CBC Budget cuts

[Dan Sys]

If you can take another one of us south-of-the-border types digging into your affairs...

Not at all w9wi. Your postings are always very informative. It's just that very loud & vocal minority of your fellow countrymen who have no idea what the hell they are talking about that gets the old blood boiling sometimes.

 

[w9wi]

CBC should NEVER be privatized. Bell & Rogers would snatch up all the radio frequencies. Rogers and Bell would own almost Everything, if not, EVERYTHING! The new name for Canada would be RoBel.

I'm glad there's something there that Rogers and Bell will never be able to touch.

Under the current rules, wouldn't it be pretty much impossible for Bell or Rogers to buy CBC stations in most markets? Aren't both firms already at the two-of-a-kind limit in most larger markets?

But if Bell & Rogers can't buy them, who else has the capital to do it? South-of-the-border readers: remember that wide areas are covered by high-powered relay transmitters that originate nothing of their own. Want to get into Brandon, Manitoba but can't afford to buy the WInnipeg station & the rest of the province? Sure, you can buy just the Brandon station -- but you're going to need the capital to launch a studio & hire enough staff to program the thing -- as about all you're going to get from the CBC is a transmitter.

Who would run the French stations in minority-French markets? (would the closure of these stations, or their conversion to English, tick off enough French-speakers to have political implications? Given what happened in the recent election, would the government be willing to risk that?)

 

[mjlarochelle]

I might suggest the problem isn't so much the transmitters as the satellite time. Occupying a transponder 24/7 isn't particularly cheap.

An option would be to install an ExpressVu (etc.) dish at each remote transmitter & use that as the means of distribution.

Or, assuming the cable operators around each province are using satellite to deliver signals (not microwave) could they piggy-back on this satellite feed?

They likely don't use a satellite feed for all of their stations, as not all of them are uplinked to satellite. Some stations are distributed by microwave, and I would bet some lower-powered transmitters even pick up OTA signals and amplify them.

I know that CHCH uses a Shaw Direct receiver at their London-area transmission site to distribute their signal OTA.

How do you convince private stations to take the CBC programming, when the CBC's mandate is such that that programming is going to be less lucrative than CTV/Global/etc.?

Over the last few years of analog, we were seeing the CBC buy some of the privately-owned affiliates. (NB, Sask, central Ontario) My understanding was much of the reason was that the private affiliates weren't clearing a lot of the CBC programming. Wouldn't that issue return?

I'm not even sure why in this day and age that should be an issue. In Kingston, for example, CKWS-TV carries the core CBC schedule, but the full CBC schedule is available on cable (by way of CBOT Ottawa) and on satellite. I'm not sure if CKWS does this, but they may have simsub rights over CBOT when they are showing the same program. I know that when London's CFPL was affiliated with the CBC, they had simsub rights over CBLT Toronto in areas such as Kitchener that carried both stations on cable and were in the Kitchener-London market.

One solution might be for non-profit, privately held organizations to raise their own money and rebroadcast a CBC station, supplemented by local programming in time slots that either are occupied by local programming for another market or programming that can easily be sacrificed (such as during certain repeats). Another solution, at least in Ontario, would be for TVO to put in subchannels in regions that are losing CBC over-the-air. For example in Windsor, you could have TVO stay on Channel 32.1, and Radio-Canada from Toronto on 32.2; in London TVO on 18.1, CBC Toronto on 18.2, Radio-Canada Toronto on 18.3. For technical reasons, the CBC subchannels would have to remain in SD, if TVO wants to run HD programming on their main channels.

Honestly, though, I think CBC's reasons for trying to get rid of private affiliates is more about their central-control-from-Toronto philosophy rather than anything else. I know that when CBC eliminated local programming in Calgary in 1990, the then-owner of ITV in Edmonton approached CBC about starting a new affiliate station in Calgary to replace CBRT, and CBC executives wanted absolutely nothing to do with the idea. I can't see there being any other reason for CBC to refuse to even talk about a new affiliate for reasons other than wanting to control what they have, even if it means sacrificing ratings - which they did dearly in Calgary during the 90s.

 

[w9wi]

If you can take another one of us south-of-the-border types digging into your affairs...

