Your next TV will come with a magnetic swiper for Visa or MasterCard

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the impending TV review by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). I've said it before but I'll say it again because it's such a good line: The broadcasters are using their favourite F-word -- but it's Canadian consumers and the cultural community who will bend over. When the TV guys talk flexibility you know they aren't about to screw themselves.

The federal broadcast watchdog has all but decided to conduct a TV policy review that will consider, among other things, the redundant cost of over-the-air transmission in a digital environment, cable and satellite distributors' time-shifting packages for which broadcasters receive no fees and, last but not least, the networks' claims they need to be on a level playing field with specialty channels which get subscription fees and ad revenues.

What that means: TV viewers will pay more. More to see TV that is currently free with rabbit ears or is part of basic cable. More for digital signals that give them access to east and west coast feeds of network programs. More. More. More.

Now Greg O'Brien of the online newsletter CARTT (sub. req'd.) has a couple of goodies.

First he cites giant cable guy Jim Shaw saying that, if the networks end up getting fees for carriage, the costs will just get passed on down the line. In his discussion, Shaw also  takes a swipe at CanWest Global chief Leonard Asper

"It's not our problem that if someone's in TV and then they buy newspapers so now they don't make any money," said Shaw Communications CEO Jim Shaw, responding to a question on the potential for retransmission fees being paid to Canadian broadcasters by MSOs.

Then, says Shaw

"I would hope the TV review will allow a broader range of stations that could come in from the U.S. or Europe or anywhere. You can get them on the Internet so why can't the cable company carry them?"

Good question. And before you faithful readers go off on how you all get The Sopranos on your BlackBerrys, please remember that most people still watch ordinary TV and have VCRs with 12:00! 12:00! 12:00! flashing.

O'Brien also has an interview with CRTC chair Charles Dalfen who says the  Conservative government wants to get involved in how the review unfolds.

"I think that there is certainly a mood on the part of the government, which is a positive thing, to do policy making. It may be a perception that policy has been left to agencies to make but now there are issues that they would like to take a top down view of. I think both our acts (Telecom and Broadcast) allow for policy direction and… I think it would be a good thing on some issues if (the government) did take hold," says Dalfen.

The government is going have one very, very hot political potato frying in its hand if broadcasters get fees for carriage and people have to start paying for what they have essentially received for free.

Comments

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

The issue has been floating about for a decade, at least. Why anyone, in this day and age, would want air broadcasts is beyond me. Is it habit, penny-pinching, or a desire for the Good Old Days.

Go satellite, if you are able, or cable (if you have no other choice...LOL).

The broadcast stations are not willing to sepnd collective billions to buy new digital transmitters for the antenna addicts. They supply a low cost feed and that is the end of it.

[Antonia Z.]

If you're a single parent low-wage earner, or a senior on a fixed income ... come on Bill. Everybody should have the right to free information in the information age. I think it should be enshrined in the Charter, as a matter of fact. The airwaves are public. If they can't honour their part of the deal, then hand back the licences.

Network owners/bosses have made vast fortunes. mining the public airwaves. It can't ALWAYS be about their profits.

[D Shapiro]

Wow! You posted over 4,000 words today. Never mind that some are from the column you printed, and many are copied from elsewhere. That is a formidable job of editing, writing, and opinionating. Brava,
Antonia! And most of the time I even agree with you. That's even more amazing. The one thing I insist on taking issue with, in all today's columns, is that Israel's wall just becomes more and more inevitable and necessary, and no one outside of the Israeli government and their apologists is admitting it. As to TV channels, I get 60+ channels because that's what the building management negotiated in bulk for all the apartments, but I'm still not watching right now, because there's nothing on worth spending my time on. Later on, sure -- my wife and I will watch "House" and "The Gilmore Girls" and tape "At the Hotel" and "Boston Legal" since they're on at the same time (if Bill Shatner didn't have to kill someone for that role, he's got a guardian angel). Tuesday is our big TV night here. But if I had to pay for it, I wouldn't. The GGirls will have new top people next year, and will go in the toilet, "At the Hotel" started off weak, and it's only six episodes anyway, and "House" is already showing signs of weakness; they're making him worse, and short of having him take up violent crime, they'll run out of room on that side. Then they'll make him nice, and it's finished. So next year, it'll be back to the news and reruns of "Waiting for God."

[Antonia Z.]

Speaking of the wall ...

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6795641

Just for all you Toronto-centric urbanites: I, along with most of my rural neighbours, have zero access to cable. Likewise at my cottage, where, by the way, the VCR repeatedly goes AUTO, AUTO, AUTO -- not 12:00, 12:00, etc. My choices are "country cable" (i.e. ridiculously expensive satellite) or off-air. Off-air does me fine, thanks. No Fox, no CNN, no U.S. crap except via Global.

