sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

January 23, 2023 10:08 am  #1


"New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

I'm not sure this newly published article on "NextGen TV" is entirely up to date. But it's still a worthwhile read. Outside of WNYO, Channel 49 in Buffalo, no one south of the border in this area is doing it. And frankly, there's nothing on 49 I ever watch. 

And then there's this, which sounds intriguing:

"A few cities, such as Boise, Idaho, Portland, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado, have Evoca, a sort of hybrid service that combines over-the-air with some pay channels like the NFL Network, Bloomberg and others. This is ideal for markets that might not have many channel options while simultaneously having internet speeds too slow for streaming." 

But an article in The Denver Post from last November indicates Evoca was close to shutting down for lack of funds. And its website no longer seems to exist. Guess the author didn't check.

Still, if you're curious about NextGen TV, the linked article outlines the basics. But whether any station worth watching in this area will spend the money to convert is another matter. So far, most of them haven't. It's certainly not enough to justify a TV upgrade. 


New Tech Is Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better

 

January 23, 2023 2:57 pm  #2


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

WNYO RF16 Next Gen has WGRZ, WIVB, WKBW and WUTV as subchannels. The different subchannels have different power levels in ATSC 3.0 so some may not make it to Toronto. I receive them all in my location.
 

Last edited by canam2021 (January 23, 2023 4:25 pm)

 

January 23, 2023 3:41 pm  #3


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

I can only see the regular HD feeds. I like the fact that the article claims weaker signals (like WIVB, which gives me all kinds of reception problems) are stronger using the system, but I don't have the equipment to try and prove that.

That said, I can't help but wonder if this is the TV equivalent of Canadian radio's DAB - lots of promise and the viewers (listeners) ultimately don't care - especially if you're telling everyone they need a brand new TV set. (And maybe more than one.)  

How does your reception of the NextGen TV signals differ from regular HD? Is it that much better? Do you get anything more out of it? Or is it just the same signals with maybe just a little better picture?

     Thread Starter
 

January 23, 2023 4:18 pm  #4


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Same programming as 1.0. Slightly better picture better colour more stable. The transmitter is in Grand Island NY from what I understand it is directional away from Canada. It is still in a testing phase.

Last edited by canam2021 (January 23, 2023 4:22 pm)

 

January 23, 2023 4:27 pm  #5


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

So can I take from your response that you wouldn't miss it if you were restricted to just Plain Old HD? Therein lies the issue - who will buy a new set for so little improvement?

     Thread Starter
 

January 23, 2023 4:37 pm  #6


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

 

January 26, 2023 5:48 pm  #7


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Some members of the television industry are trying to speed up the "transition" to NextGen TV, which translates into a rerun of the switch to HD, which obsoleted thousands of sets and forced consumers to go out and buy new ones in order to keep getting their local stations. Now it looks like some want history to repeat itself, with the supposed "benefits" of NextGen. 

Broadcasters Ask FCC to Help Move NextGen TV Along

I remember asking this question when they forced HD on all of us: Who asked for this? Yes, there are great things about high definition but I don't recall there being marches in the street demanding it or crowds jamming Best Buy to get it when analogue still existed. They essentially forced everyone's hand, and if I recall correctly, it wasn't only because of better picture and sound. The powers-that-be wanted to free up spectrum to make more room for cell phones.  

Would you go out and buy yet another series of TV sets just to get this "next generation?" Once again, I find myself asking, "who asked for this?" (Although we all certainly know who will pay for this!)

