What is the function of the CRTC?

[kurtbecker]

In the previous thread on TVN we got into a discussion of what does the CRTC actually do of value? Some people have the erroneous idea that the CRTC does spectrum management i.e. handle inference complaints between stations. This service is done by Industry Canada Spectrum Management. Industry Canada also deals with competitive issues through the Competition Tribunal
and the Competition Act.

There is another layer of regulation called the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). According to their website CBSC is "an independent, non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters."

And yet another layer is Heritage Canada. According to their website "Canadian Heritage is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians."

In the previous thread I stated my opinion: "The CRTC's only role seems to be to protect the old families that have run broadcasting all along. For example the Craigs have had broadcasting licenses in their family for 50 years. The CRTC certainly hasn't done anything for the benefit of the public."

YeziKnoRadio also made these comments on the question:

"CRTC issuses the licence, and dictates what Canadian regulations are to be.
The possible increase from 35 percent cancon, to 40 percent, for example, is the most recent example.

Mr. Becker, are you saying that because we already have Industry Canada, and (Let's not forget) the CAB (Canadian Associan of Broadcasters), that there is no need for the CRTC?

I do agree, instead of public filing a complaint with the CRTC about somthing they heard on the radio, or saw on tv, they can already do THAT with the CAB, so perhaps you may have an imporant point. WHY have the CRTC?

Why not shift all the CRTC dudies into the CAB and Industry Canada, and eliminate the CRTC all together?

The only worry I may have in the end, is how well we are protected when it comes to their other responsibility...the Telephone! Payphones are still only a quarter per call because of the CRTC, and for that, I say thank-you!
(35 cents in Alberta, 25 cents in Ontario."

My response to the above is the CRTC doesn't appear to have any usefull function if you look at all of the other layers of regulation. The big broadcasters and the CAB/CCTA have a habit of hiring CRTC employees to handle their regulatory affairs. These former CRTC employees earn substantially more than they did at the CRTC. The CRTC's present employees make sure the corporations doing the hiring are well taken care of because they want to be the next one making the big money. The CRTC is compromised by this practice and corrupt beyond belief. It's time for them to go and public interest restored.

Why have any content regulations? Merely award the licenses to those that have the highest levels Canadian content in their application. At license renewal, allow other applicants that promise higher levels of Canadian content. This would mean that families like the Craigs and Rogers won't have licenses in their family for 50 years.

It should be noted that in New Zealand there are no content regulations. The broadcasters voluntarily have a higher level of native content than Canadian
broadcasters.

As far as Telecom regulation is concerned, why not expand the Competition Tribunal to handle Telecom? Competitive issues are the big problem with regulated monopolies anyhow. Keeping pay phones at a quarter seems like a
competitive issue.

Most of the problem here seems too much government regulation anyhow: CRTC, Spectrum Management, Competition Tribunal, Heritage Canada, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Reduce the five down to two. The question is which two minus the CRTC.

I've said enough, now to you.

 

[HughMorris]

Interesting points you bring up, some I agree with.

There is also the point that is not mentioned that you may have a vested interest in a group that would benefit in their not being that august body.

Tell us why their elimination would be to your advantage for the TV station.

I can imagine there being a riot of fun for us viewers should there be no regulation, but three or four more city style stations, or omni 3, 4, and 5, would be even worse.

It is interesting to note that when Craig sold out, Astral-Alliance turned down a chance to take over TO1. Was the cost of the physical plant what did them in? AA instead opted for the cable world, and content production.

The plant owners need content. They only pay 80% but the perpetutity clauses will have that thing paying you for a long time.

Microsoft did not go for the machines, they went for the content.

 

[kurtbecker]

> Interesting points you bring up, some I agree with.
>
> There is also the point that is not mentioned that you may
> have a vested interest in a group that would benefit in
> their not being that august body.

I do admit I have a vested interest in a group that would benefit from the disbanding of the CRTC.
>
> Tell us why their elimination would be to your advantage for
> the TV station.
>
Star Ray TV has undertaken a major overhaul and is in a position were programming could return this weekend if we didn't have a Mandatory Order against us. We wouldn't have to come up with CRTC formatted logs and other reports so that the CRTC can micromanage our station. We wouldn't have odious regulations protecting old family broadcasters like not being able to sell national advertising.

