Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857

    Sub-channels DTV in Canada

    So apparently, the CRTC decided digital sub-channels fate back in 2002. If a broadcaster wants to offer a sub-channel, they'll need to apply for a licence and meet the same cancon requirements than any other conventional station.

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2002/pb2002-31.htm

    As you figured out, Pelmorex (owner of MétéoMedia/Weather Channel) wants to avoid networks from running a weather channel for free over-the-air, so they had a say in this decision. The CRTC back then also wanted canadians to adopt HD, therefor since most sub-channels are in SD, the CRTC prefers to discourage their usage.

    Fast-forward in 2011, it isn't so bad after all in the US!
    As example, our local Vermont stations carries 16:9 480i channels, including WCAXtra (weather and local sports), ThisTV (movies) and The CW
    Buffalo has RTN and Universal Sports, and a shopping channel. Nothing too harmful.

    Do you think the CRTC should revisit their 2002 decision?

    I'm sure CTV and Global would enjoy to operate a commitment-free sub-channel with mandatory carriage on cable/satellite with full simsub opportunities in order to fix the problem of multiple US acquired shows airing at the same time, airing weather reports for the rest of the day without being forced to produce local news or air cancon shows.

    Interesting enough, the CRTC recently said NO to Rogers' application to add PBS's commercial-free ThinkBright service to the cable lineup.
    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-106.htm

    Apparently, canadian broadcasters used again the same old argument about "audience fragmentation and, in turn, a reduction in advertising revenues for Canadian services" and the CRTC gave them the benefit... But PBS's digital signal is available for free over-the-air in almost all of southern Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver! What a bunch of blind lunatics!
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    924
    Apparently, canadian broadcasters used again the same old argument about "audience fragmentation and, in turn, a reduction in advertising revenues for Canadian services" and the CRTC gave them the benefit... But PBS's digital signal is available for free over-the-air in almost all of southern Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver! What a bunch of blind lunatics!
    Not to mention that WNED Think Bright is commercial free service. The best was that Rogers said that only 3 out of 125 shows in a given week were on other Canadian services YET the CRTC determined that Rogers did not demonstrate sufficient evidence that an exception should be made to the 4+1 rule.

    Why can't the CRTC just give them the option of letting them carry WNED-DT2 (Think Bright) and drop WTVS Detroit from the line-up entirely on the Toronto systems. At least that's an option and not a big fat NO.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    523
    I wouldn't mind seeing CityNews on a sub-channel, but programming is already spread way too thin on Canadian TV these days that sub-channels would only make it worse.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    I could see sub-channels going gangbusters even with the restructions if FFC goes through *and* the sub channels qualify for funding.

    As for ThinkBright it's this type of move that'll drive ppl to OTA in areas with it so Canada will become a free and pay TV have and have not divide.

    But Kudos to Rogers for at least thinking of the big picture.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    SRC/CBC have a deadline problem: mandatory french markets (except Montreal) will be left without a CBC repeater, and mandatory english markets (except Toronto and Ottawa) will be left without a SRC repeater. Unfortunately, CBC doesn't intend to carry it's SRC station on a digital sub-channel. Maybe a mea culpa at the last minute?

    My predictions:
    - O&O TVA and O&O Citytv will go either with their respective "shopping at home" as sub-channel, or none at all.
    - As I suggested above, CTV stations without an /A\ stations will add a sub-channel only if they can run it for cheap and with simsub opportunities.
    - Global will probably go for a mix of retro TV they can get for cheap, reality tv and slice/hgtv fillers. (nothing ever changes...)
    - Omni could potentially rerun alternative languages programming on sub-channels.
    - CTS already offer religious programming in SD on their digital channel, they'll have plenty of room for 5 syndicated sub-channels which could offer them additional revenues.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    ^
    CTV Toronto adding /A\ as a subchannel would be smart since CKVR didn't get simsubs on Cogeco (I assume since the Barrie signal can't reach Cogeco areas in Hamilton and Niagara).