     Thread Starter
 

January 28, 2023 10:06 pm  #8


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

RA as an earliest adopter of HDTV, I don’t disagree with you.  But ATSC 3.0 adoption  might take place when our Flatscreen HDTV’s eventually go to the recycling depot when they wear out.  But the problem seems that many manufactuerers haven’t upgraded their chipsets in the tuners of current product lines.  I bought an ATSC-1.0 decoder in 2008 in Glendale AZ, about 6 months before WIVB became the first OTA station in Buffalo to transmit HD.  I was in touch with the chief engineer at WIVB many times, before, during and after they turned on the HD transmitter (they simulcast on Ch. 4 and 32 for a fairly long time as I recall).  I guess I was one of their OTA viewers .  Even then there wasn't much HD content, a few hours a week.  My feeling is that sports and 16x9 feature films were the real drivers of HD adoption back then.  But it was the manufacture of low-cost high res flatscreens that revolutionized the market.  Everyone wanted a flatscreen, and they flew off the shelves.  The ATSC 1.0 tuners were irrelevant, because in those days a staggering 85% of Cdn households had cable, which meant few people ever used their tuners.  I suspect the same will occur, though OTA reception might nudge 15% in 5 years from now, in the GTA.  Streaming, and built-in apps that are downloadable will probably drive sales of the next generation of sets equipped with 3.0 tuners.  In my family all TV buying decisions seem to be based on the software and apps built into sets.  FAST channels which are accessible via downloadable apps, are going to be a massive business.  So you’re right, ATSC 3.0 really offers very littlle to very few people.  But for the % who receive OTA in the US it is still a very large market, so there could be major business opportunities to multiplex all sorts of content. I’m also told that broadcasters may be able to target ads geographically to users of 3.0 ATSC sets, but that raises some privacy issues too.

Last edited by tvguy (January 28, 2023 10:10 pm)

 

January 28, 2023 10:19 pm  #9


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Fascinating, as always tvguy. And yes, I think that addressability of specific ads is why so many in the industry are so excited about this thing. The rest of us likely couldn't care less which it comes down to it. I have an odd feeling that NextGen could be the North American equivalent of DAB in Canada - a nice experiment but a financial disaster. 

People aren't going to buy a new set for big bucks unless there's a compelling reason. I'm not so sure this is it.  

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 12:30 am  #10


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

The way prices are plumetting on OLED and other display devices, I have no doubt in 5 or 10 years, everything that will be sold will have higher resolution capability, and an atsc 3.0 tuner.   It’s really about compression rates, and the ability to transmit higher quality video using less bandwith.  ATSC 3.0 is also far more robust, less prone to artifacts, multipath,  fading, etc.  Think of the transmission bottlenecks that were forecast for streaming content on the internet.  Compression algorithms have accorded much higher video quality, without collapsing the net.  There is a “night lite” obligation for stations that go to ATSC to continue providing ATSC 1 for a period of time.  But for that 15 or 20% of households who use OTA reception, retrofitting with a low cost dongle could be the solution once ATSC signals are switched off.  There is also a business case in the US for broadcasters to consolidate signals on a single transmission site.   Whether they eventually provide 8K resolution via ATSC 3.0, OTA or by way of fibre delivery to cable companies will be resolved over time.  In Canada, I don’t see broadcasters consolidating transnission operations the way they do in the U.S.  But in Canada, CTV and Global could care less about OTA service.   Today you can buy an ATSC 3,0 device for under $200 US in the states, and $250 here on Amazon.  I expect that cost will be 50-75% lower in a couple of years.  If you're not paying monthly for cable, that's a small price to pay, to keep receiving OTA HD without buying a new set.

Last edited by tvguy (January 29, 2023 12:32 am)

 

January 29, 2023 12:42 am  #11


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Good to know. And since I primarily watch everything but the news on U.S. stations, this is something that might be of interest after all. Especially if I don't have to buy two new sets (one for the living room, one for the bedroom.) I also like the idea that reception could be better - I've mostly lost WIVB and its co-located WNLO, at least during the winter. Too far and too little signal where I am, despite a booster. I'd be willing to pay for a dongle that might help bring it back. 

Next they need to invent an OTA DVR that can record these signals. 

As for when or if Canadian TV will ever go this route, at the risk of upsetting our old friend paterson1, Canadians always seem to be way behind the U.S. on tech upgrades. It's almost as though they wait to see if it succeeds down south before allowing it here. Are there are Canadian stations you know experimenting with this yet?

