Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59248]

    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,
    It's so hard to tell when you are being sarcastic. They only air American programming 45% of the time, 55% of their overall schedule is Canadian. I do believe that their programming (both Canadian and American) provides value and that they should be allowed to negotiate a value for their programming with cable and satellite companies.

    and Citytv should back off american programming and deserve nothing as they compete against Global.
    I have no problem with Citytv airing U.S. programming and have no problem with Citytv being allowed to negotiate a value for their signal.

    US networks deserve no money at all, a big zero, because ALL of their shows air on canadian networks
    Yes, they do not own the Canadian broadcast rights to any of their U.S. programs and should not be allowed to make money off programming they don't own the rights to.

    and should be pulled out canadian BDUs.
    I'm not saying they should be pulled, just that 100% protecting their programming rights would technically be the fair thing to do.

    Damnit, I did not mean RIGHT NOW, I meant once they'll be able to negociate. Still, you bring up something else...

    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.
    I don't think it's fair for any U.S. OTA stations to make money off programming they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to.

    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?
    U.S. BDU's are not paying Canadian channels carriage fees.

    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.
    They wont have to commit to that, but no Canadian company is asking to have U.S. stations pulled in Canada. I'm just saying there is nothing fair with allowing U.S. stations to broadcast any non-local programming in Canada, so don't tell me that U.S. stations are being treated unfairly, they benefit from the CRTC's regulations which are unfair to local Canadian stations.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    For the american part, that's in "theory". BDUs just provide the neighbour market's affiliate (which belongs to another company) until it's resolved. They can do this because, unlike Canada, not all local stations are O&O.

    The CRTC recommends to keep the signal intact until the problem is resolved, or they'll mediate it themselves. Otherwise, Bhell Media could pull all its conventional and specialties, and say "If you want to watch our channels, call 310-bell" AND force those BDUs to blackout all of their acquired programming on US channels, not to forget that Bhell Media outbids programming from its competitors in order to fill in CTV2 schedule. Huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They wont have to commit to that, but no Canadian company is asking to have U.S. stations pulled in Canada. I'm just saying there is nothing fair with allowing U.S. stations to broadcast any non-local programming in Canada.
    OK, let's take Montreal market as an example. We have full CTV and full Global local stations, and 1/3 of Citytv programming.

    CTV, who owns the exclusive canadian broadcast rights to shows Fox's The Mob Doctor and CBS's The Mentalist, will dump both shows to CTV Two next sunday so they can simulcast an award show on ABC, without rescheduling those episodes later in the week. Citytv Montreal cannot broadcast Fox's tuesday night of comedies. Bell Media and Rogers Media owns the exclusive broadcast rights to those shows, but the ONLY broadcaster while will actually air those above-mentionned shows in the Montreal market doesn't deserve one single penny, in your humble opinion. And next thing you know, you are strongly opposed to a local CTV2 signal in the market in order to protect money-losing CKMI (Global) from losing more local advertisement money, and you're strongly opposed to CJNT becoming a full-time Citytv station for the same reasons. I don't really follow your logic.

    In other words, why should my inflated cable bill pay for the local CTV station who can't commit to air all NEW episodes of The Mentalist on their station, but that same inflated cable bill will pay zero to the cross-border CBS station who actually commit to air the damn show?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 11-15-2012 at 06:00 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."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    Ok, I know what you mean now, allow Canadian networks to block out U.S. locals even if the same program and episode air at different times. That idea has been bounced around over the years in different forms, like finally ridding Canadian BDU's access to U.S. locals. However why this hasn't happen is because there are two inherited flaws; the first being, in theory, Citytv, CTV or Global can buy all new fall season shows from all four U.S. networks leaving the other two Canadian networks with nothing because they can air the whole lineup over the course of a year without worry of viewers switching to the U.S. locals. The second being, it wouldn't stop viewers from buying digital antennas and picking up the U.S locals like CBS if CTV lets say decides to air The Big Bang Theory a week after it airs in the U.S.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59265]

    For the american part, that's in "theory". BDUs just provide the neighbour market's affiliate (which belongs to another company) until it's resolved. They can do this because, unlike Canada, not all local stations are O&O.
    Wrong. Cable/satellite companies are NOT allowed to bring into stations from another market into the local market if the local station has pulled its signal.

