Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59311]

    Gawd, you're so naïve ! You're really convinced cable providers will happily pay 2$ per subscriber per month if that's the price Bell Media will ask, just like a bank robbery, only because it's the #1 most watched conventional channel in the country.

    Bell have a HUUUUGE leverage and advantages, and history should have teach you something, but dollar signs just clouds your judgement.
    Everytime Bell Media launched a new specialty channel, they ask for an arm an a leg, for example TSN2 and RDS2. they dumped important programming on it while programming poker on the main network, use subscribers as leverage to call their service provider, and between 6 months and a year later, they have a little better offer that cable provider reluctantly agree, force the new channel down their throat, and Bell restore important programming on the main network, leaving the '2' network with the boring sports and reruns nobody watches.

    Bell will happily pull all of their signals over a ridiculously high offer because of the loophole you pointed out earlier : fee-for-signal grants them that right while vertically integrated rule denies them.

    This will turn to an ugly public campaign, Bell will use their Bell-Astral radio and newspaper assets every single day to convince cable subscribers in a market to switch to Bell satellite and/or Bell Fibe... A whole month will cause so much damage to the cable company in profit for Bell services, and in the end, the customer will pay the price with a cable bill increase. But you don't care about that, don't you, as long as Canwest get paid, that's all that matters.

    I know this will happen, you know this will happen, it also happened in the US and the paying customer never wins. Let's stop playing dumb.
    Okay, first, as I said earlier, it's likely that if the CRTC implements a Value for Signal regime for Canadian locals that they will implement something similar to the VI rules for specialty channels. But if they leave the Value for Signal regime the same as it currently stands, an agreement will be made, CTV's ratings will collapse if their signal is only available on Bell. CTV needs carriage on all the BDU's to survive just as much as the BDU's need to carry CTV to remain competitive, and the Value for Signal regulations only allow for the local station to pull its signal and blackout the exclusive programming they own the broadcast rights to on other stations, Bell would not be allowed to pull all of its specialty channels.


    There. Duly noted. Retain for the next part...

    OK mister genius. You keep ignoring the facts and always assume 100% of a US station's programming except for local news is owned by a canadian network.
    I said vast majority, not 100%. Looks like you are the one ignoring facts.


    Whose conventional broadcaster owns exclusive canadian rights to those following shows?
    - CBS This Morning
    - NBC's Today
    - ABC's Good Morning America
    - ABC World News With Diane Sawyer
    - NBC Nightly News
    - CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley
    - NBC's Last Call With Carson Daly
    - syndicated The Insider
    - syndicated The Steve Wilkos Show
    - syndicated Jerry Springer
    - syndicated Excused

    and I left out a lot of programming such as thanksgiving and xmas shows and specials and syndicated reruns and infomercials and local-produced shows.

    So, those above-mentionned shows have absolutely ZERO value to you because they are not owned by a canadian broadcaster ?
    They have zero value to the BDU because none of that programming has an audience in Canada, the audience numbers for this programming is practically non-existent. Canadian broadcasters used to own the rights to some of these shows, they dropped them from their lineup because the ratings were horrible. Maybe there are a few people who watch this programming, but when BDU's and broadcasters negotiate a value they look at BBM ratings, this programming barely even registers in BBM's ratings.

    But again, just because no Canadian network owns the Canadian broadcast rights to this horribly rated programming does not mean that the U.S. station owns the rights and is entitled to profit from that programming.

    Can you explain why is it that, if canadian BDUs will be paying canadian stations but not paying a single penny to the US station broadcasting syndicated reruns of shows such as "CSI:Miami", but are happily paying A&E for broadcasting a different set of CSI:Miami reruns? Again, "Why them but not us"?

    Because A&E is getting carriage fees for its original programming. Unlike U.S. stations, A&E's original programming has value.

    So, just because Bell Media owns "exclusive canadian broadcast rights" over a library of programming for CTV Two but can't program them on a local station in many market, YOU are suggesting that those specific "brought for CTV2 shows" on the US networks should be blackout and not get a single penny for the purpose of being the only broadcaster to distribute that show in the neighbor canadian market? Oh yes, Bell Media buys programming so they will decide what you can watch and what you can't if you live in a small market. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
    I'm not saying U.S. stations should be blacked out, just that they shouldn't make money off programming they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to.

    I think we made our points and are not going to get any further. You apparently feel that the purchasing of programming rights does not matter, programming rights are part of the business, that's how television works, you don't care how it works, you have your own opinion for how you think it should work, and from a business prospective it makes zero sense.

    For the last time, here is why Canadians have nothing to be worried about and don't need to pay attention to fear mongering.

    - U.S. local stations do not legally own the Canadian broadcast rights to any of their non-local programming

    - The only programming these stations own (U.S. local news) provides little to no value to Canadians

    - The CRTC does not impose regulations for U.S. stations, and the fairness or financial viability of U.S. stations is of absolutely no concern to the CRTC

    - There are hundreds of U.S. affiliates for Canadian BDU's to choose from

    - Several U.S. stations benefit from receiving carriage in Canada and losing that carriage is not in the best interest for them

    - Out of the 40+ stations that currently broadcast into Canada, only 5 U.S. stations, representing 3 broadcasters, have joined the lobby group.

    - If Canadian BDU's wanted they could kill the lobby group by eliminating Canadian carriage of all 5 stations replacing them with U.S. stations from other markets.

    - Value for Signal for Canadian local channels has nothing to do with what these 5 U.S. stations are asking for, U.S. stations are not local stations and therefore wouldn't qualify under the proposed Value for Signal regime for Canadian locals. They are distant signals and are asking to be paid because distant Cdn signals are currently able to negotiate a value.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-18-2012 at 09:02 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon3 Let's all go to the Lobby group and buy ourselves a treat

    When I look at the original press release from the U.S. Television Coalition, it still looks like a poorly written April Fool's Day joke. It did make me laugh, but it also made me think about the state of our TV industry.