Not at all w9wi. Your postings are always very informative. It's just that very loud & vocal minority of your fellow countrymen who have no idea what the hell they are talking about that gets the old blood boiling sometimes.

I sure hope I didn't give the impression I was offended by your post. Rest assured I wasn't! -- I felt it was well-written & on-point. The intent was to remind us south-of-the-border types (myself included!) that we're guests on the Canada board & need to remember that what's right by us isn't necessarily right by Canadians.

If Canadians wanted their country to be another USA, our illegal immigration problem would be on our *northern* border...

 

[w9wi]

I'm not even sure why in this day and age that should be an issue. In Kingston, for example, CKWS-TV carries the core CBC schedule, but the full CBC schedule is available on cable (by way of CBOT Ottawa) and on satellite. I'm not sure if CKWS does this, but they may have simsub rights over CBOT when they are showing the same program. I know that when London's CFPL was affiliated with the CBC, they had simsub rights over CBLT Toronto in areas such as Kitchener that carried both stations on cable and were in the Kitchener-London market.

I thought we were talking about the privatization of CBC transmission as a whole -- i.e., CBOT would no longer exist. (more accurately, it would be sold to a private buyer, who would have no more obligation to carry CBC programming than CKWS does)

One solution might be for non-profit, privately held organizations to raise their own money and rebroadcast a CBC station, supplemented by local programming in time slots that either are occupied by local programming for another market or programming that can easily be sacrificed (such as during certain repeats). Another solution, at least in Ontario, would be for TVO to put in subchannels in regions that are losing CBC over-the-air. For example in Windsor, you could have TVO stay on Channel 32.1, and Radio-Canada from Toronto on 32.2; in London TVO on 18.1, CBC Toronto on 18.2, Radio-Canada Toronto on 18.3. For technical reasons, the CBC subchannels would have to remain in SD, if TVO wants to run HD programming on their main channels.

Many of us outside observers are already perplexed by the absence of Radio-Canada signals on subchannels of the English transmitters & vice-versa. It simply makes too much sense.

There's a long history of locally-owned repeaters in rural areas in the States, and of course the concept is not at all unheardof in Canada. It would seem even easier to accomplish in larger cities, with a larger contributor base.

Honestly, though, I think CBC's reasons for trying to get rid of private affiliates is more about their central-control-from-Toronto philosophy rather than anything else. I know that when CBC eliminated local programming in Calgary in 1990, the then-owner of ITV in Edmonton approached CBC about starting a new affiliate station in Calgary to replace CBRT, and CBC executives wanted absolutely nothing to do with the idea. I can't see there being any other reason for CBC to refuse to even talk about a new affiliate for reasons other than wanting to control what they have, even if it means sacrificing ratings - which they did dearly in Calgary during the 90s.

Of course, that's one of those things that's hard for us outside the country to evaluate.

 

[mjlarochelle]

Qu

I'm not even sure why in this day and age that should be an issue. In Kingston, for example, CKWS-TV carries the core CBC schedule, but the full CBC schedule is available on cable (by way of CBOT Ottawa) and on satellite. I'm not sure if CKWS does this, but they may have simsub rights over CBOT when they are showing the same program. I know that when London's CFPL was affiliated with the CBC, they had simsub rights over CBLT Toronto in areas such as Kitchener that carried both stations on cable and were in the Kitchener-London market.

I thought we were talking about the privatization of CBC transmission as a whole -- i.e., CBOT would no longer exist. (more accurately, it would be sold to a private buyer, who would have no more obligation to carry CBC programming than CKWS does)

I should clarify - I mean that most of CBC transmission should be privatized, but certain major O&O stations would be kept. Ottawa would be a natural to be left alone because of its location in the nation's capital. Toronto (English) and Montreal (French) would also be up there.

Part of the solution would be for CBC to reduce the number of network hours they have, and then the issue of stations not carrying "the whole CBC schedule" would be reduced. One of the reasons they're running into problems now is that they're trying to run 22 1/3 hours a day of network programming, with only 1 2/3 left for local origination. I don't think there's a single major U.S. network that operates that way. How many hours a day does NBC program? I'm not sure, but I know it's less than 22 hours. We all know that quantity doesn't equate to quality.