    I find it hard pressed to think CTS will max out DTV channels for cash unless they had the contractual rights to alter/censor the feed.

    For example The Mr. Belvedere wikipedia page claims they pulled eps from the schedule that didn't fit their moral conservative agenda

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    What's everyone's thoughts on TVO adding a subchannel?

    They recently added Archive.TVO.org to their online portal and I'm guessing if they can do that adding a subchannel with the same retro content would bbe a drop in the bucket compared to bandwidth costs for their online portal.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedGord View Post
    ^
    CTV Toronto adding /A\ as a subchannel would be smart since CKVR didn't get simsubs on Cogeco (I assume since the Barrie signal can't reach Cogeco areas in Hamilton and Niagara).
    I remember there was a reason why CKVR never had a repeater in the Toronto market, could have been because of CITY, now CFTO. But CKVR (A Barrie) signal only goes as far as Vaughan, it doesn't actually have to be on the Cable dial if live anywhere south of North York or East or West of the city. Rogers just keeps it on the dial because some of their customers live in the subsim rights area for CKVR and some don't. Its just easier just to have the whole city serviced by one channel lineup than to have different channels for different parts of the city.

    CTVgm and now Bell Media know this, why do you think they removed most of the programming they bought in the beginning of the season off of the channel lately.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    I haven't seen CKVR since I had cable so I didn't know they pulled most of the programming.

    I guess they're preparing for /A\ to disappear from many markets like the GTA/Hamilton etc when FFC comes in.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,106
    I highly doubt you will see any sub-channels in Canada, the broadcasters (including the friggin' CBC) don't care at all about OTA and would prefer people not even know it exists as a viable option for watching TV.

    I think it would be awesome to see some sub-channels especially some of the ones they have in the US that air retro shows but its a long shot IMO. The addition of sub-channels would make OTA that much more attractive and would probably cost cable/satellite companies subscribers. Unfortunately OTA is not seen in the same light as in the US, where it appears to still going strong, especially now with the switch to digital.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedGord View Post
    I guess they're preparing for /A\ to disappear from many markets like the GTA/Hamilton etc when FFC comes in.
    Not gonna happen until April 2014 since the Bell Media acquisition:
    With CRTC approval, Bell and CTV can proceed with implementation of a package of benefits for the Canadian broadcasting system valued at $239.3 million, which includes:
    (...)
    * Maintaining local programming on CTV's /A\ channels and committing to operating the stations for at least three years ($30 million over three years)
    Source: http://www.viewers.ca/discuss/showpo...3&postcount=42
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    I think it would be awesome to see some sub-channels especially some of the ones they have in the US that air retro shows but its a long shot IMO. The addition of sub-channels would make OTA that much more attractive and would probably cost cable/satellite companies subscribers. Unfortunately OTA is not seen in the same light as in the US, where it appears to still going strong, especially now with the switch to digital.
    The problem is that the media industry in Canada is lacking vision. Both on the broadcaster side and regulator side; but their also in denial, they still think that speciality channels profits will continue to flow forever, but they don't realize that new media like YouTube, Torrents, Netflix and iTunes are taking the place of what made speciality channels so special. People are starting to question if its worth paying for speciality channels when they services like Netflix that airs the basically the same stuff, but for fraction of the cost.

    Broadcasters aren’t worried at the moment, because they know if services like Netflix truly threaten their business model they can run to the CRTC and have them kicked out. But there has to be a point that the CRTC has to say "We can't regulate it any further" and they finally have to learn to adapt, and how they can adapt is with sub-channels.

    There is a growing market again for OTA stations as people who have drop their BDU because of cost or other services like Netflix or iTunes, but still want to watch first-run shows on main OTA networks; but again no one has vision to capitalize on this growing market.




    So what would my idea of a OTA station look like with the use of sub-channels? Here what it would look like if it where to operated on channel 25:
    • Network One - Local: Will air local news programs and first-run shows like OTA stations currently do now. It will broadcast on channel 25.1
    • Network Two - News: All national news channel, although a regional all-news format like CHCH or CP24 could also work for this channel. It will broadcast on channel 25.2
    • Network Three - Sports: National all-sports channel. It will broadcast on channel 25.3
    • Network Four - Replay: Will air classic shows, as well as previous show that air on the main channel, this channels format could vary, but a retro/reply format seems to work best in my mind. It will broadcast on channel 25.4
    Although this idea seems far fetched, it would cater to a market that isn't using a BDU and can draw other potential viewers who do have a BDU service to drop it if they can get all their viewing needs in one place. The use of the name "Network" ignores the CRTC malformed definition of the word "network" and but simply refers it being a network of transmitters follow by numeric representation of where each sub-channel sits and at the same time makes it a clean and simple brand.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Broadcasters aren’t worried at the moment, because they know if services like Netflix truly threaten their business model they can run to the CRTC and have them kicked out.
    Actually, major broadcasters are property of a BDU, which is also an ISP. They already impose monthly caps on their internet service and with the help of the CRTC, they are trying to cap wholesale as well, all the money going to the big ISP, off course. Cope stated that capping wholesale will please shareholders in getting more revenues, targetting at video streaming.

    Because broadcasters are owned by a BDU, they'll most likely give minimal or uninteresting sub-channel content (like shopping channel), and advertise their services on the main channel, literally telling the OTA viewer that if he wants more, then call us to subscribe, they have the first 3 months free for a specific extra service...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So what would my idea of a OTA station look like with the use of sub-channels? Here what it would look like if it where to operated on channel 25:
    Interesting, but we have to remember that ATSC channels have a limit of 19.4 Mbps of bandwidth. A single high-definition channel like CIII-DT (Global HD) looks like this: Video: 18.51 Mbps, Audio1: Dolby 384 Kbps, Audio 2 (description): Dolby 192 Kbps or 384 Kbps. Total: 19.278 Mbps plus overhead and error correction.

    Each sub-channel in SD can eat up 3-4 Mbps. Stations will more likely give more bandwidth to sports and first-run program channels, while a weather channel can easily run at 1.5Mbps. Adding sub-channels lowers the high-definition channel's bandwidth and picture quality, so when you reach 10 Mbps, you notice artifacts in the picture.

    Because of must-carry rules in Canada and because the CRTC ruled in 2002 they expected sub-channels to contain unique content and because they're overprotective on existing specialty channels, canadian sub-channels will be added to the BDUs, so they won't remain as OTA-only services.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,106
    The problem is that the media industry in Canada is lacking vision.
    They don't need vision since they have the CRTC in their pocket and through regulation can withstand any and all competition (what little is left). Also as InMontreal mentioned, all major BDU's are also ISP's as they offer Internet service in addition to their television service. This allows them to control both sides, again thanks to their buddies at the CRTC who are regulating the heck out of everything.


    People are starting to question if its worth paying for speciality channels when they services like Netflix that airs the basically the same stuff, but for fraction of the cost.
    Another thing with specialty channels that is causing people to switch to online viewing is the fact that almost all channels now air essentially the same programming. This is thanks to all the consolidation that has occurred which has resulted in one or two big companies owning everything and also the CRTC which has allowed the conglomerates to spread programming across all their channels thus diluting the content mix of these channels. This practise should never have been allowed IMO, they should be forced to adhere to the genre that the channel was licensed for and the programming should cater to that genre and not contain programming from other channels owned by the same ownership group.

    Regarding your sub-channel proposal, its a good idea but unfortunately I don't think it will ever happen especially now that all major networks are owned by big conglomerates that also own subscription TV services. Sports is probably what is keeping many people hooked to cable or satellite and there is no way you will see that on a sub-channel unless their is a way for the BDU's to be able to charge for it?! Case in point, CTV (now that they own TSN) have removed all sports content from the network, except for NFL games which probably has something to do with the deal they signed (certain amount of games must be on an OTA network). If they won't put sports programming on the main network then I don't see them putting it on a sub-channel.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    If they ever launch a sports sub-channel, it will be low-interest low-carriage-cost programming. But since TSN and RSN are paid 1$ per subscriber per month and are only able to program poker as non-live content (which is actually paid programming), a sub-channel of infomercials (including poker) would be their best bet for additional revenues.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Actually, major broadcasters are property of a BDU, which is also an ISP. They already impose monthly caps on their internet service and with the help of the CRTC, they are trying to cap wholesale as well, all the money going to the big ISP, off course. Cope stated that capping wholesale will please shareholders in getting more revenues, targetting at video streaming.


    Because broadcasters are owned by a BDU, they'll most likely give minimal or uninteresting sub-channel content (like shopping channel), and advertise their services on the main channel, literally telling the OTA viewer that if he wants more, then call us to subscribe, they have the first 3 months free for a specific extra service...
    My dream network would be run by a new player, not a existing player like CTV, Global, City or TVA in Quebec, or by a BDU. There are groups in Canada that could afford and have had interests in the past in OTA stations; Torstar and The Thomson Family are the two I can think of the top of my head, Torstar even came close to winning the CKXT licence back in 2003, but lost out to Craig Media.


    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Interesting, but we have to remember that ATSC channels have a limit of 19.4 Mbps of bandwidth. A single high-definition channel like CIII-DT (Global HD) looks like this: Video: 18.51 Mbps, Audio1: Dolby 384 Kbps, Audio 2 (description): Dolby 192 Kbps or 384 Kbps. Total: 19.278 Mbps plus overhead and error correction.

    Each sub-channel in SD can eat up 3-4 Mbps. Stations will more likely give more bandwidth to sports and first-run program channels, while a weather channel can easily run at 1.5Mbps. Adding sub-channels lowers the high-definition channel's bandwidth and picture quality, so when you reach 10 Mbps, you notice artifacts in the picture.
    Its funny how we'll follow the Americans into how our to make our TVs and Broadcasts operate, but we have rules on what can be broadcast on them. If we followed DVB-T standard, we would have been able to transmit 24.13 Mbps using a 64/256 QAM Modulator under DVB-T1 and 35.4 Mbps under DVB-T2.

    ATSC almost seems to be designed as if it where to fail as an OTA system, especially compared to the other standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    They don't need vision since they have the CRTC in their pocket and through regulation can withstand any and all competition (what little is left). Also as InMontreal mentioned, all major BDU's are also ISP's as they offer Internet service in addition to their television service. This allows them to control both sides, again thanks to their buddies at the CRTC who are regulating the heck out of everything.
    I doubt they can regulate anything any further. After the whole UUB incident the CRTC realized they angered a lot of people to the point of actually getting them move. If they push harder I wouldn't be surprised they where slapped with labels such as "curtailing civil-liberties" and a "burden to taxpayes" or something along those lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Another thing with specialty channels that is causing people to switch to online viewing is the fact that almost all channels now air essentially the same programming. This is thanks to all the consolidation that has occurred which has resulted in one or two big companies owning everything and also the CRTC which has allowed the conglomerates to spread programming across all their channels thus diluting the content mix of these channels. This practise should never have been allowed IMO, they should be forced to adhere to the genre that the channel was licensed for and the programming should cater to that genre and not contain programming from other channels owned by the same ownership group.
    I think most speciality channels are on borrowed time at this point. Their value has been grossly overpriced and soon the market is going to drop from under them. With the expasion of Netflix and iTunes its just matter of time before they have to come up with a new idea, and trying to block them won't be a option this time, if the anger from people over UUB was bad, just wait until they try to block iTunes from Apple Fans because their crazy; they'll have the energy to go after companies like Bell and Rogers to be legaly dissolved if meant they could regain access to iTunes.


    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Regarding your sub-channel proposal, its a good idea but unfortunately I don't think it will ever happen especially now that all major networks are owned by big conglomerates that also own subscription TV services. Sports is probably what is keeping many people hooked to cable or satellite and there is no way you will see that on a sub-channel unless their is a way for the BDU's to be able to charge for it?! Case in point, CTV (now that they own TSN) have removed all sports content from the network, except for NFL games which probably has something to do with the deal they signed (certain amount of games must be on an OTA network). If they won't put sports programming on the main network then I don't see them putting it on a sub-channel.
    It was an idea, but as I mention to InMontreal above, my idea would have a new player in the market, not a existing one.

    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    If they ever launch a sports sub-channel, it will be low-interest low-carriage-cost programming. But since TSN and RSN are paid 1$ per subscriber per month and are only able to program poker as non-live content (which is actually paid programming), a sub-channel of infomercials (including poker) would be their best bet for additional revenues.
    I don't remember TSN being the highest amount, of course it could be because of age, but I do remember somewhere on the CRTC site talking about CBC NN being having the largest cost among all of them(~$0.80 per subscriber), and MuchMusic being the lowest($0.09 be subscriber).
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post

    So what would my idea of a OTA station look like with the use of sub-channels? Here what it would look like if it where to operated on channel 25:
    • Network One - Local: Will air local news programs and first-run shows like OTA stations currently do now. It will broadcast on channel 25.1
    • Network Two - News: All national news channel, although a regional all-news format like CHCH or CP24 could also work for this channel. It will broadcast on channel 25.2
    • Network Three - Sports: National all-sports channel. It will broadcast on channel 25.3
    • Network Four - Replay: Will air classic shows, as well as previous show that air on the main channel, this channels format could vary, but a retro/reply format seems to work best in my mind. It will broadcast on channel 25.4

    I have to be honest, I don't see the future for "All News" or "All Sports" digital subchannels in Canada because these genres now operate in the fee-for-carriage cable TV specialty model. I don't see how they could work without the wholesale subscriber fees by just selling ads.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I doubt they can regulate anything any further. After the whole UUB incident the CRTC realized they angered a lot of people to the point of actually getting them move. If they push harder I wouldn't be surprised they where slapped with labels such as "curtailing civil-liberties" and a "burden to taxpayes" or something along those lines.
    The CRTC is used as a necessary evil by the BDUs: When picking up à la carte channels, it's written you must pick 50% of canadian channels per CRTC rules. When the BDUs forwarded the 1.5% LPIF fund to your bill, they explained it was a CRTC regulation. Everytime Bell Canada increased the bill in the 90s and early 2000s, they explained it was the CRTC decision instead of telling you they were getting more greedy.

    By the way, it's UBB, stands for Usage Based Billing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I think most speciality channels are on borrowed time at this point. Their value has been grossly overpriced and soon the market is going to drop from under them.
    Their value is fine. The BDUs make between 100%-600% profit over them.
    I found an interesting price-check on another forum: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25542999-

    Videotron's À La Carte packages target more than 1$ per channel while they cost 0.44$ in average (48 cents french, 40 cents english). Packages already built by Vidéotron target a minimum of 100% profits. Same goes with Rogers and Bell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    With the expasion of Netflix and iTunes its just matter of time before they have to come up with a new idea, and trying to block them won't be a option this time, if the anger from people over UUB was bad, just wait until they try to block iTunes from Apple Fans because their crazy; they'll have the energy to go after companies like Bell and Rogers to be legaly dissolved if meant they could regain access to iTunes.
    The big ISPs could potentially charge extra for content: 5$ for social networks, 10$ for iTunes, 15$ for Youtube and Netflix access, But if they follow such model, internet neutrality will be an horror story, our data will be monitored like big brother, Canada will be labeled as a China equivalent. The only thing they can do for now is throttle the video services.