> I can imagine there being a riot of fun for us viewers
> should there be no regulation, but three or four more city
> style stations, or omni 3, 4, and 5, would be even worse.

Who would this be worse for? The existing broadcasters or the viewing public?
I think it is time to disclose your vested interests, it's only fair.

What about 5 LPTV stations in Toronto covering distinct neighbourhoods?
These 5 would have approximately the same coverage area as one Citytv station and would cost about 500k each to build.
>
> It is interesting to note that when Craig sold out,
> Astral-Alliance turned down a chance to take over TO1. Was
> the cost of the physical plant what did them in? AA instead
> opted for the cable world, and content production.

Obviously Drew Craig is an egomaniac; he thought Toronto was waiting for him. He could have spent 80% less on his plant and nobody would have noticed the difference. Same thing with Wendell Wilks.

Also since Mr. Craig doesn't know Toronto picked the worst neighbourhood to run a station, a fact that I'm sure was not overlooked by AA. It is not a place where you want to walk around at night. They don't even have restaurants or pubs around. Compare this to Citytv's prime location or even Star Ray TV's location.

These guys just aren't in the real world. Astral-Alliance has the right idea.
>
> The plant owners need content. They only pay 80% but the
> Perpetuity clauses will have that thing paying you for a
> long time.

That's another issue, big broadcasters offer ridiculously low program licensing fees to independent producers, i.e. 2 to 5K for a half hour show with an 18 month window. How are you supposed to make any money? Most small producers stay alive by subsidising their program with their own personal low wage. A big producer like AA can sell internationally to make a profit.

The cheapness of mainstream broadcasters is the success of Star Ray TV, the big broadcasters don't want pay for content and want it for free, so why not give it to Star Ray?

Same with staff, the big broadcasters want you to work for free before they will hire you, why not just volunteer at Star Ray?
>
> Microsoft did not go for the machines, they went for the
> content.

People will watch compelling content no matter what the delivery mechanism is or the quality of the media.

 

[HughMorris]

What is the function of the CRTC? To keep bad mannered people away from the airwaves.

Somehow I do not see other countries lining up behind your idea and disbanding their broadcasting regulatory bodies.

In the early days of radio broadcasting companies would start up and change frequencies and wattages all the time. The situation was so bad that the USA's goverment stepped in and created the FCC for the management of the radio bandwidth.

The USA may be the only country that does not regulate on air content. they are a net exporter of crapture

The volume of programme and film ideas pitched this past year is the same as was done from 1935 to the year 1975.

I do not like the attitude nor approach that the head of your group uses. He has failed to learn that being bad mannered and foul mouthed does not get you what you want. But earns a bad reputation.

At no point in the TVN application where those guys rude or offensive. Whether they are accepted or not they will be well mannered.

At no point has any one ever said the the idea of a LPTV station in Toronto was a bad idea, they just do not like the actors from one of the groups - yours.

Should any of us get a group together to apply for a LPTV station, I am sure we would be successful than your group has been so far, because we would know better than to bad-mouth people.

 

[kurtbecker]

> Somehow I do not see other countries lining up behind your
> idea and disbanding their broadcasting regulatory bodies.
>
> In the early days of radio broadcasting companies would
> start up and change frequencies and wattages all the time.
> The situation was so bad that the USA's goverment stepped in
> and created the FCC for the management of the radio
> bandwidth.

I've always said there is a need for spectrum management. What does this have to do with the CRTC?
>
> The USA may be the only country that does not regulate on
> air content. they are a net exporter of crapture

The CRTC ensures high quality programming? HA! what a joke!!!
>
> The volume of programme and film ideas pitched this past
> year is the same as was done from 1935 to the year 1975.
>
> I do not like the attitude nor approach that the head of
> your group uses. He has failed to learn that being bad
> mannered and foul mouthed does not get you what you want.
> But earns a bad reputation.

Telling the truth and demanding your rights as a Canadian citizen is NOT bad mannered and foul mouthed. The CRTC is a public body accountable to the taxpayers in case you forgot. Besides kissing the CRTC's ass doesn't work anyhow. Hiring CRTC employees does. Again the only thing that you know is personal attacks, stick to the subject. Don't try to hijack the thread with your irrelevent BS.
>
> At no point in the TVN application where those guys rude or
> offensive. Whether they are accepted or not they will be
> well mannered.

