• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

TV Niagara application DENIED

M

mjlarochelle

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2005/db2005-544.htm

As usual, the CRTC's Liberal buddies at CTV, Global, and CHUM all opposed the application, and clearly the only reason it was denied was to please them and keep the Liberal support, especially in this volatile time in Ottawa.

And the comments made by Global about CHCH-TV disgust me. Even if they provide a little Niagara coverage, why should they get a monopoly? Only in Canada. Izzy still is decimating Canadian television from the grave.

If this were the United States, St. Catharines/Niagara would have at least four or five stations. Either that or the Buffalo stations would serve that region, but since they're on the American side they can't be expected to serve their Canadian neighbours.

One suggestion I have is that WUTV/WNYO should beef up their coverage of Niagara, since they already solicit advertising there. If WNYO ditches Sinclair's "Crap Central" format, and expands their news department to include noon and evening news, they can have lots of Niagara news. They might have to move the newscasts over to WUTV in order to get maximum exposure on cable. CHCH won't be able to do anything about it.

This is the same reason Star Ray can't get a license. Absolute garbage.

From "The Big 8" CKLW to TV Niagara, the CRTC is useless.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
htt> p://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2005/db2005-544.htm
>
>

The CRTC has done a disservice to the Niagara Region, IMO. They favor the mediocrity they know rather than take a chance on something innovative.

But then again, besides the revenue they generate from Niagara Falls attractions, the Niagara Region is pretty well ignored by the powers that be. Why should one expect this to be any different?
 
There may have been some technical issues as well.

I believe TV Niagara (would their call letters have been CKNF-TV??) would have broadcast on Channel 22, which I believe is also currently being used by a CHEX as a semi-satellite for the station in Oshawa (which does some local programming and runs local commercials). There may have been considerable interference.

That semi-satellite in Oshawa may have been what doomed TV Niagara's application, not politics or complaints from CHCH-11 or any other broadcasters.

Nevertheless, the Canadian side of the Niagara region needs it's own TV station (in fact, were such a station to also serve and cover the news of Niagara Falls, New York, so much the better). With Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo close by, it may be impossible to allocate another frequency for a TV channel.

Too bad. I was hoping that somehow, a full-power TV frequency could have been "shoehorned" into that area.
 
> I believe TV Niagara (would their call letters have been
> CKNF-TV??) would have broadcast on Channel 22, which I
> believe is also currently being used by a CHEX as a
> semi-satellite for the station in Oshawa (which does some
> local programming and runs local commercials). There may
> have been considerable interference.
>
> That semi-satellite in Oshawa may have been what doomed TV
> Niagara's application, not politics or complaints from
> CHCH-11 or any other broadcasters.
----------
CHEX-TV-2 is a Class A station with an effective radiated power of 5.50 kW, and its transmitter is located north of Oshawa. Industry Canada would have had to approve TVN's use of channel 22 before the CRTC would even consider the application. I believe the CRTC requires Industry Canada to approve the technical parameters of the station before the CRTC will even have a hearing. Oddly enough the original application called for TVN to broadcast on channel 15, but obviously that would not work with WBNF-CA very close by on Grand Island, and one of the nearby approved DT stations.

So, I highly doubt CHEX had anything to do with this. Corus didn't even intervene at the hearing.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2005/db2005-544.htm
>
>
> As usual, the CRTC's Liberal buddies at CTV, Global, and
> CHUM all opposed the application, and clearly the only
> reason it was denied was to please them and keep the Liberal
> support, especially in this volatile time in Ottawa.
>
> And the comments made by Global about CHCH-TV disgust me.
> Even if they provide a little Niagara coverage, why should
> they get a monopoly? Only in Canada. Izzy still is
> decimating Canadian television from the grave.
>
> If this were the United States, St. Catharines/Niagara would
> have at least four or five stations. Either that or the
> Buffalo stations would serve that region, but since they're
> on the American side they can't be expected to serve their
> Canadian neighbours.
>
> One suggestion I have is that WUTV/WNYO should beef up their
> coverage of Niagara, since they already solicit advertising
> there. If WNYO ditches Sinclair's "Crap Central" format,
> and expands their news department to include noon and
> evening news, they can have lots of Niagara news. They
> might have to move the newscasts over to WUTV in order to
> get maximum exposure on cable. CHCH won't be able to do
> anything about it.
>
> This is the same reason Star Ray can't get a license.
> Absolute garbage.
>
> From "The Big 8" CKLW to TV Niagara, the CRTC is useless.
>

Well I guess I was right. A few weeks ago I predicted that TVN's application would be denied. I based this on CTV's negative intervention and my contention that the CRTC is in CTV's pocket. Like I said, Wendell Wilks should have applied to CTV for a license!