    The CRTC recommends to keep the signal intact until the problem is resolved, or they'll mediate it themselves. Otherwise, Bhell Media could pull all its conventional and specialties, and say "If you want to watch our channels, call 310-bell" AND force those BDUs to blackout all of their acquired programming on US channels, not to forget that Bhell Media outbids programming from its competitors in order to fill in CTV2 schedule. Huh.

    The value for signal regime approved by the CRTC allowed local stations to pull their signals, this however conflicts with the CRTC's vertical integration rules prohibiting vertically integrated broadcasters from pulling their signals, so if the BDU's lose their appeal and the CRTC implements a Value for Signal regime it's likely the CRTC will apply rules similar to the current regulations for specialty channels, which results in arbitration as opposed to pulling signals.

    OK, let's take Montreal market as an example. We have full CTV and full Global local stations, and 1/3 of Citytv programming.

    CTV, who owns the exclusive canadian broadcast rights to shows Fox's The Mob Doctor and CBS's The Mentalist, will dump both shows to CTV Two next sunday so they can simulcast an award show on ABC, without rescheduling those episodes later in the week. Citytv Montreal cannot broadcast Fox's tuesday night of comedies. Bell Media and Rogers Media owns the exclusive broadcast rights to those shows, but the ONLY broadcaster while will actually air those above-mentionned shows in the Montreal market doesn't deserve one single penny, in your humble opinion. And next thing you know, you are strongly opposed to a local CTV2 signal in the market in order to protect money-losing CKMI (Global) from losing more local advertisement money, and you're strongly opposed to CJNT becoming a full-time Citytv station for the same reasons. I don't really follow your logic.

    In other words, why should my inflated cable bill pay for the local CTV station who can't commit to air all NEW episodes of The Mentalist on their station, but that same inflated cable bill will pay zero to the cross-border CBS station who actually commit to air the damn show?
    Because CTV owns the Canadian broadcast rights to the program, the local CBS affiliate does not. They did not pay for the Canadian broadcast rights and should not make money off something they don't own.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    The inflated cable/satellite bills pay for ALL of the stations that are part of our packages. If we don't have WIVB and CTV1+2 (both in HD) as part of our basic cable package, then yes, we would be getting royally screwed. However, since I'm going to assume that the majority of Canadians have all 3 stations as part of their basic cable packages, it doesn't really matter what dumping game CTV is playing each week, simply because if you pay for cable/satellite you should be able to see all of the CTV programming on basic cable (and often repeated on Bell's specialty channels).

    OTA is a bonus feature that varies from area to area. I can't pick up CTV2 with my antenna, but that's my problem, not CTV's (because they are sneaky bastards).

    If WIVB isn't happy with the way things are, it should be complaining to CBS, not us. CBS sells Canada the programming rights and we air it as we see fit. WIVB is trying to double-dip. Nice try, but unless there are some technical issues that make switching to another CBS affiliate too difficult or too expensive, we'll be okay with Rochester's CBS feed, or whatever is chosen.

    If countries decide to make friendly agreements with each other, even though there are no laws that say they have to do anything, that's also fine with me. But unless the Americans are forced to pay carriage fees for our Canadian channels, we shouldn't be asked to pay carriage fees for the American channels. It doesn't matter what value, if any, our Canadian channels offer the Americans; all that matters is that some of our Canadian channels are being aired in the States without being asked to pay any carriage fees (as far as I know, anyway).

    Yes, the American stations definitely add value to our cable/satellite packages, but that doesn't mean they deserve the right to double-dip. After all, instead of listening to them whine, we can always throw them out on their asses and bring in the replacements.

    Perhaps Bell will one day buy the Buffalo Bills and then refuse to allow WIVB to air any of the games. If you mess with Bell, you'll often get Al Gored by the horns (or whatever the saying is).
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-16-2012 at 12:39 AM.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    The inflated cable/satellite bills pay for ALL of the stations that are part of our packages. If we don't have WIVB and CTV1+2 (both in HD) as part of our basic cable package, then yes, we would be getting royally screwed. However, since I'm going to assume that the majority of Canadians have all 3 stations as part of their basic cable packages, it doesn't really matter what dumping game CTV is playing each week, simply because if you pay for cable/satellite you should be able to see all of the CTV programming on basic cable (and often repeated on Bell's specialty channels).

