually regulate, which is also why they wont grant carriage fees to U.S. local stations.

    I think they know full well that the CRTC is going to deny them, however legal matters never end at just one ruling; meaning they have to first exhaust all traditional legal avenues before they can take this to court, or in a trade dispute, the NAFTA board in their case.
    Well they are asking the CRTC (although all they have done is put out a press release) if they want to waste money with other avenues then they can go right ahead, but they are in a non-win situation as even if they are granted carriage fees the result is their signal being pulled, their local news alone simply doesn't provide enough value, and since they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to any of their network or syndicated programming all they have is their local U.S. news.


    WIVB doesn't have the power to begin with blacking out, or pulling American programming from Canadian networks, that would be up to the American networks themselves, not their affiliates.
    Not true

    You realize geography has a major role in why this is. If the U.K was in Newfoundland timezone, or Australia was in Hawaii timezone the same thing would happen. Otherwise the law is pretty much powerless in this regard

    Also not true.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    My point is, the vast majority of television stations who broadcast into Canada have not joined this joke of a lobby group because they know how unrealistic what they are asking for is.
    You know this for a fact or is this your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They are not going to put the profits of U.S. stations ahead of Canadian consumers and the Canadian companies they actually regulate, which is also why they wont grant carriage fees to U.S. local stations.
    US local stations are allowed to negociate fee-for-carriage with the market's BDUs for years. On these forums when we had debates about canadian fee-for-carriage a few years ago, "fair" was the keyword, canadian BDUs wanted that too. Accusations from broadcasters were that BDUs are making money selling local canadian signals they obtain for free.

    To sum it up, American BDUs pay local US stations, Canadian BDUs pay local Canadian stations but they won't give a single penny to the US local stations. How fair is that? How the CRTC could have been sold on such "signal stealing" arguments, rule in favor of fee-for-carriage, apply it only to canadian broadcasters and deny it to americans broadcasters? BDUs will STILL be stealing signals!
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59234]

    You know this for a fact or is this your opinion?

    US local stations are allowed to negociate fee-for-carriage with the market's BDUs for years.
    Yes, because they provide value to the U.S. BDU's. They produce local news that has value to their local markets and they own the exclusive broadcast rights to network and syndicated programming in those markets. They do not own the Canadian broadcast rights to any of their non-local programming, the only value they provide is their local news, and that's not worth a carriage fee. So even if carriage fees were granted, Canadian BDU's would have no reason to pay them, and the result is the U.S. station loses carriage in Canada, which hurts them.


    On these forums when we had debates about canadian fee-for-carriage a few years ago, "fair" was the keyword, canadian BDUs wanted that too. Accusations from broadcasters were that BDUs are making money selling local canadian signals they obtain for free.
    Canadian stations produce high quality local news and own the exclusive Canadian broadcast rights to their non-local programming. They provide value to Canadian cable and satellite companies. They deserve some money from the cable and satellite company since they provide value to their service.

    To sum it up, American BDUs pay local US stations, Canadian BDUs pay local Canadian stations but they won't give a single penny to the US local stations.
    No they don't. Canadian BDU's do not pay local Canadian stations a fee. Only distant Canadian signals are allowed to negotiate for a fee. You incorrectly linked this story with Value for Signal for Canadian locals when the reality what these U.S. stations want is not at all related to Value for Signal for local conventional channels, it's related to distant signals.

    How fair is that? How the CRTC could have been sold on such "signal stealing" arguments, rule in favor of fee-for-carriage, apply it only to canadian broadcasters and deny it to americans broadcasters? BDUs will STILL be stealing signals
    There is NOTHING fair with allowing local U.S. stations to broadcast ANY non-local programming into Canada. For you to complain about fairness is ridiculous, because if the CRTC's regulations were fair local Canadian stations would have their exclusive broadcast rights 100% protected, just like local U.S. stations do in the U.S., American stations BENEFIT from the CRTC"s UNFAIR regulations, regulations that are unfair to local Canadian stations.

    If the FCC told local U.S. stations "We are going to allow Canadian stations into your markets even though they broadcast programming you own the exclusive broadcast rights to, the only way we will protect your exclusive broadcast rights is by overriding your signal on top of theirs when you broadcast programming at the same time" they would go ballistic and rightfully so, since it's ridiculously unfair, yet that's exactly what happens here in Canada. If local Canadian stations were treated fairly and the exact same way as U.S. stations there would not be any U.S. stations broadcasting into Canada. So if you and the 3 U.S. broadcasters want the CRTC to treat Canadian stations fairly then say goodbye to local U.S. stations in Canada.

    Also, the CRTC does not regulate U.S. stations, U.S. stations do not have to follow any CRTC regulations or the Broadcast Act. What the 3 U.S. broadcasters are asking for is to be able to cherry pick the CRTC regulations that benefit them, then try and make Canadians pay them for broadcasting programming they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    921
    What's odd to me is that you would think that Canadian carriers would have some sort of re-transmition deal with US signals from cities like Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Spokane and Minneapolis. Considering the large amounts of money that was put into building a fiber optic network to deliver these signals to headends you would think some sort of agreement would already be in place.

    It will be interesting to see what happens down the road. My guess is if in the end these stations insist on getting some kind of carriage fee and Canadian BDU's don't abide; they will be replaced with another distant US feed. The only thing that concerns me is if more US Network affiliates follow suit.