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 12:00 pm  #12


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Canadian stations have basically given up on OTA - - they have obvious conflicts of interest, since bell, & rogers own BDUs, they still cannot see that OTA is a good way to repatriate their diminishing subscriber bases.  But of course, Rogers (Citytv) has a paid streaming game plan. Corus is also following a similar plan via its Stack TV and the CTV and Global TV apps, often require some form of user login - often linked to a cable or satellite account.  The only untainted broadcast groups who have OTA are Pattison in the west and Channel Zero (CHCH).  But I don’t think they spend much time planning for ATSC 1 let alone ATSC 3.  Unfortunately in most rural areas, OTA has been shut down.  I’m not even certain that the folks at TVO have any plans to promote/improve their OTA presence.  Sad isn’t it?  Canada was a leader in OTA coverage.  As for CBC, I think they’ve conceded that GEM is their future, and not OTA.   The CBC thinks there is a goldmine with GEM premium streaming accounts….I’m not that sure there is a viable business in GEM premium (which you require in order to stream some of the OTA content)

 

January 29, 2023 12:53 pm  #13


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

RA, please let's not start this again.  You and your sweeping blanket statements and continuing negativity of anything and everything Canadian.  As was mentioned above, Canadian broadcasters have moved away from OTA.  You may not like this since this is how you watch television but that has nothing to do with "being way behind on tech upgrades." If this new system is likely not going to be used here, then how can Canadian broadcasters be way behind?

I am not saying that moving away and dropping OTA is right or wrong, but that is what we have right now.  Our broadcast and cable set up differs from our friends to the south.  A reason why OTA was phased out here was because very few people were watching off air in the first place.  Why would CBC and private networks maintain hundreds of transmitters across the country when few people, even in large centres  were tuning in and watching off air?

Fine if you enjoy buying adapters and new equipment just to get a poor off air signal for WIVB.  Most people aren't interested in that and just want a clear reliable signal when they turn the TV on.  The price becomes secondary and most don't want hassles about the quality of the picture, and intermittent service.

If all this new technology has legs down the road in the US, and if broadcasters here for some reason start providing more off air signals again, then that would be the time to look at implementation.  But right now that doesn't seem likely to happen. 

 

January 29, 2023 3:29 pm  #14


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

We've covered this ground before. I'm not saying Canada is inferior in its technology in any way. My point is that history proves that we're always behind on these innovations. 

The First TV Stations - WBEN was on in 1948, the very first in this area. We didn't get the CBC putting out a signal until 1952. That's a four-year gap. Why did it take so long? Because our government dithered on what our TV should be like here, leaving Canadians to tune in and get used to Buffalo for their viewing entertainment. 

Colour TV - The U.S. was testing colour shows as early as 1953, with almost every program on television there in "living colour" by 1965. Canada didn't get the tint hint officially sanctioned until July 1, 1966. It wasn't that they didn't want to broadcast in colour. They weren't allowed to. You've argued before that many shows were not in colour, so what's the big deal? It's this: why did our government need to give the go-ahead for this "innovation," meaning no TV stations north of the border were allowed to "Colourcast" as TV Guide used to put it in their listings, for so very long? The technology was there. Why did it take a government mandate to launch it?

UHF Stations - There were UHF stations on in the U.S. almost right from the beginning. WBUF, Channel 17, now an educational station, was an owned and operated NBC property for a few years. It signed on in 1953. A lack of UHF on sets meant it did not last long. But a mandate from the American government forcing all sets to come with UHF goes all the way back to 1962. Canada's first UHF station was CICA, Channel 19. It didn't get permission to go on air until September 1972 - decades after the U.S. was filled with such signals.

Cable TV Channels - The U.S. began having satellite distribution of signals as early as 1975, when HBO went on the air - or rather, the satellite. The Canadian government didn't licence the first Canuck cable-only entities until between 1982 and 1984, almost a decade later. They were ostensibly trying to protect over-the-air stations. Again, we were far, far behind. 

HDTV - Likely the biggest change to TV itself since the invention of the boob tube. All major U.S. analogue channels were ordered off the air by June 12, 2009. While some stations (notably City TV) were testing the new transmission method early on, we didn't shut off most of our old-fashioned transmitters until August 31, 2011, more than two years later. Again, what was the delay? The answer: Ottawa's dithering. 

In each case, government interference played a role in keeping us behind our southern neighbours. That's not the fault of Canadian TV operators. I know someone who was at City TV when the rush for Canadian cable stations began, and Moses Znaimer jumped in with both feet, trying to grab as many stations as possible. Whereas in the U.S. it was a case of "can you get coverage? Then go!" And you didn't need big government to tell you that you could or couldn't. If you wanted to take the risk and the technology made it possible, go for it.

