Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 321 to 336 of 336
  1. #321
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    CHCH barely covers Niagara news. If this request is denied I could see CTV applying for a real station in Niagara to cover Niagara and Hamilton news and compete directly with CHCH with signal reach to Hamilton and Toronto for simsubs.

    I'm not sure CHCH opposing these re-transmitters is a smart move if it's going to tick off CTV/Bell. Plus I can't see it being good for CKVR since I suspect the population in Niagara is much larger than Barrie so if Bell decided to choose which station to keep I suspet CKVR would come up the loser.

    Sure there has been failed attempts to start a station in Niagara but it's always been from small fry outfits with no track record in television let alone a giant media co like Bell.

  2. #322
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedGord View Post
    CHCH barely covers Niagara news. If this request is denied I could see CTV applying for a real station in Niagara to cover Niagara and Hamilton news and compete directly with CHCH with signal reach to Hamilton and Toronto for simsubs.

    I'm not sure CHCH opposing these re-transmitters is a smart move if it's going to tick off CTV/Bell. Plus I can't see it being good for CKVR since I suspect the population in Niagara is much larger than Barrie so if Bell decided to choose which station to keep I suspet CKVR would come up the loser.

    Sure there has been failed attempts to start a station in Niagara but it's always been from small fry outfits with no track record in television let alone a giant media co like Bell.

    Okay, why would the CRTC deny an application from Bell Media that would give CKVR simulcasts in Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara but then approve an application from Bell Media to give them simulcasts in Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara AND allow them to directly compete against CHCH for local advertising and local news viewers? It would be like asking the bank for a $50 million dollar loan and when they say no coming back 30 seconds later and asking for a $100 million dollar loan.

    If Bell Media's current application is denied it will be because of the increased competition to existing stations (mostly CHCH which is struggling financially) there is no way the CRTC would approve an application from anyone that would directly compete against CHCH for local advertising and local news viewers, doing so would put the future of CHCH in serious jeopardy.

  3. #323
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Okay, why would the CRTC deny an application from Bell Media that would give CKVR simulcasts in Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara but then approve an application from Bell Media to give them simulcasts in Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara AND allow them to directly compete against CHCH for local advertising and local news viewers? It would be like asking the bank for a $50 million dollar loan and when they say no coming back 30 seconds later and asking for a $100 million dollar loan.

    If Bell Media's current application is denied it will be because of the increased competition to existing stations (mostly CHCH which is struggling financially) there is no way the CRTC would approve an application from anyone that would directly compete against CHCH for local advertising and local news viewers, doing so would put the future of CHCH in serious jeopardy.
    A re-transmitter is, aside from the maintenance and cost of the unit itself etc, basically a license to print money. However if Bell Media made the commitment to mount a full news division and nightly newscast like the other CTV2/A stations that would be giving back to the community.

    Mind you, although I think they should, I don't know if the CRTC would care about that however every local paper in the Niagara region (St. Catharines Standard, Niagara Falls Review and Welland Tribune) is owned by Sun News/Quebecor who recently pulled all their local dailies form the Ontario Press Council and although the CRTC isn't involved with print news in combination with the antics of Sun News as well as their OTA license issues they may decide that Niagara could use an independent voice from Quebecor.

    There is the Torstar owned (though Metroland iirc) Niagara This Week but that's largely a soft news publication which exists to wrap weekly flyer sales around.

    Having said that this is a discussion forum - not TVV asks NG 20 questions forum and I couldn't help but notice you didn't reply to the thread where you rudely dismissed 2 million OTA views nor the thread which, it appears, you were using semantics to feel special yet found the time to question me here.

    I've include the links to those other thread for your convenience in replying:

    http://www.viewers.ca/discuss/showth...8385#post48385
    http://www.viewers.ca/discuss/showth...8385#post48385
    Last edited by NakedGord; 08-23-2011 at 01:13 AM.

  4. #324
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No, because Hamilton is part of the Toronto extended market.
    I can finally explain this and CKVR being on the dial for the Toronto market. But to clarify, my original approach to this was based on the fact that Toronto and Hamilton are in legally terms, two separate markets, for various reasons(eg. money & transit).