Aside from his business plan being unworkable, he did have enough money to do something. Why is the CRTC in the business of judging business plans anyhow?They are too incompetent and corrupt to do anything than parrot the objections of the big broadcasters. This rejection also vindicates Jan Pachul's approach in dealing with the CRTC. Mr. Wilk's tried the Mr. Nice Guy approach with the CRTC and what did it get him? Nothing.

Maybe Mr. Wilks should try piracy ala Star Ray TV, it would take 2 years for the CRTC to catch up with him assuming that they and the Liberal Party are still around. Speaking of Star Ray TV, some type of action is planned to mark 18 months of denial of due process by the CRTC in the matter of the hearing of Star Ray's new application.

It's quite obvious that the CRTC will not allow any new players in the broadcasting business in Canada other than giving out garbage digital licenses.
Here in Canada we have the lords of broadcasting. Woe to anyone that cross the anointed Lords.
 
> Well I guess I was right. A few weeks ago I predicted that
> TVN's application would be denied. I based this on CTV's
> negative intervention and my contention that the CRTC is in
> CTV's pocket. Like I said, Wendell Wilks should have applied
> to CTV for a license!
>
> Aside from his business plan being unworkable, he did have
> enough money to do something. Why is the CRTC in the
> business of judging business plans anyhow?They are too
> incompetent and corrupt to do anything than parrot the
> objections of the big broadcasters. This rejection also
> vindicates Jan Pachul's approach in dealing with the CRTC.
> Mr. Wilk's tried the Mr. Nice Guy approach with the CRTC and
> what did it get him? Nothing.
>
> Maybe Mr. Wilks should try piracy ala Star Ray TV, it would
> take 2 years for the CRTC to catch up with him assuming that
> they and the Liberal Party are still around. Speaking of
> Star Ray TV, some type of action is planned to mark 18
> months of denial of due process by the CRTC in the matter of
> the hearing of Star Ray's new application.
>
> It's quite obvious that the CRTC will not allow any new
> players in the broadcasting business in Canada other than
> giving out garbage digital licenses.
> Here in Canada we have the lords of broadcasting. Woe to
> anyone that cross the anointed Lords.

You were correct; I remember you calling it in our previous thread, and for the exact same reason given. In fact, I said to myself when I read the news, "that's exactly what Becker predicted would happen."

I'm still a tremendously hard sell when it comes to conspiracy theories, so while it appears inappropriate that CRTC commissioners (or whatever they're called) seem to find their way to employment with the big broadcasters when their time at CRTC is finished, I'm not entirely convinced that there's a conspiracy afoot.

As for Pachul's tactics being vindicated, you're entitled to your own opinion; I don't share it. I find it necessary to maintain professionalism at all times regardless of the outcome or process. In business, taking things personally is not professional. I guess once again, we'll agree to disagree on that.

I don't know where Wilks goes from here, but I'd be surprised if he goes the piracy route. I'm also surprised that you refer to "piracy ala (sic) Star Ray TV", given your protest over my reference to Star Ray TV as a pirate operation. See 3 Jun 2005 post.

Nevertheless, I think we'll agree that the CRTC has missed 2 opportunities to provide service to underserved areas - the Niagara Region and East Toronto.
 
> > Well I guess I was right. A few weeks ago I predicted that
>
> > TVN's application would be denied. I based this on CTV's
> > negative intervention and my contention that the CRTC is
> in
> > CTV's pocket. Like I said, Wendell Wilks should have
> applied
> > to CTV for a license!
> >
> > Aside from his business plan being unworkable, he did have
>
> > enough money to do something. Why is the CRTC in the
> > business of judging business plans anyhow?They are too
> > incompetent and corrupt to do anything than parrot the
> > objections of the big broadcasters. This rejection also
> > vindicates Jan Pachul's approach in dealing with the CRTC.
>
> > Mr. Wilk's tried the Mr. Nice Guy approach with the CRTC
> and
> > what did it get him? Nothing.
> >
> > Maybe Mr. Wilks should try piracy ala Star Ray TV, it
> would
> > take 2 years for the CRTC to catch up with him assuming
> that
> > they and the Liberal Party are still around. Speaking of
> > Star Ray TV, some type of action is planned to mark 18
> > months of denial of due process by the CRTC in the matter
> of
> > the hearing of Star Ray's new application.
> >
> > It's quite obvious that the CRTC will not allow any new
> > players in the broadcasting business in Canada other than
> > giving out garbage digital licenses.
> > Here in Canada we have the lords of broadcasting. Woe to
> > anyone that cross the anointed Lords.
>
> You were correct; I remember you calling it in our previous
> thread, and for the exact same reason given. In fact, I
> said to myself when I read the news, "that's exactly what
> Becker predicted would happen."
>
> I'm still a tremendously hard sell when it comes to
> conspiracy theories, so while it appears inappropriate that
> CRTC commissioners (or whatever they're called) seem to find
> their way to employment with the big broadcasters when their
> time at CRTC is finished, I'm not entirely convinced that
> there's a conspiracy afoot.
>
What you call a conspiracy is documented fact. See:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/Broadcast/eng/NOTICES/2001/2001-19/pachul.txt