    I hope this isn't the beginning of the end of US Networks in Canada. I do watch all the primetime shows on Canadian networks but there is some programming on the US channels that isn't offered by any broadcasters in Canada; college football being the most important thing for me. I will not be a happy camper if down the road I lose access to College football games on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Well they are asking the CRTC (although all they have done is put out a press release) if they want to waste money with other avenues then they can go right ahead, but they are in a non-win situation as even if they are granted carriage fees the result is their signal being pulled, their local news alone simply doesn't provide enough value, and since they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to any of their network or syndicated programming all they have is their local U.S. news.
    Past the CRTC, its never been done, no legal case that is; supreme court wouldn't happen in this case since it could be label a "trade dispute" and it could go strait to NAFTA. Under the NAFTA agreement, the NAFTA board has the same powers to strike down laws as a judge of the supreme court. But in any case, if they do win, it could convince to get more border stations on their side. And I do agree with you they have they have no value, if anything WNED(PBS) provides more value to Souther Ontario than WIVB.



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Not true
    I'm saying WIVB disappearing from the BDU lineup in Toronto wouldn't effect CTV, Global or Citytv - NBC/Universal programming rights. It would be just the end of subsiming. That would be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Also not true.
    What do you exactly mean? Because your point was ambiguous, Canadian networks already block out U.S. nets on BDU providers for airing the same programming. What would "100% exclusive broadcast rights protected" be exactly?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Canadian stations produce high quality local news and own the exclusive Canadian broadcast rights to their non-local programming. They provide value to Canadian cable and satellite companies. They deserve some money from the cable and satellite company since they provide value to their service.
    So, if I take your past messages and opinions into consideration, CTV and Global provide high value to cable and satellite companies and should receive loads of money airing american programming 70% of the time, CTV2 as a dumping ground should receive money to keep jobs for local news, and Citytv should back off american programming and deserve nothing as they compete against Global. US networks deserve no money at all, a big zero, because ALL of their shows air on canadian networks and should be pulled out canadian BDUs.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No they don't. Canadian BDU's do not pay local Canadian stations a fee.
    Damnit, I did not mean RIGHT NOW, I meant once they'll be able to negociate. Still, you bring up something else...

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Only distant Canadian signals are allowed to negotiate for a fee.
    OK, so, let's take Videotron for example, who's offering Vancouver feeds for SRC, CBC, CTV and Global plus NTV St. John's in a package, as well as Citytv and Omni.1 Toronto, they are all distant signals receiving money. WGN, WPIX, KTLA (CW), WSBK (MyNet) and WPCH are also receiving subscription money. Why pay those stations but not ABC-NBC-CBS-FOX stations? They are distant signals as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    There is NOTHING fair with allowing local U.S. stations to broadcast ANY non-local programming into Canada.
    CTV and Global are carried on some border cable providers in the US. CTV provide little value with Flashpoint and Marilyn Denis and etalk, Global provide little value with ET Canada and 16x9 and Bomb Girls and The Guard reruns. Should border american BDUs give them nothing or pull those signals and carry only CBC?

    To convince the CRTC that american stations have no value and should be pulled out of the country, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Channel Zero will have to commit to the CRTC that they'll buy every show on those 4 broadcast american networks but also cover Canada coast to coast with their stations... which we know it's impossible and suicide as they're supposed to produce and air canadian shows.
    Last edited by InMontreal; 11-13-2012 at 11:03 PM.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;59246]
    Past the CRTC, its never been done, no legal case that is; supreme court wouldn't happen in this case since it could be label a "trade dispute" and it could go strait to NAFTA. Under the NAFTA agreement, the NAFTA board has the same powers to strike down laws as a judge of the supreme court. But in any case, if they do win, it could convince to get more border stations on their side. And I do agree with you they have they have no value, if anything WNED(PBS) provides more value to Souther Ontario than WIVB.
    This is my point, even if they do win they have no value, all it takes its the BDU's to find one east and west network affiliate. Pulling your signal only makes sense when you know that it will eventually come back, it wont come back when the cable/satellite company replaces their signal with another affiliate from another market, and border stations would then say goodbye to reaching Canadians with their advertising. Canadians have no reason to be worried.



    I'm saying WIVB disappearing from the BDU lineup in Toronto wouldn't effect CTV, Global or Citytv - NBC/Universal programming rights. It would be just the end of subsiming. That would be true.
    I was referring to what happens in the U.S., in the U.S. if a provider were to carry CTV or a U.S. affiliate from another market, the local U.S. station can demand that the BDU black out all programming they own the local broadcast rights to. Local U.S. affiliates do have the right to enforce blackouts of programming on distant signals in their local markets.

    This is also why they are so successful with carriage fees in the U.S., if the local affiliate pulls its signal the cable or satellite company is not allowed to bring in another network affiliate from another market, the only way they can restore network programming to their subscribers is to carry the local station. The Canadian Value for Signal regime includes this as well.

    What do you exactly mean? Because your point was ambiguous, Canadian networks already block out U.S. nets on BDU providers for airing the same programming. What would "100% exclusive broadcast rights protected" be exactly?
    It would mean the exact same thing that happens in the U.S., all U.S. programming would be blacked out on U.S. locals even if it doesn't air at the same time as the Canadian network. That's what 100% protected rights would mean. I'm not saying this should be done, but it is what happens in the U.S.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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