    CHCH (Toronto extended market) has simulcast rights for Burlington, Oakvillle, Brampton, Mississauga and Etobicoke, but doesn't include anything in the eastern GTA or to the north. While CKVR has simulcast rights for Newmarket, Vaughan and North York, but not the rest of the city.

    Why is CHCH and CKVR on the dial in the whole Toronto market? Simply, when Rogers bought out the smaller cable companies years ago they created a uniform channel lineup to simplify the management of their system(basically lazyness).

    What's different now? If Rogers decides to become a ass (which they already are) they can remove CKVR and CHCH from different regions of their cable network without the loss of programming. It's why Bell is applying for a re-broadcast transmitter for the Toronto market to keep their simulcast rights for the whole city and area, something CHCH is probably thinking of doing as well.


    There is practically no difference between CHCH and an all news station, the only difference is non-news programming in primetime. CKXT-TV tried everything from movies to cable series to low cost simulcast programming in primetime and it was a complete and total failure. Taking something that didn't work and putting it together with something as expensive as all news all day would be a complete disaster.



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No, because CHCH doesn't produce local Toronto news. They do well because they are the only station in the Toronto extended market that offers news for Hamilton, Halton, and Niagara,
    I said their format, not the station itself or the content they generate.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    A new Toronto station offering local Toronto news all day would be going up against the established CP24 and CityNews Channel, not to mention local newscasts from CTV, Global, CBC, ect. There simply isn't room for a 3rd all news channel in Toronto. You could even argue that there isn't enough room for two.
    Ah, but your not seeing the bigger picture. First their cable(and satellite) channels who doesn't have access to the OTA market. Second, more and more people are willing to drop their BDU subscription to save money than their Internet provider, so they won't have access to CP24 or Citynews Channel.

    People are still willing to watch news and scripted shows through conventional means, however its becoming to expensive for them to pay a BDU and are switching back to the bunny ears. This could be a whole new market for local 24-hour news, a market that this new station could capture. I know CP24 is a "established player" in the local 24-hour news market, but I can go through a whole list of "established player" in their own respected business that have fallen from grace.




    Quote Originally Posted by Emarsee View Post
    As far as I'm aware, CKVR is already carried on basic cable in Hamilton, so it would probably make more sense for Bell to apply for a repeater of CKVR, rather than CFPL.
    Bell's argument in the filings with the CRTC state that having repeters for CKVR in Hamilton (and Toronto) will help increase station revenue by ~$2 million. CFPL is hurting more than CKVR, so if they "care" so much for these stations I would think they would also give the same money improving scheme for their other near by stations such as CFPL by extending their brodcasting range to Hamilton.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yes, because Citytv Toronto offered local Toronto news and local Toronto advertising. CKVR wont sell local Toronto advertising and local news will continue to focus on Barrie. They just want simulcasts because it will allow them for higher ad rates for the Toronto extended market for national advertisers
    News part aside, isn't excluding local advertising as a loss nothing more than smoke and mirrors? If you think about it, national advertisers pay more than local advertisers and there isn't much "local" advertising for Toronto anymore(1 in 5 ads per commercial break are local advertisements).
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  5. #325
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I can finally explain this and CKVR being on the dial for the Toronto market. But to clarify, my original approach to this was based on the fact that Toronto and Hamilton are in legally terms, two separate markets, for various reasons(eg. money & transit).


    CHCH (Toronto extended market) has simulcast rights for Burlington, Oakvillle, Brampton, Mississauga and Etobicoke, but doesn't include anything in the eastern GTA or to the north. While CKVR has simulcast rights for Newmarket, Vaughan and North York, but not the rest of the city.

    Why is CHCH and CKVR on the dial in the whole Toronto market? Simply, when Rogers bought out the smaller cable companies years ago they created a uniform channel lineup to simplify the management of their system(basically lazyness).

    What's different now? If Rogers decides to become a ass (which they already are) they can remove CKVR and CHCH from different regions of their cable network without the loss of programming. It's why Bell is applying for a re-broadcast transmitter for the Toronto market to keep their simulcast rights for the whole city and area, something CHCH is probably thinking of doing as well.


    There is practically no difference between CHCH and an all news station, the only difference is non-news programming in primetime. CKXT-TV tried everything from movies to cable series to low cost simulcast programming in primetime and it was a complete and total failure. Taking something that didn't work and putting it together with something as expensive as all news all day would be a complete disaster.