> As for Pachul's tactics being vindicated, you're entitled to
> your own opinion; I don't share it. I find it necessary to
> maintain professionalism at all times regardless of the
> outcome or process. In business, taking things personally
> is not professional. I guess once again, we'll agree to
> disagree on that.

The CRTC is not professional, they are a joke and should be treated as such.
Respect is earned. Remember Mr. Pachul tried this so called "professional" approach from 1994 to 2000 and got the same result as Mr. Wilks. People should realize that this is the end of "Mr. Nice Guy" with the CRTC, we must fight for our rights.

What tactics in your opinion should we use?
>
> I don't know where Wilks goes from here, but I'd be
> surprised if he goes the piracy route. I'm also surprised
> that you refer to "piracy ala (sic) Star Ray TV", given your
> protest over my reference to Star Ray TV as a pirate
> operation. See 3 Jun 2005 post.

I was referring to Star Ray TV's present status with the CRTC after negotiation.
I should have put "piracy" in quotation marks because the broadcast spectrum is owned by the people of Canada and not the CRTC or the Lords of Broadcasting.
The CRTC is not a legitimate body, it's too compromised to have any legitimacy.

>
> Nevertheless, I think we'll agree that the CRTC has missed 2
> opportunities to provide service to underserved areas - the
> Niagara Region and East Toronto.

Yes I definitely agree with this point. Newcomers should be given a chance. There should be no protection of established broadcasters, they should be able to go bankrupt like any other business. Let the best stations survive, not the ones offering the best jobs to CRTC employees.
 
This is some pretty explosive stuff. However the CRTC doesn't follow this 100% of the time. They did license a new community-oriented low-power station in Leamington, Ontario, which is set to begin broadcasting on January 1, 2006. Its call letters are CFTV-TV, and it will broadcast on channel 34. And, in an interesting twist, the station will be branded as CFTV 34 - the good 'ol way of identifying stations.

So, there is some hope, but I doubt anybody within 100 miles of Toronto will be able to count on that.

It would GREATLY help if the CBC would begin allowing new private affiliates.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
> There may have been some technical issues as well.
>
> I believe TV Niagara (would their call letters have been
> CKNF-TV??) would have broadcast on Channel 22, which I
> believe is also currently being used by a CHEX as a
> semi-satellite for the station in Oshawa (which does some
> local programming and runs local commercials). There may
> have been considerable interference.

I don't think that's the biggest technical problem the application poses. They were, IIRC, planning a high power transmitter on Channel 22 on the Niagara Escarpment a little south of St. Catharines, just a dozen air miles from WNLO's 955 kW adjacent-channel signal on Channel 23 from Grand Island. It would have been an absolute mess on most sets in the Niagara Falls and Fort Erie areas, and caused substantial interference to Channel 23 within the city limits of Buffalo (which is its city of license). No way would the CRTC say yes to that, and you can bet there would have been international protests from LIN television (owner of WNLO) and the FCC as well. And we haven't even touched on the financial issues that made the CRTC dubious about fulfillment of local program promises given the operating budget they proposed to start with.

Whoever designed that application was nuts. Had they put together a little more realistic financing package and operating budget, and specified a channel that posed fewer technical problems (Channel 32 or 33 may well have worked), they may well have gotten their license.
 
> Whoever designed that application was nuts. Had they put
> together a little more realistic financing package and
> operating budget, and specified a channel that posed fewer
> technical problems (Channel 32 or 33 may well have worked),
> they may well have gotten their license.