    OTA is a bonus feature that varies from area to area. I can't pick up CTV2 with my antenna, but that's my problem, not CTV's (because they are sneaky bastards).
    I don't know where you're from, but the main OTA signal is what defines a LOCAL station in a market and a conventional channel, and that is what grants them simsub rights. Since all four major canadian networks are owned by a BDU (Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Vidéotron), this is even more important than ever.

    With fee-for-carriage, conventional networks will be just like specialties: receiving subscription revenues and national advertisements, plus local advertisements.
    - Vidéotron decided not to distribute CHRO-DT (CTV Two Ottawa) in Quebec province except in the Outaouais area (Gatineau-Hull is across the bridge from Ottawa).
    - Shaw Cable decided to distribute CHRO-DT in a Timeshift package in Winnipeg, MB, but not in Saskatoon, SK.
    - There are no CTV Two station in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and there are no over-the-air signal of CTV Two stations in Alberta and Halifax.
    - For some cable providers, american networks are on basic service, and for others, it's in a package for an extra fee.

    With that knowledge, you are still fine with CTV stations in those markets (SK, MB, QC) shifting programming to a non-existent CTV Two station in that market?
    I mean, look at Boston market. When WBZ-TV CBS affiliate cannot program CBS network shows, they dump it on sister channel WSBK-TV (MyNetworkTV). When WGN-TV (The CW Chicago) cannot program CW network shows, they reprogram shows on saturday or sunday night. That is called being responsible.

    What CTV does with their swapping/dumping shows with CTV2 practice is, "Too bad you don't live in Toronto or Vancouver, too bad you're not a Bell TV customer, just watch the show on the US network or on our website!". Just so irresponsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Yes, the American stations definitely add value to our cable/satellite packages, but that doesn't mean they deserve the right to double-dip.
    Double-dip? HUH ?!?!

    WIVB-TV belongs to LIN TV Corporation, as a CBS affiliate. It's not an O&O station. If LIN asks fee-for-carriage, THEY receive the money, not CBS.

    And TVViewer already explained to us how it works: Canadian networks buy programming from their producing company, not from their distributor. And there are rules: Certain shows are allowed to air in pre-release, others must air either in simulcast or later, if the network apply changes to an episode, canadian network must air the final version, if the network cancels the show, canadian network must cease broadcasting it, and so on...

    I don't see the double-dip theory here.
    "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."

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Wrong. Cable/satellite companies are NOT allowed to bring into stations from another market into the local market if the local station has pulled its signal.
    LOL. That's why I said "in theory". That rule ain't followed by the letter.
    On December 16, 2010, WNYF began to be seen on Time Warner Cable systems in the Burlington, Vermont/Plattsburgh, New York market after the provider dropped that area's affiliate WFFF-TV because of an ongoing retransmission dispute. The dispute was eventually resolved and the home station was added back to the system.
    With time to spare, I could find other examples...

    Note to self: At this point, TVViewer is in mode of repeating over and over the same sentence, which normally happens when there's a good point but you cannot agree with it...
    "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. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon13 Border Wars ... the fight for fair and unbalanced programming.

    @ InMontreal: That's a lot of useful information, I'm just not smart enough to digest it all in one sitting.

    The dumping of programming to sister stations (NBC Seattle's KING TV dumps to KONG TV, but we don't have KONG TV here) is always annoying, but since CTV2 isn't distributed as well as I thought it was, it does look like many Canadians are getting royally screwed.

    I still think of WIVB as a double-dipper because its an OTA channel that gets carriage fees from American companies, and now it wants them from Canadian companies too (due to a rule change). I don't care who owns WIVB. It's an American company trying to muscle its way into our imperfect system of distributing American content. Canada chooses the American programming it wants to buy and then uses WIVB as a simsub pawn. Netflix is also an American company, but it found a nice loophole called the Internet which let it "invade" Canada and provide a valuable and affordable service that many Canadians happily pay for. Until WIVB figures out a way to sell itself to Canadians without the need of our BDUs, I don't see how it will be successful in its bid to extort a carriage fee from Canadian BDUs.