>
> At no point has any one ever said the the idea of a LPTV
> station in Toronto was a bad idea, they just do not like the
> actors from one of the groups - yours.

HA!! So what, we don't like you either!!!

You still haven't I disclosed your vested interests, I sure you work for a company that benefits from the CRTC, maybe one of those old family broadcasters I was refering to.
>
> Should any of us get a group together to apply for a LPTV
> station, I am sure we would be successful than your group
> has been so far, because we would know better than to
> bad-mouth people.
>
Address the issues instead of engaging in personal attacks!!!

 

[HughMorris]

Be glad that some people do not have a legal licence to broadcast.

>
> Address the issues instead of engaging in personal attacks!!!
>

Did you not describe the folks from Craig Media, TVN, Moses Z., and all other various and assorted other station owners in uncomplementary words?

As long as the personal attacks are not on you and your small group of "pirates", then any thing is fair game.

At no point in any of the postings or responses that are coming from ideas contrary to what you think should happen, does there ever come forth the though that what people are telling you are not personal attacks. Consistently you have maligned and personnally attacked people.

Stop pointing your finger at other people, you have four of your own pointing back. For every error you find with others, there are four of your own.

 

[kurtbecker]

> >
> > Address the issues instead of engaging in personal
> attacks!!!
> >
>
> Did you not describe the folks from Craig Media, TVN, Moses
> Z., and all other various and assorted other station owners
> in uncomplementary words?
>
> As long as the personal attacks are not on you and your
> small group of "pirates", then any thing is fair game.
>
> At no point in any of the postings or responses that are
> coming from ideas contrary to what you think should happen,
> does there ever come forth the though that what people are
> telling you are not personal attacks. Consistently you have
> maligned and personnally attacked people.
>
> Stop pointing your finger at other people, you have four of
> your own pointing back. For every error you find with
> others, there are four of your own.

Again you aren't addressing the subject and engaging in personal attacks refering to us as "pirates." If you can't stay with the subject matter of the thread, why don't you just go away?

If you need to respond, why not disclose your vested interests?
>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Hugh, just answer the guy's question about the CRTC. What harm can it do?

Opinions on srtv are not going to adress this thread properly.

I look forward to reading your response to the simple question, as may others.

I wouldn't mind learning more about your view. There's a very good question on the table here: IS there, or is there NOT a duplication of services right now?

Eliminating the CRTC, but keeping CAB, CBSC, and various other existing government bodies around to deal with CRTC issues may be a good thing? Yes? NO?

Is the CRTC doing ANYTHING right now, that can NOT be better handled by another ALREADY exsisting body in Government?

(And NO, I do NOT work for Star Ray TV, they can't afford me!) (-;<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"









</P>

 

[dhett]

> In the previous thread on TVN we got into a discussion of
> what does the CRTC actually do of value? Some people have
> the erroneous idea that the CRTC does spectrum management
> i.e. handle inference complaints between stations. This
> service is done by Industry Canada Spectrum Management.
> Industry Canada also deals with competitive issues through
> the Competition Tribunal
> and the Competition Act.
>
> There is another layer of regulation called the Canadian
> Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). According to their
> website CBSC is "an independent, non-governmental
> organization created by the Canadian Association of
> Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by
> its members, Canada's private broadcasters."
>
> And yet another layer is Heritage Canada. According to their
> website "Canadian Heritage is responsible for national
> policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster
> cultural participation, active citizenship and participation
> in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among
> Canadians."
>

Being the other side of the "we" to which you referred in the first paragraph, allow me to pitch in my 2 cents' worth.

The alphabet soup of regulatory bodies that you listed seems quite ponderous and perhaps redundant, so your idea of streamlining and reducing the number of agencies has merit to me. To go even further than reducing the agencies to two, why not have one streamlined umbrella agency, similar in concept, if not in practice, to the FCC?

So what about the CRTC? I know now that it's not the all-encompassing agency I once thought it was, but at the same time, I would also dismiss your assertion that it exists just to protect old-line broadcasting interests as cynicism produced by years of frustration dealing with that commission, a frustration that I can sympathize with, and did so in the previous thread.