    The BDUs offer us many American stations, some like A&E that offer content (The Glades, Breakout Kings, Storage Wars, etc.) that is later aired by Canadian stations (CHCH, MMM, OLN, etc.). However, if you take away A&E from the BDU lineup of channels, I'm going to assume that many Canadians would still be very upset. How much value does A&E offer us when much of the popular content is eventually aired on Canadian stations, anyway? If you had to choose between a CBS affiliate like WIVB, or A&E, which channel would you rather have? If you don't have access to a consistent CBS OTA signal, you still might choose A&E, as long as you had consistent OTA reception from some (or all) of our major Canadian stations (CTV, Global, etc.). So, again, how much value does WIVB actually have, even as an OTA station, if the majority of its popular programming is already available via our Canadian OTA channels? If the CTV2 OTA signal was suddenly made available as a free OTA channel to more areas of Canada, the American affiliates' value would drop even more. It doesn't look like CTV2 will increase its OTA reach, but there's always a chance that additional BDUs will eventually add CTV2 to their channel lineup.

    WIVB will never (oops, never say never) be completely without value to the Canadians that watch it, but unless we lose it, as well as losing all access to all the other American affiliates (ABC,NBC, Fox, etc.), we'll never get to see the Canadian BDUs squirm. Currently, our Canadian BDUs are strong enough to bend, but rarely will they ever bend over backwards to please us. There will always be something for us to complain about.

    If you combine the Canadian ratings for all of the content that airs on a specific CBS affiliate, like WIVB Buffalo (some of which, In Montreal mentioned), it might be considered "valuable" enough to protect and pay for. Could we live without the American affiliates on our BDUs? Sure, but that wouldn't stop the majority of Canadians from desperately searching for alternatives. On the other hand, if all of our Canadian OTA channels were no longer available via OTA, would that be enough to get Canadians to pay a BDU to receive them (assuming that they still had OTA access to all of the major U.S. networks)? All rhetorical questions that have been asked countless times by frustrated Canadians.

    Some of the content that airs on WIVB and other U.S. affiliates is simply too expensive for the Canadian companies to purchase, if you base it on the lower ratings that much of the skipped content would receive. In addition, since the Canadian channels are forced to air Canadian content, there's not enough time in the broadcast day to air ALL of the "popular" content that the American affiliates air. Once a new American TV series becomes popular enough, CTV might decide to pick up the Canadian broadcast rights and start simsubbing it (without necessarily ever airing the episodes that previously aired on the American affiliates).

    It's not a strong enough argument to dismiss all of WIVB's content that it broadcasts, simply because the vast majority of the content that isn't picked up by Canadian channels isn't popular enough to garner even average Canadian ratings. However, since the strength of the current U.S. Television Coalition (Three's Company, Two's A Crowd) is about as strong as my left pinky finger (I can lift a 4 litre water bottle with it -- filled with water, of course), that argument is at least much stronger than the coalition's argument for a distant signal carriage fee (because they only own the rights to their own local news broadcasts).

    And who is Francis Schiller, besides being the person we should contact for more information about this topic?

    Well, according to his linkedIn page: Francis Schiller was also involved with the Save Local TV/Local TV Matters campaign by providing ongoing strategic counsel to senior executives at Canada's largest private television network while delivering research, communications and campaign management services over multilevel public affairs campaign that successfully achieved retransmission consent rights for Canadian private station owners.

    Source: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/francis-schiller/32/1bb/945

    ------------------------------

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...html?cmpid=RSS
    [U.S. stations demand distribution fees in Canada]

    The stations in the coalition are WDIV in Detroit, KSTP in Minneapolis, WIVB and WNLO in Buffalo, and WHEC in Rochester. The group is calling itself the U.S. Television Coalition.

    Four years ago the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission ruled that distributors must pay local channels for their signal. The American channels want similar compensation.


    U.S. Television Coalition spokesman Francis Schiller said they are not expecting the CRTC to weigh in on this but rather believe it is an issue for the government to rule on under the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement.

    "It's not about the money," said Schiller. "It's about the recognition of the retransmission rights. These signals have been packaged and distributed across Canada without consulting any of these stations."

    Neither the federal government nor the CRTC have yet responded to this demand.

    --------------------------------------

    Like a good neighbour ... State Farm is there ... and so apparently is the U.S Television Coalition.

    As InMontreal already mentioned in various threads (if memory serves), one of the issues under discussion is whether or not Canadian BDUs can be persuaded or forced to stop "stealing" American signals. I watch WIVB with my antenna, but I'm not stealing anything. However, the Canadian BDUs are also distributing the WIVB signal without paying for that privilege ... although at the moment, there's no law that says that they should have to pay anything ... and the same goes for the American BDUs not having to pay CTV or CBC for the distribution of those two Canadian signals.


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...rticle5356090/
    [Letters to the Editor]

    Thieving neighbours

    Re Canada’s Been Stealing U.S. Signals. Why Change Now? (Nov. 9): Consistent with the spirit of Canada-U.S. trade, American TV stations want to exercise an equitable and nondiscriminatory remuneration right under the conditions set out in Canada’s new distant-signal-consent regime.

    Canada’s new distant-signal regime is not subject to an appeal before the Canadian Supreme Court. Rather, the “value for signal” regime proposed for local signals is before the high court. Canada’s new distant-signal rules are on the books and are already at play, legal-challenge free.

    No TV channel can be imported and redistributed in Canada unless it is authorized by the CRTC. The underling issues here are not about Canadian culture but rather commerce and trade.

    Canada is not a nation of signal pirates. We are a nation of fair traders and this is what is at stake. Canada should stop stealing U.S. TV signals now simply because, between good neighbours and trading partners, it is the right thing to do.

    Francis Schiller, secretary to the U.S. Television Coalition, Ottawa
    ---------------------------------

    https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl...98947&lang=eng
    [Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada]

    Note: I bolded the Regulation part about "local signal" and "distant signal" because I assume that a lot hinges on those definitions and whether or not they can be altered enough to enable some sort of carriage fee to be instituted for the coalition of U.S. channels involved.