    If more BDUs suddenly put all the US networks into a separate package, that might make it easier for WIVB and other US affiliates to influence the Canadian BDUs into some kind of financial arrangement. However, since the US networks are simsubbed to death, how many Canadians would actually be willing to pay an extra fee to watch them (especially since OTA viewing is an option for many of us)?

    If the producers of US content continue to sell the Canadian rights to Bell and the gang, that's bad news for WIVB. After the majority of WIVB's US content is purchased, how much is the rest of the WIVB content worth? A penny a subscriber? I think it's worth much more than that, but as long as I have the Internet and OTA to fall back on, I don't need WIVB through a BDU. However, if the US networks were eventually pulled from Canadian BDUs to avoid paying carriage fees, how much financial damage would that cause Bell and the gang? And would the average Canadian viewer accept such a major change without first cancelling their cable/satellite service to protest such a drastic move?

    How long until we see anything change? Perhaps when pigs fly and Hell freezes over?
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59278]

    LOL. That's why I said "in theory". That rule ain't followed by the letter.

    With time to spare, I could find other examples...
    These are extremely rare EXCEPTIONS which have a number of special circumstances, It is kind of funny though that you think U.S. cable providers actually have the ability to bring in distant signals yet choose to lose network programming and the subscribers they lose with it.

    Note to self: At this point, TVViewer is in mode of repeating over and over the same sentence, which normally happens when there's a good point but you cannot agree with it...
    Yeah, because allowing stations to make money off programming they don't own the rights to is such a good argument. Do you make money off stuff you have not paid for? That would explain your position.

    That's not my favorite though, my favorite argument of yours is this one "If American networks want fee-for-carriage from Canadian BDUs, Canadian networks should lose their simsub rights", makes so much sense, Canadian broadcasters spent millions purchasing the exclusive Canadian broadcast rights to this programming, so let's give money to stations that paid nothing for the Canadian rights while at the same time fully unprotect the broadcast rights of the Canadian station that actually paid for them! How could anyone disagree with such a logical argument!
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-16-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    186
    Global just airs "ET Canada and 16x9 and Bomb Girls and The Guard reruns".

    Wow, I can't believe I've been missing all this on Global! What an amazing lineup!

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Renforth View Post
    Global just airs "ET Canada and 16x9 and Bomb Girls and The Guard reruns".

    Wow, I can't believe I've been missing all this on Global! What an amazing lineup!
    I think you missed the point, WIVB is worthless station in the Toronto market, even more worthless than CTV2. Even with a grey market dish, it would be more worth watching WCBS from New York, than watching the same shows on WIVB.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    These are extremely rare EXCEPTIONS which have a number of special circumstances, It is kind of funny though that you think U.S. cable providers actually have the ability to bring in distant signals yet choose to lose network programming and the subscribers they lose with it.
    It's funny that you think it would be fair for Bell to pull its signals from its competitors if they can't reach a fee-for-carriage agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yeah, because allowing stations to make money off programming they don't own the rights to is such a good argument.
    So tell me, why is it that Spike, TLC, CNN, BET, A&E, Speed, Golf, GSN, and so on, are all getting paid without being bother with annoying simsubs? Are they paying for exclusive canadian broadcast rights? No. They get paid anyways.
    Why is it that you assume that 100% of american network programming is being covered by a canadian network in every market? Because you live in Toronto? It's not the center of the planet.

    See, when we started talking about fee-for-carriage, I was strongly opposed to it as it will screw up the whole system. Now that the CRTC reluctantly agrees to it, you are opposed to half of its purpose. Huh. Us but not them. Pay the squatter networks but not the originating network.
    "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."

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Recap

    Let's summarize this thread:

    TVViewer
    has already covered most of the angles and possibilities regarding this issue and it's very hard to find any holes in his logic. However, InMontreal appears to be making some headway into turning things around to perhaps slightly favour WIVB's stance (unless TVViewer finds a way to counter his points).

    TVViewer has already mentioned that he feels that WIVB offers us little value because the vast majority (he didn't say ALL) of its popular programming is already carried on Canadian stations and since WIVB only owns the rights for its local newscasts, it shouldn't get a carriage fee.

    Mayhem mentioned that:
    "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."
    But TVViewer disagrees with that statement (I'm not sure why).

