Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register

View Poll Results: Would you support another revenue stream (eg tax,fee,etc) for private own stations?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we need to keep them going.

    5 71.43%
  • No, let them all close down if they can't avoid losing money.

    2 28.57%
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,036

    OTA - Keep it alive or let it go?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle28100588/
    Though almost no one disputes the importance of local news and programming to Canadian communities ...
    ... warned some channels could be shuttered altogether without a new revenue stream to support them.
    ... The CRTC has scheduled an eight-day hearing into local television starting Jan. 25, and it is increasingly clear something needs to change.
    Let me be the "almost no one". How much importance do they really have now? It's 2016, not 1976. I still use an antenna occasionally to watch the U.S. broadcast networks, but really it's only out of laziness since I know I could find everything I want on the internet.
    It's not as though local news evaporates completely without the Ron Burgundy types giving it to us at 6 and 11 pm.

    For regional and local news, there is still the CBC (I'm assuming they will continue with all or most of their OTA stations), radio, websites (including the ones of local newspapers and radio), and a smartphone video camera in almost everyone's pocket today.
    And of course any other worthwhile programming and content would continue on other platforms.

    If the outdated medium of broadcast TV stations can't reduce their expenses enough to keep up with disappearing advertising revenue, should the rest of us be forced to pay more taxes or fees to keep them alive? Or has the time come when these dinosaurs should be allowed to become extinct like most other businesses would if they can no longer support themselves?
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 01-13-2016 at 08:12 AM. Reason: elaborated a little more on remaining local news media

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    OTA quality is better than what Rogers cable has to offer. It's easy to see the difference (the OTA colours are more vibrant, etc.). I can also watch the "real" US networks (no simsubs on OTA).

    I can also find thousands of hours of OTA exclusive content not found online. Sure, much of the OTA content can be found online in clip form, or for payment, but there are still many things that can only be seen with OTA or a cable/satellite subscription.

    If I'm supposed to switch over to cable and be satisfied with the lousier picture quality (and sometimes sound quality) and annoying simsubs once OTA is gone, I don't think I would last very long. As great as the Internet is, a lot of that wonderful OTA/ cable/satellite content is only available through some form of piracy. As more and more US/UK channels begin to require a US or UK cable/satellite subscription to access their online VOD content, the less likely it is that the Internet will be able to satisfy me, even if I had a Canadian cable subscription.

    The real "dinosaur" is the Rogers cable equipment. My US satellite receivers in the late 80's and 90's were more advanced than what even Rogers offers today.

    Even Canadian satellite services are lacking in so many ways, so why should any Canadian be expected to pay for that nonsense?

    I'd watch and record more OTA content if my OTA indoor antenna setup was more reliable than it currently is, but since I have more than enough content to watch on the Internet, I can accept the fact that my OTA viewing will perhaps soon only include US channels.

    Local TV is too expensive, so by all means get rid of it, but please don't remove OTA channels from my entertainment universe.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,649
    Back when CTV was a co-op, back when independent broadcasters could launch a regional station and affiliate with a network, I would have supported fee-for-carriage.

    No surprise here, CTV has 27 local station (22 are O&O by Bell with 5 affiliates) + CTV Two (7 stations, 5 OTA, all O&O), Global has 13 O&O regional stations by Shaw + 1 full time affiliate + 1 semi-affiliate, Citytv has 7 O&O regional stations by Rogers + 3 affiliates. Bell, Shaw and Rogers are both broadcasters AND cable/satellite providers with HUGE, TONS of millions of money.

    - There's no point in adding a fee-for-carriage TV Tax, the cable bill will just increase and more cordcutters on their way.
    - There's no point in a Television licence tax as seen in Europe, these just finance the public broadcaster. Our CBC already get a 1 billion check from the government and ain't able to balance their checkbook.

    Give me a good way to finance only these independently-owned stations and affiliates in small markets, out of the big cities, and I might reconsider my position. But no way I'm gonna be forced to give my money to either Bell, Shaw, Rogers or Quebecor.

    Unfortunately, money talks. Buying frequencies in the 600 MHz for cellphone purposes will lower the number of channels available for television stations. UHF is currently 14 to 50 (36 possibilities, without unusable ch37), will be reduced to 14 to 34 (21 possibilities). VHF-Hi is less preferable, and VHF-Lo is total crap due to interferences. Try cramming randomly on the dial 10 local channels plus 10 distant channels (ex: Toronto + Buffalo or Montreal + Vermont), add-in co-channel interference and amplificators, you're stuck with local stations. Shutdown local transmitters, you're stuck without local news but got access to news from distant stations.