    Details Regarding the Identified Subject Matter:
    ails Regarding the Identified Subject Matter
    Categories Description
    Policies or Program Broadcasting Regulatory Policy Relating to Satellite Relay Distribution Undertakings
    Regulation Definition of "local signal" and "distant signal" in Local Signal and Distant Signal Regulations
    Policies or Program Notice/consultation requirements for station inclusion on the "List of non-Canadian programming services authorized for distribution"
    Policies or Program Regulatory framework relating to vertical integration, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-601, 21 September 2011
    Regulation Section 21 (1) and (2) Distribution of Distant Television Stations and Section 22 Distribution of Non-Canadian Television Stations of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations





    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-19-2012 at 05:07 PM. Reason: fixed Variety link to beat the paywall
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    This is how little of a threat the "U.S. television coalition" really is to Canadian BDU's. They have the power to shut it down and they can't even be bothered, what they are asking for is so unrealistic and so unlikely that it's not even worth the trouble to take any measures to stop it. When local Canadian television stations launched a lobby group for carriage fees the BDU's spent millions with their own massive advertising campaign to counter it. This just shows how pathetic this lobby group is, BDU's have the power to shut them up and shut it down and they can't be bothered to do it. The extreme lack of concern from BDU's speaks volumes, if this was a serious threat they wouldn't be doing nothing.
    An Variety article that PokerFace posted seems to hint that this whole FFC is a smoke screen for something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Variety

    Five local U.S. stations have banded together to ask the Canadian government to force Canuck cable and satellite players to pay for distributing their signal north of the border.

    Dozens of U.S. stations are available on Canadian cable and satellite services and none receive compensation.
    The stations in the coalition are WDIV in Detroit, KSTP in Minneapolis, WIVB and WNLO in Buffalo, and WHEC in Rochester. The group is calling itself the U.S. Television Coalition.

    Four years ago the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission ruled that distribs must pay local channels for their signal. The American channels want similar compensation.


    U.S. Television Coalition spokesman Francis Schiller said they are not expecting the CRTC to weigh in on this but rather believe it is an issue for the government to rule on under the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement.

    "It's not about the money," said Schiller. "It's about the recognition of the retransmission rights. These signals have been packaged and distributed across Canada without consulting any of these stations."


    Neither the federal government nor the CRTC have yet responded to this demand.


    Source

    My theory, their trying to make WIVB as much part of the Toronto Extended market on paper as CKVR and CHCH. Because if this isn't about "the money" what else could this be all about?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    First you get the money, then you get the power ... then you get to redistribute WIVB as you see fit.

    Of course it's about the money, but you have to say it's about the principle of the thing ... to have a better shot at getting even more money.

    I wonder how many years this will drag on for.

    Instead of showing its strength, Rogers should just leave WIVB on basic, and ignore the coalition. No need to give the coalition more ammunition about the big bad Canadian BDUs using their vertical integration power to muscle out the troublemakers.

    The simsubs certainly kill a great deal of WIVB's advertising opportunities, so shouldn't WIVB be spending its time trying to convince us to watch its OTA signal and ignore the simsubbed version on Rogers cable? Perhaps the advertising dollars are drying up, and WIVB is grasping at straws, trying to come up with creative ways to survive in this tough economy.

    If Quebec ever separates from Canada, perhaps Buffalo will take its place. The Buffalo Bells has a nice ring to it. :cheerful:
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    An Variety article that PokerFace posted seems to hint that this whole FFC is a smoke screen for something else.




    My theory, their trying to make WIVB as much part of the Toronto Extended market on paper as CKVR and CHCH. Because if this isn't about "the money" what else could this be all about?
    No, Pokerface is right, it's all about money from Canadian BDU's. It's just lobbyist spin. What he is saying is that they are are not asking for set carriage fees, they are asking for regulations that will require BDU's to get permission from the U.S. distant stations to distribute their signal. But the end goal of their plan is money for the U.S. distant signals, as they will demand money in return for permission to carry their signal.

    The major flaw in this (and it looks like most U.S. stations realize this) is that they are not worth anything to the BDU's, the other flaw is that some U.S. stations (including some of the Buffalo stations, such as WUTV, which goes out of its way to air the same programming Canadian broadcasters own the rights to at different times to avoid simulcasts and sell Canadian advertising) benefit from carriage in Canada, so losing their signal is not a viable option for them, if they don't grant permission for the BDU to distribute their signal for free then they lose revenue. So even if carriage fees were granted, the U.S. distant signals have no leverage in getting any money, since several of them rely on advertising revenue with carriage in Canada. The fact that BDU's can replace them with affiliates from other markets makes carriage fees even more hopeless, Videotron & Bell can say to Vermont stations "Give us your signals for free or we will replace you with stations from Boston", it doesn't even matter if they have to pay the Boston stations a carriage fee, because the Vermont stations need carriage in Canada, all the BDU's have to do is give them an option of "carriage for free" or "no carriage at all" and unless the Vermont stations are willing to lose all that advertising revenue they make from their carriage in Canada they will have no choice but to pick "carriage for free".
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-20-2012 at 09:45 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=PokerFace;59332]

    Instead of showing its strength, Rogers should just leave WIVB on basic, and ignore the coalition.
    Yeah, I was just pointing out that if this lobby group was actually a threat, Rogers wouldn't be ignoring the coalition like they are now, they would take the necessary and easy steps to kill it, and all they would need to do is pull the LIN TV stations. Funding a lobby group for carriage fees in Canada makes a lot less sense when you have no stations with carriage in Canada. If Rogers thought there was even the slightest chance that this would result in them paying for U.S. stations they wouldn't be ignoring this coalition, when local Canadian stations wanted the ability to grant permission for carriage of their signals Rogers did everything they could and spent lots and lots of money (and still are I might add) to stop it because they knew that A). There was actually a realistic chance that local stations would get the ability to grant permission, and B). Canadian locals add way too much value to their service to not carry. Neither of this applies to U.S. distant signals.