    TVViewer
    has also already mentioned that:
    "the value for signal regime approved by the CRTC allowed local stations to pull their signals, this however conflicts with the CRTC's vertical integration rules prohibiting vertically integrated broadcasters from pulling their signals, so if the BDU's lose their appeal and the CRTC implements a Value for Signal regime it's likely the CRTC will apply rules similar to the current regulations for specialty channels, which results in arbitration as opposed to pulling signals".
    And InMontreal bursts the CTV2 coverage bubble by exposing some major flaws with its area of service.

    So, for some areas of Canada, WIVB has enough value to deserve a carriage fee in Canada, simply because CTV2 (and perhaps other Canadian stations) is used as a dumping ground far too often ... thus depriving parts of Canada from many of the major US content that my Toronto area is privy too (without having to use any Satellite service or the Internet).

    If WIVB goes to the CRTC and focuses on CTV2's somewhat limited reach into parts of Canada, that might get the CRTC to at least consider WIVB's proposal for a carriage fee, unless Bell is willing to improve CTV2's reach.

    Taking away CTV2's simsub rights until it somehow increased its reach into more Canadian cities, might be a good way to penalize Bell for carrying too much US content that it simply can't fit onto its main CTV1 network.

    Unfortunately, the CRTC knows that Bell can't force Videotron or other BDUs to add CTV2 to their lineups (even if Bell negotiates in good faith), just because it carries some valuable US programming that CTV1 decides to dump to CTV2 (with only the odd opportunity to watch a repeat of the first-run CTV2 programming at a later date).

    So, even though CTV is using its big bucks to manipulate the market with its CTV2 dumping manoeuvre (I hope this is the correct Canadian spelling of this stupid word), the CRTC will just sit idly by and do nothing but look the other way.

    Finally, I'm going to assume that TVViewer might crush the WIVB/WDIV etc. complaints by reiterating that WIVB is not seeking a fee-for-carraige, but rather the consent and remuneration rights under Canada’s new distant station re-transmission regime. Good luck with that.

    “It is regrettable that imported U.S. TV stations are denied consent and remuneration rights under Canada’s new distant station re-transmission regime,” said Marla Drutz, Vice President and General Manager of WDIV-TV in Detroit, Michigan.
    And InMontreal might mention that he's talking about the time when Canadian (conventional) stations will soon be allowed to ask for a fee-for-carriage (because it's apparently coming soon to a BDU near us) and also ask why WSBK, WGN, WPIX, KTLA, Spike, Speed, etc., get paid, but WIVB doesn't?

    We know that Speed gets blacked out when TSN owns the Canadian rights to something (or makes some kind of secret gentleman's agreement to avoid conflicts whenever possible), and we know that Spike gets alternate programming substituted in when Canadian rights for US content are held by a Canadian channel, or something like that (obviously I know nothing).

    TVViewer doesn't believe any US OTA station should be paid for content that it doesn't own the Canadian rights to, while some of us feel that there's still enough fairly popular content (such as NCAA football and even a few network TV shows) on WIVB that would warrant a carriage fee over here.

    And finally, I believe that stealing signals is only fair when I do it (just kidding ... no, I'm not).

    I'm sure I left a few things out, but I hope I got most of it.

    Edit: I obviously left out the fact that since only 5 US stations are complaining at the moment, it should be easy to replace them with other US affiliates, should the need ever arise (assuming that the CRTC agrees with TVViewer).

    Oh, and even though CTV2 is available through my cable provider (Rogers), I still can't watch it with my indoor antenna.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 11-17-2012 at 04:24 AM.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    If there was a "Like" button on your message, I'd click it.

    Spike turns on the "canadian feed" for a limited library of movies, but not all. For example, tonight movies lineup remains intact, but tomorrow night, "Independence Day" movie airs 2 times back-to-back in the US but is being replaced on the canadian feed. Anyways, it looks complicated.

    After 40+ years, Canadian broadcast system will need to be reviewed and changed accordingly. In a probable future, it would be ridiculous that all channels on a BDU (except barker and fireplace/aquarium channels) will receive subscription revenues for their content except the 4 major US networks. Some of us will agree that they still have value, depending on the network and BDU. For example, if you're into football, well, CTV air the sunday 1pm game but never the CBS 4pm game, and no broadcast network air the Sunday night football on NBC in simulcast. New England stations will air games of N-E teams, while Detroit will air Michigan teams games, so in the end, a neighbor US station are more relevant than "a random US network" that TVViewer proposed. Football games are expensive to produce, why would canadians BDU subscribers get a free ride while american BDU subscribers are paying for the same content?