    When you have cable, you'll flip throught the 50-75-100 channels you have, looking for something to watch, you might stop somewhere, get a commercial and flip again...
    When you have an antenna, you'll flip throught the ~20 channels you have, you either find something or turn the TV off, and thank yourself you don't pay for everything else on cable.

    Personally, if any show airs OTA, I'll record the whole serie and binge-watch before or after the season finale. This spares me some internet bandwidth.
    "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."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post

    The real "dinosaur" is the Rogers cable equipment. My US satellite receivers in the late 80's and 90's were more advanced than what even Rogers offers today.
    Like most Canadian companies, they buy second hand and call it innovation. Like buying last year's iPhone and braging that without you, the iPhone would exist if you didn't "invest" in it.

    They're probably in vendor-lock in and now are stuck with crappy equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Even Canadian satellite services are lacking in so many ways, so why should any Canadian be expected to pay for that nonsense?
    Simply, because they can, but rest asured, they still haven't got all their demands. They still want a television in every household without a on/off switch.

    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    - There's no point in a Television licence tax as seen in Europe, these just finance the public broadcaster. Our CBC already get a 1 billion check from the government and ain't able to balance their checkbook.
    They get less than a billion dollars these days to run two and a half radio networks and two language television networks in Canada. If we followed the European model of a television license, then the CBC would be funded directly from viewers instead of getting a billion from the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Give me a good way to finance only these independently-owned stations and affiliates in small markets, out of the big cities, and I might reconsider my position. But no way I'm gonna be forced to give my money to either Bell, Shaw, Rogers or Quebecor.
    But your already are forced to pay for them. They own all aspects of communications in this country. They own the Television networks, Television providers, Internet providers and Mobile phone providers. They even stated that if they can't squee more money out of BDU subscribers they'll start jacking up prices on their ISP's and Mobile phone services.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    Well, even if I eventually have to "let it go" ...

    Let it go, let it go
    Turn away and slam the door!

    I don't care
    What they're going to say
    Let the storm rage on,
    The piracy never bothered me anyway!

    It's time to see what I can do
    To test the limits and break through
    No right, no wrong, no rules for me
    I'm free! (at least as long as my Internet cost remains below $50/month)
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    But your already are forced to pay for them. They own all aspects of communications in this country. They own the Television networks, Television providers, Internet providers and Mobile phone providers. They even stated that if they can't squee more money out of BDU subscribers they'll start jacking up prices on their ISP's and Mobile phone services.
    Well, indirectly.

    Since early 2000s, I signed up with independent internet providers. Out of the 30-35$ per month of my internet bill, Bell, and now Vidéotron, grabs ~20$ per month for the last mile usage and capacity-based billing.

    Residential home phone, it costs me less than 5$ per month with an independent VoIP provider.
    Television, I'm over-the-air only. No monthly fee here.

    As for cellphone, I do not need it right now, but when I'll do, I'll pick a reseller with a good rewards program. President's Choice or Petro Canada, maybe ?

    As for television stations financing : Jim Pattison Group, Dougall Media, Stirling Communications, Newcap Broadcasting, RNC Media, Télé Inter-Rives, Channel Zero, Crossroads, and all others I forgot... They are the ones deserving money.

    When you look at things differently :
    - New York City has a population of 20 millions metro. All major networks are there, including PBS, Ion, Trinity, the city (WNYE), but also Univision, Telemundo (NBCU), Unimàs, and many different languages in OTA digital subchannels forms.
    - Toronto has a population of 5,6 millions metro. All major networks, plus Crossroads, CHCH, but no digital subchannels whatsoever. Rogers operates two ethnic stations and ain't able to find enough programming to fill one channel.
    "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. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,036
    I should have made this a poll, but I can't see a way to edit it now to add one.
    If all the privately owned (not CBC, TVO, etc.) OTA station owners say they will shut them down if they don't get another "revenue stream" (tax, fee), and the CRTC asked you to vote yes or no on if they should get it, your answer would be:

    a) Yes, we need to keep them going.

    or

    b) No, let them all close down if they can't avoid losing money.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 01-12-2016 at 06:08 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post

    When you look at things differently :
    - New York City has a population of 20 millions metro. All major networks are there, including PBS, Ion, Trinity, the city (WNYE), but also Univision, Telemundo (NBCU), Unimàs, and many different languages in OTA digital subchannels forms.
    - Toronto has a population of 5,6 millions metro. All major networks, plus Crossroads, CHCH, but no digital subchannels whatsoever. Rogers operates two ethnic stations and ain't able to find enough programming to fill one channel.
    Remember that Rogers launched OMNI.2 in 2002 to unload us much ethnic programming from OMNI.1, but when Citytv landed in their lap from the collapse of CHUM Media they their dream of owning a English language channel for U.S. imports, but where now stuck with two ethnic channels and not enough programming to go around.