    No need to give the coalition more ammunition about the big bad Canadian BDUs using their vertical integration power to muscle out the troublemakers.
    I disagree that replacing the signals would give the coalition more ammunition, not only would it scare other stations from joining but it would stop the existing stations from going further with this, as they would have no carriage in Canada. What's fair for U.S. stations is of absolutely no concern to the CRTC so they can get away treating U.S. stations however they want. If anything, Rogers replacing WIVB with another CBS affiliate would make them look good in the eyes of the CRTC and the Government of Canada, as they would say how they are taking steps to prevent Canadian consumers from paying more.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Videotron & Bell can say to Vermont stations "Give us your signals for free or we will replace you with stations from Boston", it doesn't even matter if they have to pay the Boston stations a carriage fee, because the Vermont stations need carriage in Canada, all the BDU's have to do is give them an option of "carriage for free" or "no carriage at all" and unless the Vermont stations are willing to lose all that advertising revenue they make from their carriage in Canada they will have no choice but to pick "carriage for free".
    OK, now I understand your strategy.

    You expect canadian BDUs to not give a single penny to US border stations for carriage due to the fact that they sell local advertisements to neighbor canadian audiences, taking away potential ad dollars from canadian stations. After all, Bell will want to protect CTV, Shaw will want to protect Global and Rogers will want to protect Citytv, so yanking US border stations from their respective cable system, keeping local advertisements on local canadian stations. And you are fine with canadian BDUs paying Boston stations since they don't solicit canadian local advertisements.

    Unfortunately, we are not thinking outside of the box. We are all thinking about the Toronto market where CTV1, CTV2, Global, Citytv, CHCH, Omni.1 and Omni.2 all smurf-attack every hour of the 5 american networks, and that all BDUs across the whole country carries those networks and apply simsub, therefor, US networks have no value and, from TVViewer's views, the rule should apply to everybody.

    Reality is something else. Vertically-integrated cable providers pick the signals themselves and distribute two sets of the same signals in different markets while others will pick their signals from Shaw Direct (commercial terminals are not subject of simsubs). Simsubs are required in markets of more than 20K of population or less than 100km away from a local station. That's a LOT of people we are talking about here, who have access to the intact programming of the US stations!

    Should US stations seek fair redevance for at least cable viewers in those areas not subject to simsubs? Advertisements are not target to them, and they don't even take away their local avertisements.
    "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. #48
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Of course it's about the money, but you have to say it's about the principle of the thing ... to have a better shot at getting even more money.
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No, Pokerface is right, it's all about money from Canadian BDU's. It's just lobbyist spin. What he is saying is that they are are not asking for set carriage fees, they are asking for regulations that will require BDU's to get permission from the U.S. distant stations to distribute their signal. But the end goal of their plan is money for the U.S. distant signals, as they will demand money in return for permission to carry their signal.
    Of course its about money, but is it really about FFC? Look at the Buffalo market, it's city population is just over 950 thousand and 1.2 million with the sounding region that is sinking every year and has eight commercial stations serving it (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CW, MyTV, ION and Me-TV). We have a population over six million in the GTA with seven stations, eight if you include CHCH. And now think of the advertising rates WIVB could charge if its consider part of the Toronto extend market, it could also mean they'll be able to retain programming rights in Toronto, that won't mean CTV will be losing rights to The Big Bang Theory, but WIVB would be able to compete with future programming rights.


    Reread what Mr. Schiller second quote:

    "It's not about the money," said Schiller. "It's about the recognition of the retransmission rights. These signals have been packaged and distributed across Canada without consulting any of these stations."
    The distributed across Canada is a obvious lie. As TVViewer pointed out WIVB isn't available across Canada, and I doubt any Detroit or Minnesota station is available out west. This is oblivious trying to weasel their way into nearby Canadian markets to gain the same broadcasting rights as local stations when it comes to U.S. programming, that in itself would be an "retransmission right".
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59343]

    OK, now I understand your strategy.
    No, you don't. And until you learn how programming rights work and what they mean you wont.

    You expect canadian BDUs to not give a single penny to US border stations for carriage due to the fact that they sell local advertisements to neighbor canadian audiences, taking away potential ad dollars from canadian stations. After all, Bell will want to protect CTV, Shaw will want to protect Global and Rogers will want to protect Citytv, so yanking US border stations from their respective cable system, keeping local advertisements on local canadian stations. And you are fine with canadian BDUs paying Boston stations since they don't solicit canadian local advertisements.
    I didn't say I was fine with them paying Boston stations a carriage fee, my point was that several border stations, including stations in Vermont are set to lose money if they lose carriage in Canada. So even if carriage fees for U.S. stations were somehow granted, border stations are set to lose money if they don't continue to provide their signal for free, pulling their signal is not a viable option for them, but it is a viable option for the Canadian BDU to pull their signals and replace them with stations from another market. Even if Boston wanted carriage fees, BDU's could still threaten to replace Vermont stations with stations from Boston, because they know that Vermont stations will agree to provide their signal for free, because if they don't they lose access to advertising in the market.

    Unfortunately, we are not thinking outside of the box. We are all thinking about the Toronto market where CTV1, CTV2, Global, Citytv, CHCH, Omni.1 and Omni.2 all smurf-attack every hour of the 5 american networks, and that all BDUs across the whole country carries those networks and apply simsub, therefor, US networks have no value and, from TVViewer's views, the rule should apply to everybody.

    Reality is something else. Vertically-integrated cable providers pick the signals themselves and distribute two sets of the same signals in different markets while others will pick their signals from Shaw Direct (commercial terminals are not subject of simsubs). Simsubs are required in markets of more than 20K of population or less than 100km away from a local station. That's a LOT of people we are talking about here, who have access to the intact programming of the US stations!
    Reality is that Canadian broadcasters own the exclusive broadcast rights to all the popular U.S. programming across Canada. U.S. stations do not own the broadcast rights to any of their non-local programming in ANY Canadian market, and you have this absurd theory that U.S. television stations should be able to profit off programming they didn't pay for. You are totally ignoring programming rights and how they work.