    If Canadian BDUs start paying authorized US stations in fairness, we'll have to put everything back into question. Many BDUs already place US networks on basic service, but to avoid an inflated basic service fee, they'll have to move them on a seperate package, but on the other hand, paying subscribers will complain about the huge amount of simsubs (especially in Toronto), considering the price they're paying. But if a local CTV station cannot commit to air all new episodes of specific shows in their respective market, BDU subscribers in those markets will NEED the reliable US networks if they want to watch their shows in continuity or those football games. All in all, a major change in logistics will need to be done.

    That's one of the reasons why I was opposed to fee-for-carriage in the first place.
    "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."

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;59288]

    It's funny that you think it would be fair for Bell to pull its signals from its competitors if they can't reach a fee-for-carriage agreement.
    It's funny that you think cable and satellite companies wont be able to reach an agreement to carry the #1 most watched channel in the country. It's not in the best interest of Bell for Bell Media to pull CTV's signal from Bell's competitors, it's in the best interest of both the cable company and CTV to reach an agreement without pulling the channel from their lineup. They both lose if CTV's signal is pulled.

    So tell me, why is it that Spike, TLC, CNN, BET, A&E, Speed, Golf, GSN, and so on, are all getting paid without being bother with annoying simsubs? Are they paying for exclusive canadian broadcast rights? No. They get paid anyways.

    It's not the same thing. These networks have international rights for most of the programming they commission/produce. They don't need to buy the Canadian broadcast rights to their own original programming. When they schedule a program or movie that they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights for they broadcast alternate programming on the Canadian feed. If local U.S. stations only broadcast the local news they produce then yes it would be a fair comparison, and if the local news they produce provided value to the Canadian cable/satellite company package then yes they should receive a carriage fee. But we both know that the local news provides little value to Canadian cable/satellite companies, the only programming that provides value is the programming they don't own the Canadian broadcast rights to. Those shows belong to Bell Media, Shaw Media, and Rogers Media, they bought the rights to air them in Canada, the U.S. locals did not.


    Why is it that you assume that 100% of american network programming is being covered by a canadian network in every market? Because you live in Toronto? It's not the center of the planet.

    It doesn't matter if CTV Two and Citytv don't have stations in every Canadian market. Bell Media and Rogers Media own the exclusive broadcast rights to that programming in Canada, the U.S. station does not, so just because you can view that programming on the non-local U.S. station does not mean that they should be able to make money off programming they don't own the broadcast rights to.

    See, when we started talking about fee-for-carriage, I was strongly opposed to it as it will screw up the whole system. Now that the CRTC reluctantly agrees to it,
    3 small broadcasters started a lobby group and sent out... wait for it... a press release asking for the CRTC to impose regulations on stations they don't regulate! What a disaster, will the industry ever recover now?

    You are forgetting that U.S. stations are not local Canadian stations, they are distant U.S. signals, the 3 U.S. stations sent out a press release because distant signals are able to negotiate a fee, this has nothing to do with Value for Signal for local Canadian stations.

    you are opposed to half of its purpose. Huh.
    Value for Signal is for local stations that produce and/or own programming of value. U.S. stations do not own the Canadian rights to any programming of value.

    Us but not them. Pay the squatter networks but not the originating network.

    It's more like, pay the local station that purchased and owns the local broadcast rights and not pay the non-local U.S. station that did not purchase and does not own the local broadcast rights.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-17-2012 at 08:19 PM.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=PokerFace;59292]Let's summarize this thread:

    [QUOTE]
    TVViewer has already covered most of the angles and possibilities regarding this issue and it's very hard to find any holes in his logic. However, InMontreal appears to be making some headway into turning things around to perhaps slightly favour WIVB's stance (unless TVViewer finds a way to counter his points).
    He has still yet to realistically justify why local U.S. stations should make money off programming they don't own.

    TVViewer has already mentioned that he feels that WIVB offers us little value because the vast majority (he didn't say ALL) of its popular programming is already carried on Canadian stations and since WIVB only owns the rights for its local newscasts, it shouldn't get a carriage fee.
    Only their local programming should count towards their value. That's the only programming they own.