    CHCH, Crossroads and CKVR(CTV2 Barrie) exist because they're far enough away to be consider their own market, but share the Toronto extend market because of their proximity.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    I should have made this a poll, but I can't see a way to edit it now to add one.
    Added one for you, but I hit a character limit for the question, so I had to shorten it.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Added one for you ...
    Okay, thanx.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,718
    I am not sure if this is even possible but I would like to see the CRTC move towards the US style system of local station ownership. In the USA, the big conglomerates who own the 'big 4' networks are only allowed to own stations in a select number of markets (usually the big cities like NY and L.A.), with other independent broadcasters owning stations in the smaller markets and operating as affiliates of the various networks. The Canadian equivalent would be Bell, Rogers & Corus only allowed to own stations in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver with smaller broadcasters owning stations in the smaller markets and operating as affiliates of either CTV, Global or City. The two keys to making this model feasible and sustainable would be the following:

    1- Small market stations would operate as affiliates of the big Canadian networks and thus have a supply of quality programming.

    2- Small market broadcasters would be allowed to charge a carriage fee for their stations from cable/satellite providers, giving these stations a steady revenue stream. Subscribers are currently forced to pay for these OTA stations through the basic package so why shouldn't Bell & Rogers be forced to pay the indie broadcasters (who would own the bulk of stations under my proposal) for carrying their stations. If the BDU's are going to make money from these stations, some of that should go back to the companies that own the stations.

    Under this model everyone would benefit IMO. The conglomerates would be freed from owning these 'money losing' stations as they keep referring to them. Viewers would get stable, high quality local stations and the indie broadcasters that would own the stations would have a stable funding source to keep the stations on the air and allow them to continue to produce quality local programming. The one sticking point is whether there are any indie broadcasters that would be interested in owning local stations?!

    For the record, I am not in favour of a carriage fee if the existing model were to remain in place where most local stations are owned by the big conglomerates. They make billions in profits and thus have the ability to fund these stations themselves instead of getting handouts in the form of carriage fees or like the now-defunct LPIF.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    In the USA, the big conglomerates who own the 'big 4' networks are only allowed to own stations in a select number of markets (usually the big cities like NY and L.A.), with other independent broadcasters owning stations in the smaller markets and operating as affiliates of the various networks. The Canadian equivalent would be Bell, Rogers & Corus only allowed to own stations in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver with smaller broadcasters owning stations in the smaller markets and operating as affiliates of either CTV, Global or City.
    I worked some ownership chart for another project. The USA has like 210+ markets. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox generally O&O the stations in the Top 20 : NY, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Houston, Tampa, Phoenix, Detroit (narrowing), Seattle, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Cleveland, Orlando, Sacramento... they also O&O 1 or two additional stations in the Top 30 or 40, but the rest are affiliates.

    Over here in Canada, we have 40+ markets, but mostly seperated into english and language. Still, Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara Falls count as one, Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph is another, London/Woodstock/Wingham is another, and Barrie/Orillia is another. What we did here is to count Barrie as Toronto market, scrap the Kitchener and London as markets due to their proximity to Toronto, affiliate them to CTV Two and call it a day. But that's exactly why there were local stations there in the first place. Not to forget CHCA-TV Red Deer and CKX-TV Brandon, which privately-owned would still be up and running today.

    The only problem so far in the US is when Fox asked its affiliates to give them ALL the money they get from fee-for-carriage, and when it doesn't work, they just approach an independent station or make some deal with a station owner to switch affiliate. See the Fox section for examples. Given Bell's bad reputation, the CHFD-DT Thunder Bay fiasco weren't surprising, but the CKPR-DT (Thunder Bay) and Corus stations affiliation was much better (maybe because CBC is worse?). Yeah, it might work, but for more Global and City stations.
    "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."

 

 

Posting Permissions

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