And that, I maintain, is why Canada is always behind our southern neighbour. Yes, they have a bigger population and bigger markets. But we have big cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal with potentially huge audiences (far bigger than Buffalo) that were denied the things they could see across the border. This is just more proof that the CRTC and the Industry Ministry should let those in the biz who know what they're doing, do it. They don't have to stick their nose in everything.

Why can't we lead just for once? Because governments love red tape, hearings, rules and regs. But the audience isn't watching that. They only want quality programming on the latest technology. Lead or get out of the way. But as we all know, that's just not in their DNA. It's not about quality control. It's all about Control, period. And those in this country are the poorer for it. 

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 4:57 pm  #15


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

A lot of American stations’ ability to fund innovation is actually a result of *more* regulation. Fee-for-carriage and only allowing local affiliates on cable/satellite go a long way.

Also, a lack of regulation in Canada has allowed tv networks to be vertically integrated with cable companies, reducing the motivation to invest in OTA.

As for this most recent technology, I’m not sure it’s the same game-changer that HD was. When you first saw HD, you knew you just had to have it; it was clearly the biggest improvement since colour. It’ll take a lot to replicate that instant demand.

Last edited by RadioAaron (January 29, 2023 4:58 pm)

 

January 29, 2023 5:21 pm  #16


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Well, that, plus they really gave you no choice. When they turned off analogue transmissions in both countries, if you got your TV OTA, you really had to upgrade to a new set in order to keep watching. Those so-called "night lights" were only there for a few months and a drop-dead date meant you had no real choice. Otherwise, you'd see what we saw outside in Toronto on Sunday - a ton of snow! 

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 6:08 pm  #17


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

And you think I overreact!  All you're doing is rehashing what you have said before.  So I will do the same thing.  You are ignoring economics, the size of the two markets and the differences in the two broadcasting systems and how they are regulated.  Trying to blame everything on the government and CRTC is not really accurate and doesn't take into account other factors.

 HD TV- I think your take of HDTV is a bit off.  I got my first HDTV in 2006 and all of the Canadian networks were broadcasting in HD with the exception of older programs that were not produced in that format.  This was true of US channels as well. City tv was full time HD in 2003, CBC was broadcasting in HD in 2005/06 in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal. When the FCC and CRTC mandated that all major stations had to be broadcasting in HD (2009 and 2011) is kind of irrelevant.  Many were already doing this long before the dates.

UHF channels- nobody cared then and still don't.

Colour TV- Didn't become a thing until ABC and CBS started broadcasting mostly in colour in 1965/66. Even in 1965 colour penetration in US homes was still single digits. In Canada 1%.  By the mid 60's the price of colour sets had come down, and in Canada at least cable tv was starting to get traction.  Cable of course brought in more channels, better quality signals and therefore better colour. So broadcasting in colour in 1966/67 was perfect timing. 

Cable TV- We were far ahead of the US on this.  Small towns like Collingwood had a much larger variety of channels than Nashville or Fort Lauderdale with superior picture quality.  Cable gave us more channels, clear pictures and sound. More reliable than the stick on the roof that was often plagued by interference from planes, buildings even vehicles in large communities.

The CRTC allowed US channels into small cities and towns across the country and this made cable much more advanced here and better.  Without cable these channels never would have reached smaller, remote communities at the time.  Larger Canadian channels from out of market were also on cable systems across the country.  Something that still doesn't happen much south of the border since the set up is territorial for local channels. 

US style of Cable TV- Again, who cares.  Most of the early examples struggled and many went out of business in Canada.  Many of the start ups in the US also didn't survive   Since Canadian networks weren't bound by the same restrictions as US OTA networks, some did pick up  specials or programming from HBO and ESPN and scheduled programming here OTA for free. 

First Channel- Yes WBEN was the first and good for them!  Buffalo and Toronto were more comparable in size and importance in the 1940's.  However CBLT TV and CHCH were on the air prior to WGR and  WKBW. 