    I said their format, not the station itself or the content they generate.




    Ah, but your not seeing the bigger picture. First their cable(and satellite) channels who doesn't have access to the OTA market. Second, more and more people are willing to drop their BDU subscription to save money than their Internet provider, so they won't have access to CP24 or Citynews Channel.

    People are still willing to watch news and scripted shows through conventional means, however its becoming to expensive for them to pay a BDU and are switching back to the bunny ears. This could be a whole new market for local 24-hour news, a market that this new station could capture. I know CP24 is a "established player" in the local 24-hour news market, but I can go through a whole list of "established player" in their own respected business that have fallen from grace.






    Bell's argument in the filings with the CRTC state that having repeters for CKVR in Hamilton (and Toronto) will help increase station revenue by ~$2 million. CFPL is hurting more than CKVR, so if they "care" so much for these stations I would think they would also give the same money improving scheme for their other near by stations such as CFPL by extending their brodcasting range to Hamilton.



    News part aside, isn't excluding local advertising as a loss nothing more than smoke and mirrors? If you think about it, national advertisers pay more than local advertisers and there isn't much "local" advertising for Toronto anymore(1 in 5 ads per commercial break are local advertisements).
    Bell is applying for transmitters in Hamilton and Niagara for simulcasts across the Toronto extended market (something CHCH already has), which means national ad rates wont have to be sold at a discount. Right now CKVR is at a disadvantage because they are the only station that serves the Toronto extended market that has to sell ad rates at a discount because they don't have simulcasts across the market. Broadcasters like CHCH are opposing because if CKVR can charge higher ad rates it could hurt their revenue.

    I just totally disagree that there is any chance for a brand new 24/7 news channel to even remotely compete against CP24 and CityNews Channel, let alone be even close to profitable. Your theory that more and more people are dropping cable or satellite for OTA in Canada is simply not true. The amount of people who subscribe to cable in satellite in Canada is increasing. I agree that people who can't afford cable or satellite are dropping it for OTA but it appears people who couldn't afford it before but can now afford it are now subscribing, as the number of people who subscribe continues to go up. The facts are that only 7% of Canadians exclusively view programming OTA. I don't know any other business that puts out something only 7% of their customers use and only 7% more potential viewers isn't worth it when you include all the other disadvantages (for example Rogers is unlikely to pay VFS to a direct competitor to their all news channel). If the amount of people who subscribe to cable or satellite was dramatically declining and the amount of people who view programming OTA dramatically increasing then you would have a point, but that is not happening, the opposite is happening in Canada. I think you and others here are dramatically underestimating the value cable and satellite has to most people. If you have kids are you going to deprive them of YTV, Family, Treehouse, MuchMusic, and MTV? If you like sports are you going to deprive yourself of TSN and Sportsnet? Not to mention other popular channels like History Television, HGTV, Food Network, National Geographic Channel, The Comedy Network, Space, ect. ect. ect., you are giving up a lot when you give up cable and satellite. 93% of Canadians subscribe to cable or satellite for a reason.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 08-25-2011 at 09:41 AM.

  6. #326
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Bell is applying for transmitters in Hamilton and Niagara for simulcasts across the Toronto extended market (something CHCH already has), which means national ad rates wont have to be sold at a discount. Right now CKVR is at a disadvantage because they are the only station that serves the Toronto extended market that has to sell ad rates at a discount because they don't have simulcasts across the market. Broadcasters like CHCH are opposing because if CKVR can charge higher ad rates it could hurt their revenue.
    In their application with the CRTC, Bell argument for extending CKVR across Hamilton and Niagara (and I kid you not) was to "repatriate advertising revenue from US stations". Last time I hear this type of comparisons was why oil companies deserved tax rebates.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I just totally disagree that there is any chance for a brand new 24/7 news channel to even remotely compete against CP24 and CityNews Channel, let alone be even close to profitable.
    But I think the same could have been said about cable news twenty years ago, however if someone didn't make that leap and try we wouldn't have CP24, CBC News Network, CNN, Fox News......on second thought, it's a bad idea, I don't want to be responsible for bringing a new terror into this world.:(

