RSSCanadian Networks Consider End to Broadcast TV
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 28, 2006, 6:48 PM
(continued from previous page)
The CBC proposal, introduced first before the CRTC as the two-week session of hearings began yesterday, proposes a more rigorous transition to DTV broadcasting than Canada has considered thus far. It's proposing that the government adopt an August 20, 2011 shutoff date for conventional analog transmission. In the intervening time, all broadcasters would receive higher fees from cable providers such as Rogers Communications, Canada's largest CATV concern.
"We're proposing an approach that would allow conventional broadcasters to operate on the same financial footing as specialty services," CBC News quotes today from a statement from CBC President Robert Rubinovitch to the CRTC. Broadcasters may need the four-year window instead of a two-year one, to enable them to earn enough from raised cable fees to fund the construction of as many as 32 new DTV transmitters nationwide, joining the eight the CBC has already constructed.
The CBC is also proposing that the CRTC allow it to start charging a subscription fee, which could possibly resemble the license fee British TV viewers currently pay.
Representatives of CanWest Global, CTV, and the French-language network TQS which operates mostly in Quebec, have voiced support for the idea of charging cable services more for carriage. However, they don't think the raised cable fees alone would be enough, and are reserving their comment about supplemental subscription fees. Instead, their counter-proposal would increase the amount of commercial time allotted per hour beyond the current limit of 12 minutes.
Commercial broadcasters argued that some of those 12 minutes have to be used for self-promotion; and some of that self-promotion has to be delegated to ads for shows acquired from US producers. "So we actually don't get 12 minutes per hour in any hour where we advertise US programming," the CBC quotes CanWest Global President Leonard Asper as telling the CRTC today. In the commercial proposal, promotion for US shows wouldn't count against the 12 minutes.
(In the US, the FCC officially regulates commercial networks to 12 minutes of promotional time per hour as well, though they notoriously have overstepped those bounds without so much as a peep from regulators. Prior to its merger with The WB network to form The CW, UPN was criticized for showing between 18 and 20 minutes of commercials per hour.)
The CBC went on record as opposing the commercial counter-proposal, on the grounds that basing any kind of business mainly upon an advertising-driven model is simply asking for trouble. In a written statement released this morning, the CBC said, "In television, the advertising-based business model on which conventional broadcasting has relied is at risk due to the number of channels vying for the same revenue; commercial skipping; and the migration of marketing spending to the Internet and other platforms."
"The weakening advertising market will make it impossible for conventional broadcasters to advance the commission's goals for original Canadian programming," stated the CBC's Rubinovitch in testimony yesterday. "The future does not look promising if conventional broadcasters continue to rely on ad revenues as a major source of funding."
For its part, the Rogers Cable division of Rogers Communications is opposed to both proposals. As a major Canadian employer, and with its CEO, Ted Rogers, as admired/envied in Canada as Ted Turner has been in the US, and also with its technology partner being none other than Microsoft, Rogers Communications has tremendous influence, including on government policy.
In a statement, Rogers said a 50ยข per month per subscriber increase in cable coverage fees paid to broadcasters could end up costing the subscribers as much as $5.00 more per month, for reasons it did not explain. It did comment, however, "The [terrestrial] television industry is not in the dire straits some broadcasters make it out to be," and suggested an accelerated DTV transition date to sometime in 2010.
The Third Option -- simply eliminating broadcast TV altogether -- is not without its merits, as broadcasters see it. In its own statement, station owner CHUM Ltd. told the CRTC, "Investing hundreds of millions of dollars for a very minimal percentage of the population is not a wise investment for a system that is already suffering from finite resources."
Recent government reports estimate about two-thirds of the Canadian population already receives cable TV; while the CBC estimates that 9 out of 10 TV viewers watch a program from a broadcaster at some time of the day, even if they do so through cable. Simply canceling transmitter upgrades could end up hurting fewer viewers than some might think.
But which ones? Since DTV transmitter upgrades were primarily planned for leading southern urban areas of the country anyway, conceivably, viewers in the far north could be just as likely to become orphaned from all TV once the upgrades are complete, as they would be if they were canceled altogether.
As CanWest MediaWorks CEO Peter Viner told the CRTC, "We're at a very ugly intersection in terms of the television industry...I'm afraid it's under so much stress that it's going to crash."
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
|