I think blaming the four year gap between WBEN and CBLT on the government is a bit wrong.  Like was mentioned last time, Canada was broke after WW2, and we were rebuilding a peace time economy after a very long and costly war.  The US was doing this as well, but America was richer, with a much bigger population base and generally more entrepreneurial than here. 

So these factors were also a reason for the delay in TV broadcasting here, along with the traditional more cautious Canadian approach to many things.  

 

January 29, 2023 6:35 pm  #18


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

What's interesting about your response is that you seemed to - again - miss my main point. I'm not arguing that Canadian TV is inferior or that we're not different in size and scope, per se. I'm complaining that we're always behind in innovations, regardless of who got what on cable. (And on that point, I was talking about original cable stations, not over the air imports, which is a different animal. As for HD, I'm clearly referring to the date when analogue night lights were turned off for good. They did it two years before we did, for no especially good reason other than CRTC dithering.)

On the colour TV thing, for example, it is beyond my comprehension why stations here were forbidden - by law! - to broadcast anything in colour for years. It's completely insane and makes no sense. It might have not only encouraged sales of colour TVs in this country, but also given us reruns of Canadian-made shows in varied hues. They'd be worth a lot more in rerun value if they'd been made that way. 
 
We can stand on our own and be on the forefront of technology, if the idiots in Ottawa, who don't know broadcasting from a hole in the wall, would get out of the way and let us lead. But this endless and seemingly insatiable need to control every aspect of a broadcaster's life is incessantly tiring and ultimately unproductive. 

So this is not an anti-Canadian TV rant. More like an anti-red tape one. And you know who holds the key to loosening that. But, of course, they never will. I admire the American "we'll give it a try and see if it works" ethos. In Canada, it's more like "we'd love to give it a try but they won't let us." And that's why I often seem to be siding with our American cousins. Canadian broadcasters need the freedom to fail - and learn from those mistakes. And, just possibly also, succeed. They need to loosen the vice grip on regulating EVERYTHING and then maybe we can be first at something for a change. Instead of always being followers, years late, with bureaucratic strings attached.  

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 6:49 pm  #19


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

Regulation funded recent US innovation - you're missing that point.

 

January 29, 2023 6:50 pm  #20


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

RadioActive wrote:

Well, that, plus they really gave you no choice. When they turned off analogue transmissions in both countries, if you got your TV OTA, you really had to upgrade to a new set in order to keep watching. Those so-called "night lights" were only there for a few months and a drop-dead date meant you had no real choice. Otherwise, you'd see what we saw outside in Toronto on Sunday - a ton of snow! 

HD was the majority way before they turned off analog.

 

January 29, 2023 8:44 pm  #21


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

RA, I am more than happy to split hairs with you. 

"I am not arguing that Canadian TV is inferior.."  Huh? Where did this come from? We were talking about innovation and why the US is usually first off the mark.  I gave you reasons beyond the usual whining about government interference that you always bring up. But now you attempting to divert to something that wasn't discussed in this post.

And we have innovated like I have pointed out in other debates but you seem to have a selective memory and don't like when someone questions or shoots holes in your soapbox ramblings.  Pretty hard to have a discussion when the other party uses phrases like "the idiots in Ottawa that don't know broadcasting from a hole in the wall.." I bet they know more than you or I.

This is interesting that Aaron highlights that it is largely more and different regulations by the FCC that is funding much of the innovation.  We are not set up or regulated the same way, and as the great Walter Cronkite would say..."that's the way it is.."

 

January 29, 2023 9:50 pm  #22


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

paterson1 wrote:

We are not set up or regulated the same way, and as the great Walter Cronkite would say..."that's the way it is.."

And that's exactly the problem. Too much regulation, not enough freedom or imagination. Frankly, given the restraints, I'm surprised how good Canadian radio has been all these years despite the incessant meddling of the federal government.

I know a large number of people who have gone before the CRTC in a variety of hearings and almost every one of them has told me a) it was a miserable experience and b) they felt they were trying to explain their business to children who had no idea what they were talking about. And that the children were in charge, resulting in ridiculously illogical decisions that barely made sense. Yet they had to live with them and work around them.

I've never been to a hearing, but these are people I respect, who have a ton of radio management experience and I'll take their word for it.  