    Your theory that more and more people are dropping cable or satellite for OTA in Canada is simply not true. The amount of people who subscribe to cable in satellite in Canada is increasing. I agree that people who can't afford cable or satellite are dropping it for OTA but it appears people who couldn't afford it before but can now afford it are now subscribing, as the number of people who subscribe continues to go up. The facts are that only 7% of Canadians exclusively view programming OTA. I don't know any other business that puts out something only 7% of their customers use and only 7% more potential viewers isn't worth it when you include all the other disadvantages (for example Rogers is unlikely to pay VFS to a direct competitor to their all news channel). If the amount of people who subscribe to cable or satellite was dramatically declining and the amount of people who view programming OTA dramatically increasing then you would have a point, but that is not happening, the opposite is happening in Canada. I think you and others here are dramatically underestimating the value cable and satellite has to most people. If you have kids are you going to deprive them of YTV, Family, Treehouse, MuchMusic, and MTV? If you like sports are you going to deprive yourself of TSN and Sportsnet? Not to mention other popular channels like History Television, HGTV, Food Network, National Geographic Channel, The Comedy Network, Space, ect. ect. ect., you are giving up a lot when you give up cable and satellite. 93% of Canadians subscribe to cable or satellite for a reason.[/quote]

    I know the report your citing, but it should note it never took into account people who have given up BDU for Internet, Over-the-box service such as Netflix and people who weren't available to comment if they where watching TV OTA or owning no TV at all(which is legit, but can skew data) .
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  7. #327
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [quote=Mayhem;48512]

    In their application with the CRTC, Bell argument for extending CKVR across Hamilton and Niagara (and I kid you not) was to "repatriate advertising revenue from US stations". Last time I hear this type of comparisons was why oil companies deserved tax rebates.
    That isn't the reason for the application, that's just their argument for how it wont have any affect on other existing stations. The application clearly states the reason is so ads wont have to be sold at a discount. Bell is saying that allowing simulcasts for CKVR will only hurt advertising revenue of U.S. stations and not the revenue of local Canadian stations (which isn't true but that is their argument). They need to say this because unlike some of the posters here, they know that it is very hard for the CRTC to approve something that will hurt existing stations that are struggling financially. They only have a chance because CKVR is also struggling financially and is at a disadvantage vs the other existing stations, including CHCH. A brand new station would never be approved, the market is too crowded and it would have a negative impact on existing stations struggling financially such as CHCH.


    But I think the same could have been said about cable news twenty years ago, however if someone didn't make that leap and try we wouldn't have CP24, CBC News Network, CNN, Fox News......on second thought, it's a bad idea, I don't want to be responsible for bringing a new terror into this world.:(
    Haha, yeah look what happened when the CRTC eliminated competition for the national news format, we end up with this SUN creature. That being said, you can't compare the entire U.S. or Canadian market to Toronto. Toronto will soon have two established networks with local news all day. It is unrealistic to expect the market the size of Toronto to support a 3rd.

    I know the report your citing, but it should note it never took into account people who have given up BDU for Internet, Over-the-box service such as Netflix and people who weren't available to comment if they where watching TV OTA or owning no TV at all(which is legit, but can skew data) .
    I'm not talking about the recent report that came out (the one that stated the amount of people who subscribe is expected to grow yet again) The facts are the amount of people who subscribe to cable and satellite is increasing. They are gaining subscribers. The fact that they are gaining subscribers when the amount of penetration they have is already so high is nothing short of incredible. They were even able to gain subscribers in a recession! Yeah some people who really can't afford it may be cancelling cable or satellite for other services like OTA, ect., but they are outnumbered by the new people who are subscribing. Your argument that OTA has some advantage over cable only works IF the number of people who subscribe to cable and satellite was going down (and even then the drop would need to be very substantial) but the opposite is happening, they are gaining more subscribers than they are losing.

  8. #328
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    That isn't the reason for the application, that's just their argument for how it wont have any affect on other existing stations. The application clearly states the reason is so ads wont have to be sold at a discount. Bell is saying that allowing simulcasts for CKVR will only hurt advertising revenue of U.S. stations and not the revenue of local Canadian stations (which isn't true but that is their argument). They need to say this because unlike some of the posters here, they know that it is very hard for the CRTC to approve something that will hurt existing stations that are struggling financially. They only have a chance because CKVR is also struggling financially and is at a disadvantage vs the other existing stations, including CHCH. A brand new station would never be approved, the market is too crowded and it would have a negative impact on existing stations struggling financially such as CHCH.
    Dude. CHCH has relied heavily on ads for local news including running ads targeting potential advertisers for their news programs yet the CRTC approved an all news cable station for Niagara that was on the dial for *all* Cogeco subscribers. If they didn't want to allow competition for CHCH why would they have approved this channel?