    And InMontreal bursts the CTV2 coverage bubble by exposing some major flaws with its area of service.
    But here's the thing, Bell Media has purchased national, Canada-wide broadcast rights to all of CTV Two's U.S. programming, Rogers Media has done the same thing with Citytv's programming. Even though CTV Two doesn't have an over-the-air transmitter in Montreal it doesn't change the fact that Bell Media owns the rights to all of that programming in the market.


    I'm sure I left a few things out, but I hope I got most of it.

    Back in 2009, well before Bell bought CTV and Shaw bought Global, carriage fees were essential to the future of local television in Canada, thousands of jobs were on the line and massive programming cutbacks, job layoffs, and station closures were already happening, yet InMontreal was strongly against carriage fees for Canadian locals, even though at the time it was necessary to save thousands of jobs and local news for millions of viewers, at the time he was a cable subscriber and i'm assuming didn't want his cable bill to increase (even though the amount would be extremely small) but he has apparently cancelled his cable subscription, so any carriage fees for Canadian locals will have zero effect on him, yet for whatever reason he is still hell bent on trying to convince people how horrible it will be for cable and satellite companies to actually pay the local Canadian stations that provide them with the most watched programming in the country, and threads like this are a perfect example of this, what the U.S. locals want has nothing to do with Value for Signal for Canadian locals, it's related to distant signals, and the chances of this actually happening are extremely slim, yet his first post makes it sound like a done deal and blaming it on value for signal for local stations, even listing the price each station will get. In my opinion he is just grasping at straws to try and rationalize why he was against something that was necessary to save thousands of jobs and local news to millions of viewers.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-17-2012 at 08:00 PM.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post

    If Canadian BDUs start paying authorized US stations in fairness, we'll have to put everything back into question. Many BDUs already place US networks on basic service, but to avoid an inflated basic service fee, they'll have to move them on a seperate package, but on the other hand, paying subscribers will complain about the huge amount of simsubs (especially in Toronto), considering the price they're paying. But if a local CTV station cannot commit to air all new episodes of specific shows in their respective market, BDU subscribers in those markets will NEED the reliable US networks if they want to watch their shows in continuity or those football games. All in all, a major change in logistics will need to be done.

    That's one of the reasons why I was opposed to fee-for-carriage in the first place.
    You were against Fee for carriage, and then value for signal for Canadian local stations (despite the fact that it was needed to save thousands of jobs) U.S. stations are not local stations in Canada, they are distant signals, they are asking for fees because distant Canadian signals are allowed to negotiate. So if the CRTC approves Value for Signal for LOCAL stations, there would be nothing "fair" with granting U.S. stations the same, because they are not local stations, they are distant out of market stations. You are incorrectly linking Value for Signal for Canadian locals to what these 3 U.S. broadcasters are asking for, when they are totally unrelated.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 11-17-2012 at 08:13 PM.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon12 Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

    InMontreal doesn't have to work very hard to convince people that our system needs a major overhaul. It seems he's just trying to work all the angles to get rid of the simsubs.

    If I wanted to help support 100 homeless people for one month, by paying for their food and shelter, I couldn't do it unless perhaps I started stealing American content and then started selling it. I would be breaking the law, but I would also be perhaps saving the lives of 100 people. If I made enough of a profit, I might then be able to start a business and employ each of those 100 people. As long as I'm creating jobs, the CRTC will just look the other way and also grant me simsub rights as long as I hand out free antennas to each of my 100 employees.

    BDUs aren't breaking any laws by redistributing WIVB to millions of Canadians, and it's easy to argue that WIVB already benefits from this arrangement because of the extra exposure that it receives, which should help increase its advertising opportunities (which has already been mentioned several times).

    I certainly don't expect a rag-tag group of five misfits, calling themselves the US Television Coalition, to be able to change much of anything, however, Rocky was just one man, with only a handful of supporters and look what he was able to accomplish. Have you guys seen Expendables​ 2? Rocky can mumble with the best of them. :boxing:

    And just because our BDUs aren't breaking any laws by distributing WIVB (etc.) without paying it a single penny, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. How do you think the employees of WIVB feel about getting the cold shoulder from Canada? Perhaps advertising dollars are not enough to save WIVB's local news ... how about handing over some of that juicy simsub money to WIVB?