    Should US stations seek fair redevance for at least cable viewers in those areas not subject to simsubs? Advertisements are not target to them, and they don't even take away their local avertisements.
    No, because they don't own the broadcast rights to that programming in any Canadian market. Just because you can see that programming without simsubs does not mean that the U.S. station own that programming in those markets, it's not their programming, that programming belongs to the Canadian broadcasters and the Canadian broadcasters only in Canada, they paid for it, they own it, U.S. stations do not.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;59344]

    Of course its about money, but is it really about FFC?
    Yes. Everything he is saying is about carriage fees.

    Look at the Buffalo market, it's city population is just over 950 thousand and 1.2 million with the sounding region that is sinking every year and has eight commercial stations serving it (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CW, MyTV, ION and Me-TV). We have a population over six million in the GTA with seven stations, eight if you include CHCH. And now think of the advertising rates WIVB could charge if its consider part of the Toronto extend market,
    They can't join the Toronto market. They operate in Buffalo. There is a 0% chance that a non-Canadian owned Buffalo New York television station will ever be considered a local television station in any Canadian city. I get the point you are trying to make but it's not even close to realistic.

    it could also mean they'll be able to retain programming rights in Toronto, that won't mean CTV will be losing rights to The Big Bang Theory, but WIVB would be able to compete with future programming rights.

    Programming rights are not sold like this, there is no such thing as the "Toronto broadcast rights" to programming, the studios/networks only sell national Canadian rights, you can't just buy rights to certain cities you operate in, rights cover all of Canada, and they are expensive. If WIVB wanted programming rights in Toronto they would need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to outbid Bell, Shaw, Rogers, ect.. for national Canadian rights

    Reread what Mr. Schiller second quote:


    The distributed across Canada is a obvious lie. As TVViewer pointed out WIVB isn't available across Canada, and I doubt any Detroit or Minnesota station is available out west. This is oblivious trying to weasel their way into nearby Canadian markets to gain the same broadcasting rights as local stations when it comes to U.S. programming, that in itself would be an "retransmission right".
    They are actually trying to point out the exact opposite of becoming a local Canadian station, they are trying to point out that they are a distant stations to Canadian markets (and he is correct in this) and should be paid because distant Cdn signals have the right to negotiate. His point was that U.S. Signals are distributed across Canada, not just the lobby group stations. This is nothing even remotely to do with U.S. stations somehow being considered local Canadian stations or Toronto stations and I don't understand how you came to this conclusion based on what he said, he didn't say anything out of the ordinary, he is saying what any lobbyist fighting for carriage fees would say.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I doubt any Detroit or Minnesota station is available out west.
    Just a few notes.

    Detroit and Boston stations are "time-shifting" nationally on Shaw Direct and Bell TV, respectively.

    WIVB and othe Buffalo stations are distributed all across Ontario via Rogers and Cogeco, except Ottawa area (which is assigned Detroit for unknown reasons).

    Minneapolis stations are distributed in Thunder Bay and all across Manitoba on Shaw and MTS.
    "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."

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They can't join the Toronto market. They operate in Buffalo.
    And CHCH operates in the Hamilton market and CKVR operates in the Barrie market, however they have the same broadcasting rights as a Toronto local stations because they add the keyword "extended". And Buffalo is about the same distance from Toronto (across the lake) as Barrie is distance wise


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    There is a 0% chance that a non-Canadian owned Buffalo New York television station will ever be considered a local television station in any Canadian city.
    I got the impression that his comments, about this was "a federal issue" and "free-trade", was a hint that the broadcasting market should be deregulated next.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I get the point you are trying to make but it's not even close to realistic.
    What has been realistic about this whole campaign?



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Programming rights are not sold like this, there is no such thing as the "Toronto broadcast rights" to programming, the studios/networks only sell national Canadian rights, you can't just buy rights to certain cities you operate in, rights cover all of Canada, and they are expensive.
    WIVB doesn't buy the "national" rights to its CBS programming, they own the regional rights, just like the CBS affiliate in Rochester owns its CBS regional rights. What they could argue is Toronto is, and always has been, part of their market.The must buy "national rights" in Canada is just the U.S. studios ways of ripping us off, and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    If WIVB wanted programming rights in Toronto they would need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to outbid Bell, Shaw, Rogers, ect.. for national Canadian rights
    Not necessarily, WIVB could sell to a bigger company with cash now it has access to six million plus homes, it could also mean other CBS stations along the border would demand the same treatment, allowing CBS to retain their programming rights while accessing the Canadian market at the same time.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They are actually trying to point out the exact opposite of becoming a local Canadian station, they are trying to point out that they are a distant stations to Canadian markets (and he is correct in this) and should be paid because distant Cdn signals have the right to negotiate. His point was that U.S. Signals are distributed across Canada, not just the lobby group stations.
    It's legal quagmire . In order for them not to qualify for distance signal carriage fees the CRTC has to show they don't qualify for distance signal carriage fees while not discriminating on the fact their country of origin while still having them consider a distance signal station.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    This is nothing even remotely to do with U.S. stations somehow being considered local Canadian stations or Toronto stations and I don't understand how you came to this conclusion based on what he said, he didn't say anything out of the ordinary, he is saying what any lobbyist fighting for carriage fees would say.
    Simple, you said it yourself that these stations offer no value, both local and programming wise. So lets say your WIVB, how would you get FFC while remaining on the dial in Southern Ontario? You would retain programming rights for this region.

    Because why go through all this trouble if you know Rogers, Bell and Shaw could easily pull your signal and replace it with someone else's?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;59374]

    And CHCH operates in the Hamilton market and CKVR operates in the Barrie market, however they have the same broadcasting rights as a Toronto local stations because they add the keyword "extended". And Buffalo is about the same distance from Toronto (across the lake) as Barrie is distance wise
    First, the CRTC does not consider CHCH or CKVR as Toronto stations, They are licensed for the Hamilton and Barrie markets (the Toronto extended market is defined by BBM, not the CRTC), the CRTC just grants them carriage & simultaneous substitution in Toronto, the CRTC wouldn't be able to grant simultaneous substitution for U.S. stations because they do not own the Canadian rights to programming, in fact the CRTC wouldn't be able to grant anything for U.S. stations since they are not allowed to impose regulations on U.S. stations (they can impose conditions on CHCH and CKVR because they regulate them), but even if they could, there is nothing the CRTC could do, these stations do not own the Canadian rights to their non-local programming and the CRTC has nothing to do with that.

    I got the impression that his comments, about this was "a federal issue" and "free-trade", was a hint that the broadcasting market should be deregulated next.
    I'm 100% positive he is talking about carriage fees, not asking for de-regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system or anything even remotely close to do with this theory you came up with.

    What has been realistic about this whole campaign?
    Anything is more realistic than what you are suggesting. You pulled this out of thin air and are not basing it on any facts or knowledge of how it works.

    WIVB doesn't buy the "national" rights to its CBS programming, they own the regional rights, just like the CBS affiliate in Rochester owns its CBS regional rights. What they could argue is Toronto is, and always has been, part of their market.The must buy "national rights" in Canada is just the U.S. studios ways of ripping us off, and you know it.
    The CRTC has nothing to do with this. The U.S. studios decide how programming rights are sold, they have total control.

    Not necessarily, WIVB could sell to a bigger company with cash now it has access to six million plus homes, it could also mean other CBS stations along the border would demand the same treatment, allowing CBS to retain their programming rights while accessing the Canadian market at the same time.
    Again, the U.S. studios decide how programming rights are sold, they have full control and don't need the CRTC. If CBS wanted to retain the rights to CBS produced programming in Canada instead of selling it to Canadian broadcasters that's what they would do.

    It's legal quagmire . In order for them not to qualify for distance signal carriage fees the CRTC has to show they don't qualify for distance signal carriage fees while not discriminating on the fact their country of origin while still having them consider a distance signal station.
    The CRTC doesn't have to do anything, they don't impose regulations for U.S. stations. They can continue to ignore them.

    Simple, you said it yourself that these stations offer no value, both local and programming wise. So lets say your WIVB, how would you get FFC while remaining on the dial in Southern Ontario? You would retain programming rights for this region.
    The only way they can retain programming rights is if they outbid Canadian broadcasters for national Canadian broadcast rights to their programming, which financially wouldn't work.

    However, even if this did make economic sense for U.S. studios / U.S. affiliates to attempt (and it doesn't!), the CRTC is not going to sit back and let the Canadian broadcasting industry die, although the CRTC can’t force U.S. studios to sell programming to Canadian broadcasters and can’t force U.S. stations from acquiring the Canadian rights to U.S. programming they can eliminate the carriage of U.S. networks on BDU’s if doing so would save the future of the Canadian networks (and they would have all the major cable companies on board). There is no logic in your theory, it has not happened because it would not work and financially wouldn't work for the studios/affiliates/networks.

    Because why go through all this trouble if you know Rogers, Bell and Shaw could easily pull your signal and replace it with someone else's?
    It's probably the reason why the vast majority of U.S. television stations that broadcast into Canada did not join the lobby group.

    I understand your point that being considered a Toronto station might be appealing for Buffalo stations, but it's as realistic as BCTV or CFTO asking to be considered a Miami television station, and even then, it wouldn't grant them Canadian rights as those are controlled by the U.S. studios that sell them. It's in the best interest of the U.S. studios to sell Canadian rights to Canadian broadcasters. Retaining rights or selling rights to U.S. affiliates wouldn't just be a financial disaster for Canadian broadcasters, it would be a financial disaster for the U.S studios, U.S. networks, and U.S. affiliates. The group of 3 broadcasters are asking to be allowed to grant permission for carriage of their signal because they are distant signals to Canadian markets, that's what they are asking for, that's it.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-24-2012 at 08:45 AM.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    First, the CRTC does not consider CHCH or CKVR as Toronto stations, They are licensed for the Hamilton and Barrie markets (the Toronto extended market is defined by BBM, not the CRTC), the CRTC just grants them carriage & simultaneous substitution in Toronto, the CRTC wouldn't be able to grant simultaneous substitution for U.S. stations because they do not own the Canadian rights to programming, in fact the CRTC wouldn't be able to grant anything for U.S. stations since they are not allowed to impose regulations on U.S. stations (they can impose conditions on CHCH and CKVR because they regulate them), but even if they could, there is nothing the CRTC could do, these stations do not own the Canadian rights to their non-local programming and the CRTC has nothing to do with that.
    The CRTC grants simultaneous substitution for CHCH and CKVR because of the BBM definition of Toronto Extended Market, its not uncommon for a government agency to follow industry standards when developing polices. Remember too that Netflix owns the rights in Canada to 90210, even though they don't own a terrestrial broadcast station. In theory WIVB can buy the national rights and have borderline CBS stations amortize the costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Anything is more realistic than what you are suggesting. You pulled this out of thin air and are not basing it on any facts or knowledge of how it works.
    Alright, seeing this just highlighting the fact that this campaign to get FFC was also unrealistic and pointless, something you pointed out before, I don't see why you took it so personal.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    If CBS wanted to retain the rights to CBS produced programming in Canada instead of selling it to Canadian broadcasters that's what they would do.
    It was said once before that U.S. networks would only be interested if they could own the controlling interest of the station. With the downturn in the U.S. and a government open to deregulating, I wouldn't be surprised that some U.S. networks themselves have thought of the idea of expanding northward.



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The CRTC doesn't have to do anything, they don't impose regulations for U.S. stations. They can continue to ignore them.

    Even thought Mr. Schiller said this was a federal issue, the government can punt it back to the CRTC as their issue and would only look at it if they where appealing a CRTC ruling, if that doesn't work, then they could go straight to court or the WTO.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The only way they can retain programming rights is if they outbid Canadian broadcasters for national Canadian broadcast rights to their programming, which financially wouldn't work.
    Some of these stations have pretty big backers; for example, NBC Buffalo is own by USA Today. They might not outbid Bell, but they could outbid Rogers, Shaw and CHCH/CHEK.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    However, even if this did make economic sense for U.S. studios / U.S. affiliates to attempt (and it doesn't!),
    Didn't seem to bother Canwest owning TEN Network in Australia, or News Corp owning Skynews in Australia.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    the CRTC is not going to sit back and let the Canadian broadcasting industry die,
    You can still enforce Canadian content regulations if a U.S. own (or other country) network wants to open up here in Canada. What you can't do is discriminate ownership based on the owners country of origin like we have now. NAFTA allows ownership restrictions if the law was passed prior to NAFTA coming into effect in 1995, this is why the CRTC and Parliament are dragging their feet over dealing with Netflix as any law passed to bring Over-the-set services inline with ownership restrictions can be shot down by NAFTA. The WTO can shoot down the ownership restrictions, but throwing in appeals that could take up to five years before a final ruling is made.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    although the CRTC can’t force U.S. studios to sell programming to Canadian broadcasters and can’t force U.S. stations from acquiring the Canadian rights to U.S. programming they can eliminate the carriage of U.S. networks on BDU’s if doing so would save the future of the Canadian networks (and they would have all the major cable companies on board).
    We already do force them to sell to Canadian broadcasters, that was the whole point of creating ownership restrictions in the early 70's, Television was the only medium for programming, and if U.S. studios wanted their programming viewed in Canada then they had to sell it to Canadian broadcasters. The idea of eliminating carriage of U.S. networks off of BDUs has been floated around for years, however, unlike cable channels, you can still put up the bunny ears and pick up most of the U.S. networks legally.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    There is no logic in your theory, it has not happened because it would not work and financially wouldn't work for the studios/affiliates/networks.
    When do you need logic when it comes to predicting the possible outcomes of human decision making? You can only call something purely logical when all variables are constantly known. I'm just stateing a theory that could possibly happen, just like your theory that Rogers would pull WIVB if they did ask for FFC.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It's probably the reason why the vast majority of U.S. television stations that broadcast into Canada did not join the lobby group.
    It would be a WIN-WIN for those stations who didn't join. If the "coalition" fails they didn't end up spending a dime, and if they win, they can go apply for FFC by themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    but it's as realistic as BCTV or CFTO asking to be considered a Miami television station, and even then, it wouldn't grant them Canadian rights as those are controlled by the U.S. studios that sell them.
    It's our geography proximity that makes it why we have U.S. stations on the BDU lineup in the first place. They can remove them from the BDU lineup, but it wouldn't stop people from still watching the stations via antenna unless they make watching U.S. stations via antenna illegal.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Let's get ready to rumble!

    Hmmm ...

    Was it a wise move for Canwest to buy controlling interest in Network Ten? How many millions of dollars did Canwest lose on that deal?

    Was it a wise move for Netflix to buy the Canadian rights to 90210 and Mad Men? I think so.

    The biggest initial move by Netflix Canada was acquiring the exclusive Canadian rights for Paramount movies.

    Netflix Canada needed content and it needed to show Canadians that it wasn't going to keep the Canadian version of Netflix in hibernation for too long. Canwest, on the other hand, seemed to be speculating on many of its deals, even though many of them probably weren't worth the risk.

    If WIVB wants to join forces with other U.S. affiliates to wrestle away the Canadian rights to some of the more popular U.S. content, it's going to cost a small fortune. However, if Bell is going to have to compete with more American companies for the Canadian rights to American content, I have to assume that it won't be able to afford as many different shows as it is currently airing. Would Bell have gambled on Arrow, if it instead had to be more careful as to which shows it purchased and how much it offered for the rights?

    If the vertically integrated BDUs eventually decided to dump the majority of the American affiliates from their lineups because the U.S. affiliates kept buying the Canadian rights to some of the less popular programming at inflated prices, would that stop the U.S. affiliates from buying the rights in the future? Would the U.S. affiliates then try to claim that the Canadian BDUs were not playing fair and had to be punished somehow?

    Look at ABC Spark and some of the other Canadian channels that Rogers has still not added to its lineup. Can the CRTC force Rogers to carry ABC Spark? Obviously not, so I don't like WIVB's chances at getting back on the vertically integrated BDUs lineup after it is dumped, should WIVB chose to compete for the Canadian rights to cherished U.S. content.

    It's impossible to know for sure that WIVB and the gang will fail to gain a carriage fee here in Canada, but it does seem rather preposterous that they even made the attempt. You have to wonder how desperate they must be if they were willing to lobby for a Canadian carriage fee after all these years. Advertising dollars aren't as easy to come by as they used to be, but it should be even harder to squeeze out a carriage fee from the vertically integrated BDUs. Perhaps some of the smaller Canadian companies might be willing to pay carriage fees for U.S. affiliates (if they were forced to), but I just don't see the Canadian "big boys" rolling over and playing dead.

    How long would WIVB and any other U.S. affiliate be willing to go without carriage by Canada's major BDUs? If this cash-grab attempt by the "coalition of comedy" somehow succeeds, I have to assume that none of the major Canadian BDUs would bother carrying any baby-carriage affiliate ... even if every single U.S. affiliate was eventually entitled to a carriage fee.

    Yes, WIVB and other U.S. affiliates can be watched with an antenna, but unless a large number of Canadians cancelled their subscriptions, why should Rogers and the other BDUs care that much?
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-26-2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Was it a wise move for Canwest to buy controlling interest in Network Ten? How many millions of dollars did Canwest lose on that deal?
    Network Ten wasn't the death knell of Canwest, they owned the stations since 1992, shortly after the Asper family took full control of Global. What killed Canwest was the buying the National Post and Alliance Atlantis, both on credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Was it a wise move for Netflix to buy the Canadian rights to 90210 and Mad Men? I think so.