[Peter J.]

Wait'll they get a load of this... http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9011-invention-the-tvadvert-enforcer.html

"Philips suggests adding flags to commercial breaks to stop a viewer from changing channels until the adverts are over. The flags could also be recognised by digital video recorders, which would then disable the fast forward control while the ads are playing.

"Philips' patent acknowledges that this may be 'greatly resented by viewers' who could initially think their equipment has gone wrong. [Ya think? --peterj] So it suggests the new system could throw up a warning on screen when it is enforcing advert viewing. The patent also suggests that the system could offer viewers the chance to pay a fee interactively to go back to skipping adverts."

[Antonia Z.]

Which is why I still have two VCRs.

[Jay Currie]

Not owning a Bblackberry or a TV I just tune stuff in with my tinfoil hat....

Canadian broadcasters should have the right to charge whatever they want for whatever the heck it is they think they are doing. But they should only be allowed to charge the people who are watching their stations. Which, if you had to swipe your card or saw it on your cable bill, would be about three people.

The reason why these folks have "broadcast licence" is so that they can "broadcast". They are not "content distribution undertakings" they are broadcast undertakings". Which means that under the Broadcast Act they have to make their content available by means of, er, broadcasting. Otherwise there is nothing to stop anyone who wannts to pay Jim Shaw whatever a month from buying the rights to Seinfeld and plugging a DVD player into a cable headend.

(All of which suggests rather strongly that the entire Canadian television model is about forty years out of date and in need of serious revision. It also suggests that the CRTC is fully captured by the broadcasters it purports to be regulating and, worse, the Stockholm syndrome has set in.)

Meanwhile, broadband/wifi/podcast/vidpodcast/YouTube....Hello. The networks are dead.

[True North]

Dear CRTC:

Let them give up their over the air signals - and re-assign the frequencies to people who will broadcast Canadian content on Canadian airwaves - even if it is for low budget community TV. And put CBC Newsworld on an over the air channel.

And then let them enforce commercial watching through digital means so they can alienate millions of viewers - sending them back to the over the air signals. In lots of places you can still pull in US TV with a simple antenna thank you.

And HDTV too - http://www.remotecentral.com/hdtv/index.html.

And the internet is fast becoming a TV medium. If iTunes is any example - you'll be able to buy what you want when you want, without always being in the clutches of a satellite or cable packager.

If they are no longer Canadian "broadcasters" - cut their US commercial substitution right.

And let's look at US dumping of "product" into Canada. If CTV is buying Canadian rights to something like The West Wing with a per episode cost to $6,000,000, then selling it for less than $600,000 per episode (10%) is dumping.

Let's slap a soft-wood lumber style anti-dumping tariff on cheap US imports that Canadian private broadcasters are addicted to - to the detriment of our local industry and culture.

Just wishing

[Elvid]

As I said before, it will just mean that Canadians without cable will just tune into the HD channels from south of the border. All the network affiliates in Buffalo and Rochester have HDTV stations broadcasting and have been doing so for a long time.
And should be a big bonus for illegal satellite dishes again.

[Elvid]

Bill, the network affiliates in Buffalo and Rochesterm not exactly economic powerhouses, have all had HDTV over the air channels for years.
Lots of Canadians will turn their antennas in that direction and forget about watching Canadian tv. Probably good news for the tv stations in those cities close enough to the Canadian border.
And a big boost to people selling illegal satellite equipment.

[Elvid]

For a list of what is available over the air on HDTV in the Toronto/GTA area, see below

http://www.remotecentral.com/hdtv/index.html

[Bill-Muskoka]

Elvid,

That may well be, but it is a moot point to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Here in the Muskoka one is hard pressed to see an antenna! Besides, I want Canadian programming, not American. Oddly, the U.S, shows I watch are mostly made in Canada. Go figure, eh!

Likwise, I am unimpressed with HDTV, and watch only curling as a sport. I have a HD home theater system as well, but even the DVD is run using S-Video and the difference is undetectable for movies. The only worthy HD programs I have seen were produced by PBS or National Geographic.

Recall, that the original purpose was to freeup bandwidth, increase resolution, and expand channel availability. The smaller stations priced the new equipment, and most said 'Sorry, too costly!'

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

You said: 'come on Bill. Everybody should have the right to free information in the information age. I think it should be enshrined in the Charter, as a matter of fact. The airwaves are public. If they can't honour their part of the deal, then hand back the licences.'

Well, reality is that it costs a huge amount of money to produce and broadcast programming. That is either paid for by advertisers or subscriptions. That will not change.