    If it wasn't for this website, I'd rarely know which Canadian channel to tune to in order to watch much of the U.S. content that gets shifted and dumped all over the place. WIVB adds a safety net that often makes it easier to find first-run episodes of Criminal Minds, etc. (Note: You can see this week's Criminal Minds on CTV, a full day earlier than WIVB airs it, unless Rubin Hurricane Carter hits Toronto, which means that Criminal Minds will be replaced with a very special episode of E! Talk [co-starring Ben Mold Roney]).

    We need CTV and CTV2, not necessarily because they both offer U.S. network programming, but rather because they offer us programming that is only available on the U.S. channels that we don't have easy access to, such as: TNT, USA, (the real) Lifetime and a host of other channels.

    Netflix bought the Canadian broadcast rights for Paramount's movies, but I doubt that the U.S. Television Coalition can come up with a logical reason for them to pool their money, so that they can purchase the Canadian broadcast rights to anything (assuming that they would even be allowed to do such a thing, or even wanted to). Until that time comes (never say never), we're going to be stuck with simsubs. It would be funny if all the American stations were somehow able to secure all of the Canadian broadcast rights for every American network program, and then charge the Canadian stations a simsub fee for the right to simsub. That small simsub fee could be enough to allow each WIVB employee the chance to buy Bills' season tickets and even go to a few Sabres' games (assuming that the NHL lockout eventually ends).

    This just in ... WIVB has changed its call sign to PITA (pain in the ass) and has now demanded that the Canadian BDUs pay them a baby-carriage fee. The more whining WIVB does, the higher that fee will go. Better pay them now. WIVB is also urging all Canadians with cable/satellite service within WIVB's broadcast region, to immediately cancel their cable/satellite service until this dispute is settled.

    First comes love, then comes marriage ... then comes WIVB in a baby carriage.

    Waaaaa ... Waaaaaa ... I want my money!
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It's funny that you think cable and satellite companies wont be able to reach an agreement to carry the #1 most watched channel in the country. It's not in the best interest of Bell for Bell Media to pull CTV's signal from Bell's competitors, it's in the best interest of both the cable company and CTV to reach an agreement without pulling the channel from their lineup. They both lose if CTV's signal is pulled.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It's not the same thing. These networks have international rights for most of the programming they commission/produce. They don't need to buy the Canadian broadcast rights to their own original programming.
    There. Duly noted. Retain for the next part...
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It doesn't matter if CTV Two and Citytv don't have stations in every Canadian market. Bell Media and Rogers Media own the exclusive broadcast rights to that programming in Canada, the U.S. station does not (...) Value for Signal is for local stations that produce and/or own programming of value. U.S. stations do not own the Canadian rights to any programming of value.
    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.

    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 ?

    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"?

    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?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 11-18-2012 at 12:52 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. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    it's easy to argue that WIVB already benefits from this arrangement because of the extra exposure that it receives, which should help increase its advertising opportunities (which has already been mentioned several times).
    If our BDU's wanted to, they could easily kill the "U.S. television coalition" overnight by totally eliminating Canadian carriage of these 5 stations. They just need to replace the 5 stations with affiliates from other markets. They don't even need to pull all 5 stations to send a message, they could start with just pulling WIVB (and WNLO), if all the southern Ontario cable providers replaced WIVB with a CBS affiliate from another market they would wipe out WIVB's carriage in Canada, WIVB already has no carriage on Shaw Direct or Bell TV, so all Rogers and the other southern Ontario cable providers need to do is replace the station with the CBS affiliate in Detroit (carried by Shaw Direct) or the CBS affiliate in Boston (carried by Bell), Not only would this mean WIVB would be the only Buffalo station with no carriage in the Toronto market, but it would be hard for LIN TV to justify funding a lobby group lobbying for carriage fees from Canadian BDU's when none of their stations have any carriage in Canada. It would also send a message to the vast majority of television stations that didn't join, start a lobby group and you lose carriage in Canada. It's a big enough risk to spend money to join a lobby group asking for something so unlikely, it's an even bigger risk if the result of simply joining the group results in you losing 100% of your carriage in Canada.

    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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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