32 is WNLO-DT, 33 is WGRZ-DT, so those are out of contention, too...
<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
> > Whoever designed that application was nuts. Had they put
> > together a little more realistic financing package and
> > operating budget, and specified a channel that posed fewer
>
> > technical problems (Channel 32 or 33 may well have
> worked),
> > they may well have gotten their license.
>
> 32 is WNLO-DT, 33 is WGRZ-DT, so those are out of
> contention, too...
>

I think the idea was that WNLO would be on their DTV allocation, which they elected. That clears ch. 23, making a full-power station on ch. 22 possible. Of course, US full-power stations were supposed to be digital by 12/31/2006...that isn't happening.
 
> > There may have been some technical issues as well.
> >
> > I believe TV Niagara (would their call letters have been
> > CKNF-TV??) would have broadcast on Channel 22, which I
> > believe is also currently being used by a CHEX as a
> > semi-satellite for the station in Oshawa (which does some
> > local programming and runs local commercials). There may
> > have been considerable interference.
>
> I don't think that's the biggest technical problem the
> application poses. They were, IIRC, planning a high power
> transmitter on Channel 22 on the Niagara Escarpment a little
> south of St. Catharines, just a dozen air miles from WNLO's
> 955 kW adjacent-channel signal on Channel 23 from Grand
> Island. It would have been an absolute mess on most sets in
> the Niagara Falls and Fort Erie areas, and caused
> substantial interference to Channel 23 within the city
> limits of Buffalo (which is its city of license). No way
> would the CRTC say yes to that, and you can bet there would
> have been international protests from LIN television (owner
> of WNLO) and the FCC as well. And we haven't even touched on
> the financial issues that made the CRTC dubious about
> fulfillment of local program promises given the operating
> budget they proposed to start with.
>
> Whoever designed that application was nuts. Had they put
> together a little more realistic financing package and
> operating budget, and specified a channel that posed fewer
> technical problems (Channel 32 or 33 may well have worked),
> they may well have gotten their license.
>

You are just an apologist for the CRTC blaming the victim of a fraudulent CRTC.
I don't care what Wendell Wilks wrote in his application, he would have been turned down. You act like the CRTC is impartial. Name one application from a new broadcasting entrant that was approved by the CRTC that had opposition from the big broadcasters.

The guy had 20M which is plenty of money to start a local station. If he went broke the station would have been sold, but Niagara still would have a station.
The CRTC promotes losers that can't run a station in a competitive environment. Anyone can run American programs and make money like CTV.

Technical problems are a matter for Industry Canada not the CRTC. You can't get a CRTC hearing without technical approval from Industry Canada and they couldn't care less about interference to US stations on Canadian soil.

Also Industry Canada checks with the FCC if they have any objections to Canadian frequency use close to the border, the FCC must not have objected.
 
> This is some pretty explosive stuff. However the CRTC
> doesn't follow this 100% of the time. They did license a
> new community-oriented low-power station in Leamington,
> Ontario, which is set to begin broadcasting on January 1,
> 2006. Its call letters are CFTV-TV, and it will broadcast
> on channel 34. And, in an interesting twist, the station
> will be branded as CFTV 34 - the good 'ol way of identifying
> stations.
>
> So, there is some hope, but I doubt anybody within 100 miles
> of Toronto will be able to count on that.
>
> It would GREATLY help if the CBC would begin allowing new
> private affiliates.
>
The Leamington station did not receive any negative interventions from the broadcasting cartel. You can get a license for an unprofitable station in the middle of nowhere.

The formula is simple:

opposition from big broadcasters, esp. CTV and CAB = application DENIED
 
> There may have been some technical issues as well.
>
> ...
>
> the better). With Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo close by, it
> may be impossible to allocate another frequency for a TV
> channel.

FWIW, channel 22 does appear in the channel assignment table for St. Catharines, paired with DTV channel 48 and assigned for a Class A station. I don't know the power limits by class (I suppose they're on the CRTC site *somewhere*) but examples of other Class A stations in Southern Ontario include the Oshawa CHEX relayer and the 10kw CBLN station in Sarnia on channel 34.

(in other words, I don't think they anticipated a 1000kw Class A station. On the other hand, I thought the CRTC wouldn't have even bothered to consider TVN's economic plan if the engineering folks had indicated their technical plan was flawed? I would imagine TVN planned some directional-antenna magic, probably necessary to prevent clobbering WNLO at points south -- I mean east -- of the border.)

Channel 50, paired with DTV channel 42, is also allotted for Class A service, at Welland.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom