RSSCanadian Networks Consider End to Broadcast TV
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 28, 2006, 6:48 PM
Faced with the impending obsolescence of US-based analog television, Canada's broadcasters must decide how -- or whether -- to continue expensive transmitter upgrades to meet the requirements of the digital era.
Since before Canada was declared a sovereign nation, the country's telecommunications services were intended to be compatible with those of the United States and Mexico. Today, its AM and FM radio bands are the same, its telephone system of area codes is compatible with that of the original Bell System, and its VHF and UHF analog broadcast television channels basically use the same spectrum.
But with the US Congress having decided last February to shut down all analog TV transmission on February 17, 2009, and with American broadcasters making preparations for an exodus of the public TV airwaves to an all-digital spectrum, Canadian broadcasters are facing the challenge of how to keep up with their self-centered neighbors to the south.
Though VHF/UHF analog receivers will become obsolete in the US on that date, they'll still be needed in Canada, although few CE manufacturers worldwide have expressed interest in continuing to produce them.
Like Mexico, Canada will find itself supporting an orphaned technology in just a little over two years' time. What's more, terrestrial TV viewers in major southernmost cities such as Ottawa; Quebec City; London, Ontario; Montreal; Toronto; and Vancouver will find themselves with fewer channels being beamed their direction by their American neighbors. Quite possibly, they could also be bombarded with strange and incompatible signals, as the VHF and UHF spectrums in the US become repurposed for uses such as emergency communications for first responders.
Canada has some critical choices to make, and not much time in which to make them. "We believe the conventional television sector is heading into trouble financially, and needs help, if it is to meet the challenges of the future," Bell Globemedia CEO Ivan Fecan told Canadian regulators, according to The Globe and Mail.
Although Canada's technological model is based on the US system, the business model for Canadian television is based on the British system, whereby the government subsidizes a principal, non-commercial public broadcaster -- in this case, the CBC -- and licenses independent commercial broadcasters as a way to promote competition. Regulations for commercial television licenses for affiliates of the CTV and Global networks are much more strict than for US stations, limiting not only how much content can be acquired from foreign sources such as US producers, but how many commercials can be shown in a given hour.
It's those regulations which effectively limit how much a broadcaster there can earn, and in turn, are limiting the amount of working capital that independent stations have to upgrade their transmitters. Fortunately for them, most are now owned by nationwide media conglomerates such as Bell Globemedia (the parent company of CTV) and Canwest Global (parent of Global).
Still, these conglomerates find themselves without a business model allowing them to recoup the enormous expenditures involved not only in upgrading transmitters to DTV, but to HDTV as well. CTV has stated its costs for upgrading its 114 transmitters nationwide could top CA$200 million, CanWest Global predicts spending as much as CA$61 million, and CHUM Ltd. (another Bell Globemedia division, acquired just last month) expects to spend CA$50 for its upgrades "with little or no new revenue to provide a return on this significant capital investment," the company said in a written statement to regulators.
All parties have generally agreed that revenues from Canadian television broadcasting have to increase by at least 25%, and fast, in order for broadcasters to continue to do business while upgrading, at some point, to digital TV.
This week, the Canadian Radio-television and Communications Commission (CRTC, the counterpart to the US' FCC) is holding hearings where broadcasters are being given the first opportunity for an audience with federal regulators since 1999. There are three options on the table, none of which is supported by everyone in the room: One, proposed by the CBC, is an increase in the fees charged to cable services that carry broadcasters' signals. Two, in a counter-proposal from the commercial broadcasters, is an increase in the amount of commercial time they can sell.
Number three is the one typically headed "Or Else," but which ironically may actually have some support from both public and commercial broadcasters, if not yet the CRTC: simply doing away with terrestrial signals altogether, and moving to a cable-centric model that's even more compatible with the British business model.
Next: Either raise fees, or leave the airwaves
The US economy is slowing going to shambles. Credit card, and loan debt is skyrocketing. Unemployment may be up a little, but people have replaced their high paying jobs, with lower ones. Forcing me to buy a converter, or HDTV, seems ridiculous at times like these. Then again, TV is a privilege, not a necessity.
Score: 0
|If you count those who have given up looking for work than the unemployment rate in the USA is around 10%.
Score: 0
|"But with the US Congress having decided last February to shut down all analog TV transmission on February 17, 2009..."
Funny, they fail to mention that the US Govt previously mandated a hard deadline abandoning analog broadcasts effective December 31, 2006! Oopps! And there is already talk of further modifying the 2009 sunset provision yet again!
And the majority of the rest of the world has adopted either the DVB standard, or, as in the case of China, the DMB-T/H standard.
So much for economies of scale as the US goes with ATSC. And FWIW, Canada has already adopted ATSC along with Mexico and SKorea. So all this story is about is how Canada wants to pay for it!
Seems to me that Canada should do what the US failed to do! Allow the marketplace to make the decision and to pay for it instead of proceeding with their failed socialist economic model.
Score: 0
|Canadians need to just shut up and make their own TV channels. Stop whining, you babies.
Score: -1
|No where is the story did any Canadian whine. It was a story about the choices of broadcasters as to how or whether they would fund the conversion of their facilities.
Seems to me that the only weenies whining here are pisant Amerikans like yourself who can neither read for meaning nor make a factual statement.
So I would suggest that such erudite and utterly ignorant Americans as yourself stop embarassing other more intelligent Americans who are more able to read for meaning.
I mean, like Dude...this is what we get when high school kids take a break from playing video games...
Score: 0
|Don't be an ugly American. It's the "journalist" that's making them sound like whiners. Canadians could give a rip.
Score: -1
|Careful...I am Canadian.
Score: 1
|I've got a solution. It's called cable....
Score: 0
|Americans can always sell their late model analog TVs on Ebay in 2009. My new 19 inch Samsung flat screen should still work in Canada or Mexico by then. It would be cheaper than buying a new analog set later..
Score: 0
|All TVs will still "work" after that. After all, not everyone gets their TV programing off of their "rabbit ears" now.
Score: 0
|It'll be interesting to see what happens...
Score: 0
|The strength of Canadian TV was that it wasn't solely based on US broadcast channels. So what if they miss 'Deal or No Deal' or 'American Idol.' I'm jealous of them!
Besides, all Americans cannot afford to go buy digital TVs, even within the next two years, and once the ratings plunge, you'll see quick and easy solutions.
Score: 0
|"Besides, all Americans cannot afford to go buy digital TVs"
Well, maybe not (although I do). But you could just get a digital to analog converter which would probably be a lot cheaper than a new TV.
Score: 0
|Good point. While we're at it, most new flat-screens feature an ATSC tuner built in to make the conversion a little less painless (assuming once again that you can afford/want to purchase the new tv).
Score: 0
|We do have cable TV up here. We got it not too long after we got indoor plumbing and electricity.
BTW, you don't have to buy digital TVs if you don't want to. The signal is already being processed by the cable companies before it even gets to you set. Plus, there is satellite receivers as well. Very few get their content over the airwaves now as it is. Even in remotest and darkest Canada. [Rolls eyes]
Score: 0
|sjc001, since you're obviously from Canada yourself, let me ask you: If it was decided that your country should move to an all-cable TV model - which isn't out of the question - do you know of anyone yourself who would be hurt by that decision? In other words, would anyone you know miss their rabbit ears?
One reason I'm wondering is because there is are some "remotest and darkest" regions there that, according to reports I'm reading, are less likely to be getting CATV service - although some of the first cable systems in North America were established for the express purpose of reaching customers that broadcast transmission couldn't reach because of the topology.
SF3
Score: 0
|The number would be quite small. Believe it or not even the "Eskimos" get cable, or satellite dishes. The few I know who don't have either don't watch all that much TV to begin with and usually just rent movies when they do. There is also radio. Plus, even if you just have a phone you have access to the world over the Internet. I have cable TV and lately I've been watching most of my TV over the net instead. BTW, I have cable Internet @ 10 Mbps. My Province has the highest density per capita of Internet users in North America.
Score: -1
|So the argument is that Canadians that are receiving analog US stations are SOL? Come on... if Canada is so worried about that, they can receive the feed digitally at a station and rebroadcast the analog themselves. This doom and gloom OMG we're fugging the Canucks stuff is silly. It's probably in the best interest of Canada to make the same switch we are, but even should they not, they have options that aren't that expensive.
Score: 0
|And Scott, how is a nation, by definition, not self-centered? We couldn't make the decision for them anyhow. We needed the bandwidth, and at great cost, we are making the change to improve things. Suggesting we're self-centered is idiotic and opinionated journalism.
Score: -1
|yey he is like fox news and cnn!
Score: -1
|"Canadian broadcasters are facing the challenge of how to keep up with their self-centered neighbors to the south."
"Self-centered"
I read through the whole article and that was the only thing that stuck in my mind. Was that needed? I think not.
Score: 0
|Are you saying it isn't true? ;)
Score: 0
|nvm
Score: 0
|I am saying it is not true.
Why should the US make its decisions based on its annoying upstairs neighbors?
Score: 0
|It was uncalled for. People come here for the news, not the journalist's opinions on the matter. That's what comments are for. Very childish. The U.S. does a lot for other countries. It's an over-looked fact that the countries that like to hate us choose to ignore. People neglect to mention the positive and focus on the negative. Such is the news in general I suppose.
Score: 0
|"its annoying upstairs neighbors"
And you wonder why people attack the US....
Score: -1
|I am sure he was responding to the writer's comment concerning the "self-centered."
The point is it's an interesting article in general, but why would you put a comment in like that? Its like some one took a swipe at a cake and ruined the decorations.
Score: -1
|I agree, the news media these days go for the big punch, as in what gets your attention and emotions going at the same time.
They pick one side of the story and overword them, sometimes missleading people.
To me this whole situation honestly its almost similiar to someone getting free cable off their next door neighbor. When their neibhor moves away they are stuck with the decision of do I buy my own cable or go without it?
Score: -1
|radioactive21, I appreciate the sentiment. What my "self-centered" adjective was meant to refer to was the fact that the final policy regarding the US transition to DTV was drafted without consideration being given to any other country whose economy might be affected by the decision. It wasn't seen as requiring the input of Foreign Relations. Whereas the original policy that made the systems of broadcasting what they are today, were drafted with input from our neighbors.
I'm sorry, though, that this adjective was the only thing that stuck in your mind after reading the whole thing, and I'll try to be careful about leaving similar grenades in the text going forward.
SF "Knows the Meaning of 'Self-Centered' Quite Personally" 3
Score: -1
|The whole nation wars is getting really old. People need to respect other countries and their cultures. We're all different for a reason. Every single one of us does things others don't approve of. Get over it and yourselves. Everybody talks like their s*** don't stink, and it's gagging. You're all just monkeys throwing poo at each other.
Score: 0
|I agree that the US should have taken input from our neighhors if they had done so originally. But at the same time Canada should have watched out for its own people. It seems like Canada was completely unprepared. Keeping in mind that congress has pushed the date for transition to DTV a couple of times, extending it by many years.
I also believe that if Congress had made this an international relations issue with our neibhnors many would feel that it is a way of controling Canada's airwaves directily. Setting our own deadlines, we leave it up to Canada to follow or not. In this way they have choices. Follow with the upgrades and recieve the new signals, or come up with a new plan where Canada doesnt have to worry about a situation like this again. I hope Canada does the latter.
Canada is a big enough country and should take care of this on its own.
Score: 1
|"You're all just monkeys throwing poo at each other."
lmao
Score: 1
|