 

[mjlarochelle]

Many of us outside observers are already perplexed by the absence of Radio-Canada signals on subchannels of the English transmitters & vice-versa. It simply makes too much sense.

There's a long history of locally-owned repeaters in rural areas in the States, and of course the concept is not at all unheardof in Canada. It would seem even easier to accomplish in larger cities, with a larger contributor base.

The problem you've got in Canada is that as far as I can tell, no networks have done any primary research as to how their viewers obtain their signal, and they want to believe that almost nobody watches them OTA. Instead, they use secondary market data to try and extrapolate the number of OTA viewers, using what I believe are somewhat biased BBM statistics on cable and satellite subscriptions. Last summer CBC executives kept trying to pass off the number of viewers using OTA across the country as 7% (and dropping), even though I know it is somewhat higher, especially in certain parts of the country such as Windsor. They would naturally see no point to establishing subchannels if "nobody" is going to watch them. They conveniently have ignored studies in the United States and the United Kingdom that showed jumps in OTA usage once digital transmissions were introduced. I would go as far as saying that Canada's broadcast industry has been waging a war on OTA, which is a lose-lose situation for both networks and viewers.

I would not be surprised if the OTA PR in Canada has been heavily scripted by junior marketing consultants who don't even know what OTA is and based their OTA experiences on themselves, their parents, and their friends in suburban Toronto. I have worked with junior marketing professionals who like to make outrageous statements about market segments that have no research to back it up, and I've worked with companies that have received previous consulting advice that just had a bunch of random suggestions with no research from their end-users. I suspect CBC (and others) have been using similar consulting services - but unlike my previous clients, CBC didn't ask for a second (or third) opinion.

 

[w9wi]

The problem you've got in Canada is that as far as I can tell, no networks have done any primary research as to how their viewers obtain their signal, and they want to believe that almost nobody watches them OTA. Instead, they use secondary market data to try and extrapolate the number of OTA viewers, using what I believe are somewhat biased BBM statistics on cable and satellite subscriptions. Last summer CBC executives kept trying to pass off the number of viewers using OTA across the country as 7% (and dropping), even though I know it is somewhat higher, especially in certain parts of the country such as Windsor. They would naturally see no point to establishing subchannels if "nobody" is going to watch them. They conveniently have ignored studies in the United States and the United Kingdom that showed jumps in OTA usage once digital transmissions were introduced. I would go as far as saying that Canada's broadcast industry has been waging a war on OTA, which is a lose-lose situation for both networks and viewers.

I would not be surprised if the OTA PR in Canada has been heavily scripted by junior marketing consultants who don't even know what OTA is and based their OTA experiences on themselves, their parents, and their friends in suburban Toronto. I have worked with junior marketing professionals who like to make outrageous statements about market segments that have no research to back it up, and I've worked with companies that have received previous consulting advice that just had a bunch of random suggestions with no research from their end-users. I suspect CBC (and others) have been using similar consulting services - but unlike my previous clients, CBC didn't ask for a second (or third) opinion.

Most interesting, and not really inconsistent with what I'm observing in the States. There's a common opinion that nobody watches OTA, accompanied by plenty of anecdotal evidence that it's not true. Sure would love to know real numbers.

As a *partial* check on that concept, as one former boss noted, those who watch OTA have a stronger tendency to fall into one of two categories:
- Can't afford cable/satellite, or:
- Don't find TV valuable enough to be worth paying for.

The first category is less likely to be able to buy what's advertised, and the second is less likely to see the ads, IOW OTA viewers are less valuable to advertisers.

On the other hand, since digital conversion in the U.S., I'm seeing evidence that *some* of the new OTA viewers view normal amounts of TV and are not economically challenged. With broadband internet, some of these folks are using an antenna for current programs, and downloading anything they can't see OTA. (and using Netflix for movies)

_________________________________________________

I should clarify - I mean that most of CBC transmission should be privatized, but certain major O&O stations would be kept. Ottawa would be a natural to be left alone because of its location in the nation's capital. Toronto (English) and Montreal (French) would also be up there.