Now, what has been done to provide 'access'? First the new Anik F-2 satellite is now in operation. It covers all of North America, both the U.S. and Canada, including the Far North. It provides one single source, in addition to the prior existing satellites, to transmit electronic media to everyone.

People are paying for the advertising through brand name products. That is why the generic, i.e., President Choice, products have become the major market. Price! So, we have a choice of funding it indirectly through the manufacturers, or paying directly to the providers. It is, currently, a fairly happy mix of the two. Which makes more sense?

The availability of internet is another matter separate from conventional electronic media. For decades anyone with a phone line could gain access, for a small ISP charge, to the internet via a MODEM. Then the advertisers decided, along with the investment markets, that 'tech' is a money maker.

It ha been up and down like a roller coaster, including a few serious derailments. That meant greater data bandwidth required, and with it higher speed. VOILA! DSL became the minmum acceptable connection. That still required and further stressed the old paried copper phone line infrastructure, originally designed to handle the human voice at 8KHz.

Now, we are moving into the 'WiFi', i.e., wireless realm. Here in the Muskoka the issue has been a hot one for years. Bell required a customer be within 4.5 Km cable length from the CO (Central Office) to have DSL High Speed. That is being expanded with the installation of fiber optic trunk lines in the rural areas, and sub-CO's. Simultaneouly there is now a major funding to install WiFi here as well.

The 'cottagers' come up, some run their business in the GTA from their cottage, but they need the High Speed access to do that.

In the Far North satellite is the method of choice for the downlink. It is the uplink that is the problem, but can be bypassed via a landline, albeit back to a slow MODEM.

Bottom line. It is NOT free, cannot be free, and will not be free, unless the Federal government pays for it with your tax dollars and mine. I do not think that will be on the Five Points of the current, or any future government.

They will, and are, helping to fund the infrastructure, but not the monthly charges, and should not with a few exceptions for those unable to pay for it.

That is the current state of it today. Five years from now, who knows?

[Dana]

Elvid? What percentage of the population of Canada lives outside of the GTA and doesn't have access to the Buffalo/Rochester force field?

Is there perhaps a percentage of Canadians, however misguided they may be, who still might wrongheadedly like there to be a Canadian presence and perspective on the airways?

What compels you to such loathing of Canada?

[Zeljko "z0z0"]

Why pay for something inferior when you can get something superior for FREE! The reason why I watch "Over The Air" programming and prefer it over Satellite and Cable is because the picture quality is far superior to what Cable or Satellite can provide. OTA is growing a lot in popularity. Visit http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=81

HDTV is a must on a 42inch plasma (sorry Bill in Muskoka).
Sorry but in my opinion Canadian programming is not that hot.
If you read the forum I mentioned above you will see how much discussion goes into getting the right antenna to get Buffalo stations.

The only advantage that cable has is quantity of programming.

[mr.eous]

Why aren't "public" channels like TFO or the Ontario Legislature channel available OTA? I find it rather strange that the Ontario Legislative Assembly channel is *not* available on Bell ExpressVu, but is on StarChoice, Look, Rogers, etc. -- I've contacted Bell numerous times to no avail, and my local MP, and the CRTC, who said there's no requirement for any broadcast distributor (cable, satellite, etc.) to carry that channel!

To those who see no need for over-the-air broadcasting, should we trash traditional AM & FM radio, too, just because [subscription] satellite radio now exists? I'm not sure where some people get the idea that it costs huge amounts of money to implement and maintain terrestrial broadcast facilities -- orbiting satellites are equally expensive (if not much more) to launch and require more frequent replacement than land-based towers.

If all the [private] terrestrial TV and radio towers were decommissioned, what would all the cellphone fanatics do, since almost all of these towers have spaced leased to cellular phone providers.

And to those who think DTH satellite is the only way to go, what will you say when it's abandonned due to the high cost of constant security upgrades (due to pirates since it's a one-way receive-only technology) and telcos start only offering TV over DSL lines? Again, it'll be only available to a certain segment of the population due to physical distance limitations, but I'm sure some of the "who needs OTA?" folks won't care.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Those who complain of the need for constant upgrades to the DTH sat receiver are, obviously, either Express Vu or illegal users.

Star Choice receivers have a factory installed EPROM with the receiver ID, not a copyable card. They cannot be pirated. Star Choice authorizes the receiver at their control centre. Motorola makes the receivers.

I have never had to 'upgrade' my Star Choice receiver. The problem is due to Bell's and Direct TV's choice of receiver...period.

As to the OTA...WHAT OTA Broadcasts? In the Muskoka? Get a clue!

People who can afford plasmas cannot afford satellite? Give me a break Bud!