     Thread Starter
 

January 29, 2023 10:40 pm  #23


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

You could get a digital to analog converter if you did not have a digital TV. Some people use them even with digital TV's as you can DVR off air shows and some of the tuners in those boxes are very good.

I bought one when I already had two digital TV's. Have never tried the DVR function or or the USB to record stuff though. Mine does have a good tuner and was not all that expensive.

Last edited by Fitz (January 29, 2023 11:00 pm)


Cool Airchecks and More:
http://www.lettheuniverseanswer.com/
 

January 29, 2023 11:09 pm  #24


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

It is not up to the CRTC to instill freedom and imagination for broadcasters. Broadcasters are the creative ones, and the business professionals, remember?  

I have been to CRTC hearings a few times and for the most part they were interesting, and what I saw didn't resemble what you are talking about.  Did this large number of people that you referred to have the same viewpoint as you?  If so, then yes they likely didn't enjoy the hearing, since some may have already decided it was going to be a miserable experience. 

According to a previous poster (Aaron) the funding for innovation in the US is largely because local TV and cable have MORE regulation, carriage fee revenue and restricted coverage.  Many of our regs and guidelines are different than what the FCC views as being important.  You obviously don't agree with our broadcast situation and I don't always do either, but to have constant temper tantrums and rehashing decades old grievances and tired arguments doesn't help your cause. 
 
 Also your opinion is always from the point of view of the non cable OTA viewer which is what you are. Since you have a biased hate for everything Rogers, Bell, and cable in general this gives a very one sided, self serving and somewhat unbalanced viewpoint.  Like it or not most people still deal with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, Cogeco etc. 

 

 

January 29, 2023 11:37 pm  #25


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

RadioActive wrote:

I admire the American "we'll give it a try and see if it works" ethos. In Canada, it's more like "we'd love to give it a try but they won't let us.".....
.....Canadian broadcasters need the freedom to fail - and learn from those mistakes.

DAB

 

 

January 30, 2023 12:35 am  #26


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

paterson1 wrote:

It is not up to the CRTC to instill freedom and imagination for broadcasters. Broadcasters are the creative ones, and the business professionals, remember? 

Yes and I noted they somehow are still able to do their jobs despite the CRTC meddling, not because of it.   

paterson1 wrote:

I have been to CRTC hearings a few times and for the most part they were interesting, and what I saw didn't resemble what you are talking about.  Did this large number of people that you referred to have the same viewpoint as you?  If so, then yes they likely didn't enjoy the hearing, since some may have already decided it was going to be a miserable experience.

One of the people I'm referring to was a very prominent news director of a huge Toronto radio station. He said he didn't feel like the Commissioners were well briefed on the subject of the hearing, they'd made up their minds well in advance and they wouldn't listen to the very broadcasters who had to implement their rules - some of which were contradictions in the way radio generally works. So of course it was a miserable experience. How would you like to know as much as you do about the area of the business you work in, only to have to sit in front of people who don't have that knowledge and tell you you're wrong about everything you know to be true? I'd call that frustrating and yes, miserable. 

paterson1 wrote:

According to a previous poster (Aaron) the funding for innovation in the US is largely because local TV and cable have MORE regulation, carriage fee revenue and restricted coverage.  Many of our regs and guidelines are different than what the FCC views as being important.  You obviously don't agree with our broadcast situation and I don't always do either, but to have constant temper tantrums and rehashing decades old grievances and tired arguments doesn't help your cause. 

What you call "temper tantrums" I call reality. And it doesn't change if you ignore what's going on. But then, you're in favour of Bill C-11, which experts around the world have deemed one of the most misguided if not dangerous pieces of legislation ever seen in North America. I hope my VPN will protect me from this horrendous government interference, because after all, the great government gargoyles know what's best for us!
 

paterson1 wrote:

 Also your opinion is always from the point of view of the non cable OTA viewer which is what you are. Since you have a biased hate for everything Rogers, Bell, and cable in general this gives a very one sided, self serving and somewhat unbalanced viewpoint.  Likeit or not most people still deal with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, Cogeco etc. 