Part of the solution would be for CBC to reduce the number of network hours they have, and then the issue of stations not carrying "the whole CBC schedule" would be reduced. One of the reasons they're running into problems now is that they're trying to run 22 1/3 hours a day of network programming, with only 1 2/3 left for local origination. I don't think there's a single major U.S. network that operates that way. How many hours a day does NBC program? I'm not sure, but I know it's less than 22 hours. We all know that quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Ah. Essentially, the main transmitters would continue to operate but the relay transmitters would be sold to private buyers & operated as private stations affiliated with CBC.

I would think the question of French TV in minority-French areas would continue -- or is that a smaller problem than I'm thinking it is? (I'm sure the vast majority of viewers in the Toronto market could care less if Radio-Canada was available OTA, but would its absence have political effects in Quebec?)

Absolutely, U.S. network affiliates would never accept 22 hours/day of network time! We have a law here that *prohibits* networks from programming more than 3 hours in the 7-11pm (Eastern Time) slot; at least one hour of that period *must* be available for the affiliates to program. (most fill it with 30 minutes of local news and a syndicated program)

But quantity doesn't equal quality in more than one way No matter how much of the remaining 20 hours you give back to the affiliates, if the CBC keeps the entire 7-11pm slot for less-than-highly-rated programming, the situation isn't going to be that attractive for the affiliates. On the other hand, if you give much or most of the 7-11 slot to the affiliates, you don't have much of a network. I'm not sure how you resolve that.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Under the current rules, wouldn't it be pretty much impossible for Bell or Rogers to buy CBC stations in most markets? Aren't both firms already at the two-of-a-kind limit in most larger markets?

Under current rules, isn't it already impossible for Bell to buy Astral media? Done and done!
Hopefully Bell will be told that they will not be allowed to keep all their radio stations.

Remember, what's said and done will be fair game all around. If New rules kick in, and Bell can keep everything, Rogers will be allowed to do the same...

 

[spunker88]

Many of us outside observers are already perplexed by the absence of Radio-Canada signals on subchannels of the English transmitters & vice-versa. It simply makes too much sense.

To me it seems like the most logical plan and should save money. Instead of maintaining and powering two transmitters, and possibly two different transmitter locations, everything is done from one. I don't really know a lot about ATSC equipment but I imagine since Canada went digital later than the US, their equipment should be able to provide subchannels even if its only in 480p. Another group that could benefit from this is the recently relaunched CTV Two. It even has the perfect name to be on a DTV subchanel. This would bring CTV Two to many more areas as there are many more CTV stations and translators out there.

Right now there are CRTC rules against this, but there should be a lobby to remove these regulations by saying people will lose their CBC, Radio-Canada, etc unless the subchannel rule is changed.

 

[mjlarochelle]

As a *partial* check on that concept, as one former boss noted, those who watch OTA have a stronger tendency to fall into one of two categories:
- Can't afford cable/satellite, or:
- Don't find TV valuable enough to be worth paying for.

The first category is less likely to be able to buy what's advertised, and the second is less likely to see the ads, IOW OTA viewers are less valuable to advertisers.

The main value I have for cable is for sports, namely TSN and Rogers Sportsnet. When I lived at home my parents didn't subscribe to Leafs TV, so if I wanted to see that channel I just went to a friend's house where they subscribed to it, or I went to a sports bar. Other than that, I don't see a lot of value in cable. I'm not a huge TV watcher to begin with outside of news and sports, but there's so much today that I could get online if I wanted it.

While I'm working in Mexico, I value having cable because it gives me a few channels where I can watch shows in English (with Spanish subtitles). It's included in my rent anyways, and my rent isn't high to begin with so I'm not worried about it.

I would think the question of French TV in minority-French areas would continue -- or is that a smaller problem than I'm thinking it is? (I'm sure the vast majority of viewers in the Toronto market could care less if Radio-Canada was available OTA, but would its absence have political effects in Quebec?)

I doubt that it would matter very much today. As long as Radio-Canada is mandated to be carried on cable and satellite nationwide, I can't see there being political problems. I also doubt there would be political effects in Quebec - I can't see them caring whether viewers in British Columbia can get Radio-Canada over-the-air. As long as they can get it in Quebec OTA, I think they'll be satisfied.