    The biggest initial move by Netflix Canada was acquiring the exclusive Canadian rights for Paramount movies.

    Netflix Canada needed content and it needed to show Canadians that it wasn't going to keep the Canadian version of Netflix in hibernation for too long. Canwest, on the other hand, seemed to be speculating on many of its deals, even though many of them probably weren't worth the risk.
    Getting rights to Mad Men I doubt was much trouble seeing that no Canadian cable channel could simulcast on AMC. As for acquiring exclusive rights for Paramount movies isn't much fuss anymore with pay-tv channel, seeing that the bread and butter is airing series like Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, etc is what draws people into pay-ty channels now.


    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    If WIVB wants to join forces with other U.S. affiliates to wrestle away the Canadian rights to some of the more popular U.S. content, it's going to cost a small fortune. However, if Bell is going to have to compete with more American companies for the Canadian rights to American content, I have to assume that it won't be able to afford as many different shows as it is currently airing. Would Bell have gambled on Arrow, if it instead had to be more careful as to which shows it purchased and how much it offered for the rights?
    Of course Bell can outbid anyone, what do you think all those touch tone fees, data overage charges, caps on ISP wholesalers and high priced mobile data plans pay for? Innovation? HA! :biggrin-new:

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    If the vertically integrated BDUs eventually decided to dump the majority of the American affiliates from their lineups because the U.S. affiliates kept buying the Canadian rights to some of the less popular programming at inflated prices, would that stop the U.S. affiliates from buying the rights in the future? Would the U.S. affiliates then try to claim that the Canadian BDUs were not playing fair and had to be punished somehow?
    Wasn't that the whole point of getting the power to blackout programming if a station could come to agreement with a BDU provider over carriage fees?

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    should WIVB chose to compete for the Canadian rights to cherished U.S. content.
    Your in a market that shrinking every year, you've pretty much hit the ceiling on carriage fees you can squeeze from Buffalo BDU subscribers and advertisers will be questing the rates your charging them is fair seeing that you're losing eyeballs, but your next door to a very large and growing market that you can not only get FFC, but sell advertising as well. So what do you do? You try to cash out on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    It's impossible to know for sure that WIVB and the gang will fail to gain a carriage fee here in Canada, but it does seem rather preposterous that they even made the attempt. You have to wonder how desperate they must be if they were willing to lobby for a Canadian carriage fee after all these years. Advertising dollars aren't as easy to come by as they used to be, but it should be even harder to squeeze out a carriage fee from the vertically integrated BDUs. Perhaps some of the smaller Canadian companies might be willing to pay carriage fees for U.S. affiliates (if they were forced to), but I just don't see the Canadian "big boys" rolling over and playing dead.
    Advertising in major cities is still decent, and I doubt WIVB owners didn't think about the possibility of Canadian BDUs kicking them off the dial if they could ask for carriage fees without sort of plan to keep them on the dial.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Yes, WIVB and other U.S. affiliates can be watched with an antenna, but unless a large number of Canadians cancelled their subscriptions, why should Rogers and the other BDUs care that much?
    If U.S. affiliates did disappear from BDU lineups I doubt it would have much impact on subscriptions. However the Canadian networks would be a different story; if Canadian networks kept their programming schedule in sync with their American counterparts there shouldn't be a problem, but if they decide to get greedy, and we know they're capable, and air shows out a day or more out of sync then it could get people to realize that you can pick up HDTV OTA U.S. channels for free. I doubt there would be a mass cancellation of BDU subscriptions; I could see people would just flip between their cable box via HDMI and their antenna.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Getting rights to Mad Men I doubt was much trouble seeing that no Canadian cable channel could simulcast on AMC.
    Wasn't that show programmed on Bravo! ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    If U.S. affiliates did disappear from BDU lineups I doubt it would have much impact on subscriptions. However the Canadian networks would be a different story; if Canadian networks kept their programming schedule in sync with their American counterparts there shouldn't be a problem, but if they decide to get greedy, and we know they're capable, and air shows out a day or more out of sync then it could get people to realize that you can pick up HDTV OTA U.S. channels for free. I doubt there would be a mass cancellation of BDU subscriptions; I could see people would just flip between their cable box via HDMI and their antenna.
    Harsh reality.
    In the event of US networks being removed from BDUs lineup, Canadian broadcasters will have no more reason anymore to hold a "simulcast" schedule. In fact, back to the Fee-for-carriage CRTC audience, broadcasters complained that they can't have a flexible schedule that allows them to air more original canadian series and shows, as viewers are watching the US networks when they can't simsub in order to air a mandatory canadian show. In reality, CTV have been able to simsub "The Amazing Race" with CBS only twice since september due to football overruns, and every week it's been the #3 most watched show all along according to BBM ratings, while canadian original Flashpoint (thursday 10pm) made the Top 20 every single week.

    Back to the point, with 93% of cable/satellite subscribers and without US networks distribution, canadian broadcasters can air any show they want whenever they want. They'll still outbid each other on new shows and shelf them if ratings aren't good (see "Nikita").

    In the event that they're granted permission to blackout any US networks solely based on "exclusive canadian broadcast rights", then it goes a step beyond: CTV can just schedule first-run shows on specialty channels, for example "The Mentalist" on Bravo! and "Nashville" on MuchMoreMusic, and still get blackout rights, forcing canadian to subscribe to additional specialties (or shelf the shows indefinately), AND they'll have to fill up CTV1 and CTV2 by buying even more shows.

    *sigh*
    "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."

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    http://jamesbawden.blogspot.ca/2012/...nadian-tv.html

    And in the case of Mad Men there has been no Canadian sale --CTV dropped out after the first few seasons because it was over its quota of U.S. imports.
    But yes, if you can't simulcast Mad Men, it certainly makes it an easier decision to dump it.

    If Netflix starts bidding for more film studio rights, TMN will have to bid higher for what it wants. TMN can't drop all of its movies and just run the TV series stuff, so think of that Paramount rights purchase as a warning shot.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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