    Yeah some people who really can't afford it may be cancelling cable or satellite for other services like OTA, ect., but they are outnumbered by the new people who are subscribing. Your argument that OTA has some advantage over cable only works IF the number of people who subscribe to cable and satellite was going down (and even then the drop would need to be very substantial) but the opposite is happening, they are gaining more subscribers than they are losing.
    You came out to complain about a few of my posts before (including one on this topic iirc) then just disappeared when I challenged you.

    Just because someone doesn't have cable doesn't mean they can't afford it. It could mean they see no value in it even if they like media with all the other options out there including OTA. I'm flipping channels on my Harmony remote - I doubt someone who couldn't afford cable would be buying a $90 programmable remote to flip channels with.

    As more and more hear about how great DTV OTA is interest in it is growing. Here's a great article from the Globe and Mail that I doubt we would have seen published if the networks still controlled most newspapers:

    Cable providers warned about a subscriber ‘revolution’

    You'll notice in the comments section there's many who rave about dropping cable for OTA. Really, if you don't watch sports or other reality TV, that's all most people need in conjunction with picking up the rest of what you need from iTunes/TV on DVD etc

    Now are you going to reply to the other pissing contests you started with the other threads I referenced earlier? Do you need me to post the direct links again?

  9. #329
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    The CRTC edict this week certainly appears to ban the type of advantageous carriage deals Quebecor was after for Sun News, so presumably they will now have little choice but to accept what they are offered by Rogers, Bell, etc.

    If Quebecor does give up the CKXT-TV OTA licence as seems likely, I have no idea if it will happen but I still think it's possible others could want to take a chance on OTA broadcasting on the presumably now vacated/available frequencies (UHF Ch. 40 in Toronto?), particularly if the option of fees from BDUs is eventually approved by the courts. There could be other possibilities besides wanting to directly compete with the existing OTA networks/stations and needing to steal their advertising revenue to survive. I'm not sure how much importance the CRTC gives to other OTA stations objecting simply because they don't like competition, assuming any would actually file such objections. Their formats, much like radio stations, and unlike the genre-protected specialty channels, seem to be largely open to change. They don't stop 1050 AM from becoming TSN Radio simply because there's already one sports radio station, Fan590.
    And this in effect would be filling an existing vacancy, not the CRTC approving a completely new addition. Also note that the CRTC has put out a call for applications regarding the Toronto FM radio frequency available just a few months after revoking the licence of CKLN, after an existing station had applied to change to CKLN's former frequency. If nothing else, maybe CHCH could benefit from moving from its VHF frequency to UHF.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 09-29-2011 at 08:04 AM.

  10. #330
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    It's one week to go until, at least as far as we know, the temporary licence extension of CKXT-TV expires and the station ceases to exist. And unless Sun News has reached carriage agreements with BDUs other than Videotron and Shaw, presumably Sun News disappears for most potential viewers. Since their previous demands have apparently been made impossible by the recent CRTC edict, I'm not sure what would be standing in the way of that happening now. And if there was no deals about to be made, it seems very strange that Sun News would not be warning viewers that they may be about to go away, and urging them to get Shaw Direct satellite and drop Bell, Rogers, etc.
    Co-incidentally Rogers is hyping the launch of FX Canada in HD on the evening of Oct. 31, so it would seem probable they may simply be removing CKXT/Sun News from its analog spot (ch.15 in Toronto) and making use of the available bandwidth for FX Canada.

  11. #331
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    Since their previous demands have apparently been made impossible by the recent CRTC edict, I'm not sure what would be standing in the way of that happening now.
    I think you're overestimating the impact of the CRTC's code of conduct. It doesn't prohibit the type of deal that Sun News was asking for. Regardless, I don't see why Rogers or anyone else would give in to their demands before the end of the month.