Yes, because they have no real choice. And whose fault is that? I think you know the answer. And because of that answer, I refuse to do business with these bloated, onerous, monopolistic greed mongers. That's my choice and I invite you to pay more and more and more endlessly into eternity if that's your wish. Mine is that we get the competition we so desperately need in this country. But despite what the feds say they want to do, (encourage competition and therefore cheaper prices) it somehow never happens. Why do you suppose that is?

And just because I don't have Canadian cable does not mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion on it - or that, after all those years working in TV, I don't know anything about how it works. I don't have to be a surgeon to know that an operation can be good for what ails you. Especially when these guys keep making everybody sick!

     Thread Starter
 

January 30, 2023 12:37 am  #27


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

In Phase wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

I admire the American "we'll give it a try and see if it works" ethos. In Canada, it's more like "we'd love to give it a try but they won't let us.".....
.....Canadian broadcasters need the freedom to fail - and learn from those mistakes.

DAB 

Right. And they learned an expensive lesson from that dismal failure. But at least they weren't prevented from trying. We should have the right to fail, not have a government behemoth say we should never even be allowed to try.

     Thread Starter
 

January 30, 2023 10:33 am  #28


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

When I was at the CRTC hearings I recall a few radio stations that were not very well prepared.  Some had problems answering fairly basic questions from the commission and seemed unsure in their answers.  These were smaller stations and companies, and the  individuals had plenty of time to get ready for their hearing.  If anything the CRTC went easy on them in my opinion.

 With larger stations and their owners the commission rightly expects a lot more.  Bureaucrats will also test individuals to see how much they know and if they have done their homework.  Also years ago there would be a review of any areas of the "promise of performance" that were not being fulfilled.  Most of the organizations that were professionals sailed through the hearings unscathed.  Those that were lacking, especially larger stations could be in for a rough ride.  If the CRTC wasn't prepared for the hearing that your friend was at, was this brought up with the commission?  A hearing is a two way street, you are free to question and criticize them.  

Nothing wrong with having an opinion but at least present all the facts rather than just the ones that fit your argument. Temper tantrums are not reality, sorry. 

What do you mean people have no real choice?  Sure they do.  Don't support the big three, and go with one of the smaller providers or do what you do.   Most choose not to go this route and as you know cable penetration rates here and in the US have been shrinking.  However I have noticed that many people who have cut cable often still have the basic package since they want local news and channels. 

As far as Bill C-11 goes and whatever it ends up being, the over the top fear mongering and half truths are there to scare the average person with misinformation.   Here we go again with all of these experts around the world who don't like C-11.  I have read two articles in the National Post from individuals elsewhere that don't agree with C-11.  Sure there is lots of opposition here at home, and that is good and right.  If Bill C-11 is passed and it is in fact as dreadful and dangerous as some like to push, then it will be dropped or altered.  But those that don't like the idea of C-11 are hurting their cause with the over the top "sky is falling" attitude. 

Getting back to the basic question of should the internet be regulated, most governments here and elsewhere seem to be saying yes. 

 

January 30, 2023 10:40 am  #29


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

I am one of many who doesn't have access to OTA television because I live in an apartment, without a balcony and my apartment faces north. So Rogers was my only option until about five years ago when our building was wired for Bell Fibe. People forget that originally the ONLY reason to have cable in the GTA was to get better reception of the U.S. networks.

 

January 30, 2023 10:54 am  #30


Re: "New Tech Making Free Over-the-Air TV Even Better." But Is It Really?

mace wrote:

I am one of many who doesn't have access to OTA television because I live in an apartment, without a balcony and my apartment faces north. So Rogers was my only option until about five years ago when our building was wired for Bell Fibe. People forget that originally the ONLY reason to have cable in the GTA was to get better reception of the U.S. networks.

Sorry mace, it was not the only reason.  It was a big reason and for many people I agree  the most important. However cable also gave you more channels, all with clear signals, no interference and no need of an ugly antenna on the roof. When our family first got cable this is how it was sold to us.   Also in time some people really enjoyed the local cable channel that covered local sports, politics, events etc.  And the only way you would get the community tv was with cable.  I know of people here in Kitchener who eventually dropped Bell or went back to cable because they missed the local Rogers community channel, especially Rangers and Guelph Storm hockey.