    Specialty channels aren't worried for Netflix, most people are clueless on how to bring internet video to their television screen. People do sit on their couch to watch TV, not in their computer chair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I don't remember TSN being the highest amount, of course it could be because of age, but I do remember somewhere on the CRTC site talking about CBC NN being having the largest cost among all of them(~$0.80 per subscriber), and MuchMusic being the lowest($0.09 be subscriber).
    For specialty licences, Rogers Sportsnet is the most expensive: 1.14$ in 2009. And that price increased since the launch of Sportsnet One. TSN costs 0.871$ in 2009, plus the cost of TSN2. Remember that ESPN in the states charges 3$ per subscriber per month!
    Next up: RDI and CBC News are 1$ majority language and 0.63$ for the other language.

    The lowest cost specialty is CMT Canada for 0.037$ (almost 4 cents).

    I didn't take into consideration PayTV such as Mpix, adult channels and 3rd language specialties whose value may vary.

    P.S.: sorry, getting off-topic here.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  19. #19

    Sub Channels

    Hi, in London Ontario, I am presenting to City Council, about CBC leaving London, as all the other stations go digital. I am looking for some help in these forums, and am wondering if you could help me. Also about Sub Channels, I was talking to the VP of the A Channel here in London, and they are going to have room for 4 subchannels. Also they are changing A Channel out of Barrie from 3 to 10, and London is still 10. London, is increasing strength, ns about Barrie, so people in Toronto will have the A Channel.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    ... The CRTC back then also wanted canadians to adopt HD, therefor since most sub-channels are in SD, the CRTC prefers to discourage their usage ...
    I had incorrectly assumed that sub-channels must be standard definition 480i for a technical reason, as that is all I see on the Buffalo stations, and the Universal Sports and RetroTV sub-channels on the Buffalo NBC station have a blurred look to them.

    But the ABC and CW stations from Rochester NY broadcast on the same frequency. ABC is 13-1, CW is 13-2, with both broadcast in HD, so apparently it is possible to have a sub-channel in HD. Although in this case both are 720p, not the 1080i used by all of the Canadian stations that I am aware of.

    Would this dual HD arrangement be technically possible and allowed in Canada? If so, wouldn't it make sense for two stations to share a frequency rather than each using one for themselves, if an agreement could be worked out? In particular, why not have OMNI-1 and OMNI-2 in Toronto do this? Maybe the media conglomerates just want to hog up all the available frequencies and not leave one open for possible new competition?

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    ... Sports is probably what is keeping many people hooked to cable or satellite and there is no way you will see that on a sub-channel unless their is a way for the BDU's to be able to charge for it?! ...
    Not that they have given even the slightest hint that they are look into doing it, but MLSE is maybe the one sports-centred entity that I could see considering OTA as an option, since they do not own a BDU and are not part of a "vertically integrated" conglomerate like the existing mainstream sports channels. Of course this would only be viable as an OTA station (or stations, MLSE-1 and MLSE-2, under the dual HD arrangement I describe above) that would receive fees for carriage from the BDUs. And I assume BDUs (at least in Ontario, if not the rest of Canada) would be willing to pay, since they would not want to be without the channel(s) carrying all or most Leafs, TFC, and Raptors regional TV games. And the station(s) presumably would replace the present MLSE niche specialty channels (Leafs TV, etc.) on these BDUs. And if a BDU did not agree to carry and pay for the MLSE channel(s), MLSE could advertise the availability of the free OTA signal.

    Going OTA instead of the proposed MLSE 'Real Sports' satellite/cable-only specialty channel route would provide one or two advantages for MLSE. The OTA licence would be less restricted. They could air almost any type of programming they wanted, not just sports. They could run cheap programming and infomercials much of the time. MLSE has already stated they wish to air music concerts. The OTA broadcast could be seen by viewers in western NY state, even if these viewers would not be paying to watch and Leaf games would have to be blacked out on their cable systems. You'd think MLSE would welcome the chance to attract potential Raptors and TFC ticket buyers from NY state. The Blue Jays attendance has greatly decreased since they disappeared from OTA TV, though admittedly not making the post-season is likely a bigger factor for them.

    But obviously any possibility of this being considered disappears immediately if Rogers or Bell buy the 79.5% of MLSE that is up for sale.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 08-08-2011 at 02:37 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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