  12. #332
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    It's one week to go until, at least as far as we know, the temporary licence extension of CKXT-TV expires and the station ceases to exist. And unless Sun News has reached carriage agreements with BDUs other than Videotron and Shaw, presumably Sun News disappears for most potential viewers. Since their previous demands have apparently been made impossible by the recent CRTC edict, I'm not sure what would be standing in the way of that happening now. And if there was no deals about to be made, it seems very strange that Sun News would not be warning viewers that they may be about to go away, and urging them to get Shaw Direct satellite and drop Bell, Rogers, etc.
    Quebecor is waiting for a change of guard at the CRTC before they go back and demand for mandatory carriage, that's why they don't seem so eger about pushing viewers about the loss of CKXT-TV. Their viewer base is small at the moment and they need revenue from non-viewers through mandatory carriage to help fund the channel.

    I don't even know how Quebecor is able to fund any of their operations outside Quebec? Sun News paper division sold their office building on King Street a year ago, they their renting back one floor of it while the rest is turned into a grocery store and mixed office use. The paper itself hasn't made any money in over 10 years; their losing out to Metro Paper who buys its stores from CP and Torstar.


    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    Co-incidentally Rogers is hyping the launch of FX Canada in HD on the evening of Oct. 31, so it would seem probable they may simply be removing CKXT/Sun News from its analog spot (ch.15 in Toronto) and making use of the available bandwidth for FX Canada.
    Channel 15 is analog, so they can't put it there. The only reason why Citynews Channel is on Channel 1 is because Channel 1 is a digital channel. Good chance that WNED PBS Buffalo will be moved on to that spot until the CRTC decides whether or not to put out a open call for the vacant OTA channel that CKXT left.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #333
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    It doesn't prohibit the type of deal that Sun News was asking for.
    Well, part of the code of conduct sounds like what Quebecor was trying to get:
    ... shall not require a party that it is contracting to accept terms or conditions ...
    requiring minimum penetration or revenue levels that force distribution of a service on the basic tier or in a package that is inconsistent with the package ...
    Channel 15 is analog, so they can't put it there.
    I did not intend to imply that Rogers was going to put FX Canada on analog ch. 15. But getting rid of analog channels presumably frees up bandwidth for HD digital channels. If I was Rogers, I would take this chance to cut the number of analog channels down to something like 25, and notify everyone that analog service would be eliminated completely at some specific date, maybe in a year or a few months from now.

  14. #334
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    I did not intend to imply that Rogers was going to put FX Canada on analog ch. 15. But getting rid of analog channels presumably frees up bandwidth for HD digital channels. If I was Rogers, I would take this chance to cut the number of analog channels down to something like 25, and notify everyone that analog service would be eliminated completely at some specific date, maybe in a year or a few months from now.

    I know what your getting at, it's something I've mention and countless others before us, but Rogers doesn't seem to be in any hurry to upgrade their analog cable system to pure digital anytime soon.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  15. #335
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Quebecor is waiting for a change of guard at the CRTC before they go back and demand for mandatory carriage...
    I doubt even Quebecor is that delusional. News and sports channels are now "Category C services", open to competition, with carriage and rates negotiated with BDUs, not mandated (other than CBC News Network being mandatory in certain French language markets and RDI in certain English markets -
    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/db2007-246.htm).
    There is no justifiable way of now forcing all cable and satellite services to carry Sun News, unless they also force them to carry all news channels, including any other new ones that anyone (and likely everyone) would then want to start and also demand mandatory carriage.
    http://www.tvb.ca/pages/cbc,+ctv+urg...ive+sun+tv_htm
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    ... Rogers doesn't seem to be in any hurry to upgrade their analog cable system to pure digital anytime soon.
    I think it's been many years since Rogers' pamphlets and websites have acknowledged analog service exists. I don't know what they gain by keeping analog cable around now. It seems pointless. I don't know anyone, including relatives over 80, who don't have at least a SD digital terminal if they have cable. Surely the few people left who still rely solely on analog cable, much like with analog over-the-air, must know it is a very outdated technology that is about to go away, to make room for more HD.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 10-25-2011 at 12:24 AM.

  16. #336
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    Well, part of the code of conduct sounds like what Quebecor was trying to get:
    Yes, but your selective quotes left out some important parts that weaken the code of conduct to being almost worthless, like: "should be considered by parties as part of the negotiating process" and "that are commercially unreasonable."

 

 

Posting Permissions

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