Absolutely, U.S. network affiliates would never accept 22 hours/day of network time! We have a law here that *prohibits* networks from programming more than 3 hours in the 7-11pm (Eastern Time) slot; at least one hour of that period *must* be available for the affiliates to program. (most fill it with 30 minutes of local news and a syndicated program)

But quantity doesn't equal quality in more than one way No matter how much of the remaining 20 hours you give back to the affiliates, if the CBC keeps the entire 7-11pm slot for less-than-highly-rated programming, the situation isn't going to be that attractive for the affiliates. On the other hand, if you give much or most of the 7-11 slot to the affiliates, you don't have much of a network. I'm not sure how you resolve that.

As I recall back in the early 1980s, at least on weekdays, CBC didn't start network programming until 10 ET, they had an empty slot in the early afternoon, an empty slot from 6-7, and generally no network programming after 11. Most stations programmed their own movie after their late news. In total, that's about 11.5 hours/day of network programming.

That kind of schedule wouldn't work today, but they could cut their network time down to allow stations to program local news in the morning, at noon, and at a greater length after The National. I would also not be against allowing overnight infomercials on CBC, but I would be sure to have rules in place to allow it only between 1 and 5 a.m.

 

[richllewis]

For those who were wanting to know about 9625, there was someone on a show they have on radio in Montreal from RCI that said that the service on 9625 would be going off the air in October and he was also talking about the cuts made to RCI and what would become of RCI in the near future. This was on CKUT. This was reported in DXld on Yahoo Groups by Glenn Hauser.

This is the MP3 of the program.

http://archives.ckut.ca/128/20120408.10.30-11.00.mp3

 

[blackgold]

Another reason why the CBC should be privatized. How many more do I need?

CBC should NEVER be privatized. Bell & Rogers would snatch up all the radio frequencies. Rogers and Bell would own almost Everything, if not, EVERYTHING! The new name for Canada would be RoBel.

I'm glad there's something there that Rogers and Bell will never be able to touch.

I couldn't agree more! That privatization threat would come from the USA! Fox or Comcast may want to purchase it, but God forbid that should happen!

 

[kenglish]

With all the cuts in International Broadcasting, and the elimination of shortwave broadcasts, this is probably a great time to go in to Evangelical Shortwave Broadcasting. Probably lots of used equipment to be available soon.

(I wonder if the CBC and RCI will just sell the shortwave system to the evangelicals, outright. Or, give it all to the ex-employees, as part of their severance package, and let them run it as "Doller-a-Holler" brokered radio?)

 

[azumanga]

With all the cuts in International Broadcasting, and the elimination of shortwave broadcasts, this is probably a great time to go in to Evangelical Shortwave Broadcasting. Probably lots of used equipment to be available soon.

(I wonder if the CBC and RCI will just sell the shortwave system to the evangelicals, outright. Or, give it all to the ex-employees, as part of their severance package, and let them run it as "Doller-a-Holler" brokered radio?)

I don't know if shortwave is economically viable for even the religious community -- WYFR, the shortwave service of Harold Camping's Family Radio, leases its shortwave signal from Okeechobee, Florida during the nighttime hours to Radio Taiwan International, the international arm of Taiwan's public broadcaster. (And yes, it's been going on before all that "end of the world" hoopla.)

 

[Tincap]

With all the cuts in International Broadcasting, and the elimination of shortwave broadcasts, this is probably a great time to go in to Evangelical Shortwave Broadcasting. Probably lots of used equipment to be available soon.

(I wonder if the CBC and RCI will just sell the shortwave system to the evangelicals, outright. Or, give it all to the ex-employees, as part of their severance package, and let them run it as "Doller-a-Holler" brokered radio?)

I don't know if shortwave is economically viable for even the religious community -- WYFR, the shortwave service of Harold Camping's Family Radio, leases its shortwave signal from Okeechobee, Florida during the nighttime hours to Radio Taiwan International, the international arm of Taiwan's public broadcaster. (And yes, it's been going on before all that "end of the world" hoopla.)

I wonder if there's some type of trade off going there, because Family Radio transmits a pretty big MW signal out of facilities in Taiwan. Leased from the Taiwanese government perhaps? Anyone familiar with the set-up there? And oh...isn't parts of Radio Thailand's English language morning (local Bangkok time) also carried by the Family Radio facilities, or is it through WWCR?

Any ways, back OT, I'm sure the Chinese would be interested in Sackville, should it go on market!

~BG