The whole idea of regulating Canadian content seems a bit bizarre to me. Your point about New Zealand not regulating content was interesting, although New Zealand doesn't have an 800 lb gorilla on its immediate southern border, either. Still, with all of the creative talent that has come out of Canada, one would think that stations could broadcast sufficient domestic content without such regulations. Perhaps the problem is a lack of capital and infrastructure to realize the talent?

One function of the CRTC that you didn't mention, but was of direct consequence to Star Ray TV was their evaluation of the financial worthiness of the applicant's business plan. While you may dismiss their findings as pre-ordained, I prefer to take their determination at face value. But even if the CRTC were disbanded, would that role of evaluating business plans also go away? I doubt it. Rather, that role would be tranferred to whatever new structure was in place, which leaves you right where you are now: the agency charged with evaluating business plan worthiness found yours lacking, regardless whether the agency was the CRTC or some other. You yourself promoted such evaluation when you critiqued TVN's business plan, and if the CRTC shares your opinion, they will probably reject the TVN application. That role IMO is appropriate.

 

[kurtbecker]

> > In the previous thread on TVN we got into a discussion of
> > what does the CRTC actually do of value? Some people have
> > the erroneous idea that the CRTC does spectrum management
> > i.e. handle inference complaints between stations. This
> > service is done by Industry Canada Spectrum Management.
> > Industry Canada also deals with competitive issues through
>
> > the Competition Tribunal
> > and the Competition Act.
> >
> > There is another layer of regulation called the Canadian
> > Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). According to their
> > website CBSC is "an independent, non-governmental
> > organization created by the Canadian Association of
> > Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by
> > its members, Canada's private broadcasters."
> >
> > And yet another layer is Heritage Canada. According to
> their
> > website "Canadian Heritage is responsible for national
> > policies and programs that promote Canadian content,
> foster
> > cultural participation, active citizenship and
> participation
> > in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among
> > Canadians."
> >
>
> Being the other side of the "we" to which you referred in
> the first paragraph, allow me to pitch in my 2 cents' worth.
>
>
> The alphabet soup of regulatory bodies that you listed seems
> quite ponderous and perhaps redundant, so your idea of
> streamlining and reducing the number of agencies has merit
> to me. To go even further than reducing the agencies to
> two, why not have one streamlined umbrella agency, similar
> in concept, if not in practice, to the FCC?

I was thinking in terms of two agencies dividing up telecom and broadcasting,
but an agency like the FCC would work.

>
> So what about the CRTC? I know now that it's not the
> all-encompassing agency I once thought it was, but at the
> same time, I would also dismiss your assertion that it
> exists just to protect old-line broadcasting interests as
> cynicism produced by years of frustration dealing with that
> commission, a frustration that I can sympathize with, and
> did so in the previous thread.

I have seen too many examples of the CRTC protecting "old-line" broadcasters at the expense of newcomers. Star Ray TV isn't the only party it has happened to.
Look at Toronto 1, the Toronto Star had the best application by far with 85% Canadian content. They also could afford run the stations at a loss for many years. So what does the CRTC do? Pick old family. At the same hearing Rogers also gets a second "multicultural" station that wasn't even on the table. I can think of several ethnic producers that could run a station but Rogers gets a second one WITHOUT A CALL FOR APPLICATIONS.

Pamela Dinsmore, VP Regulatory Rogers Cablesystems Limited prior to joining Rogers held a variety of positions at the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission, including Chief of Staff/Special Advisor to the Chairman.

I call the above corruption. I have many more similiar stories.
>
> The whole idea of regulating Canadian content seems a bit
> bizarre to me. Your point about New Zealand not regulating
> content was interesting, although New Zealand doesn't have
> an 800 lb gorilla on its immediate southern border, either.
> Still, with all of the creative talent that has come out of
> Canada, one would think that stations could broadcast
> sufficient domestic content without such regulations.
> Perhaps the problem is a lack of capital and infrastructure
> to realize the talent?

The broadcasters have no will to run Canadian content. It's easy to make a lot of money rebroadcasting US programming. Your right about the talent, we are denied access to OUR airwaves. I say give the licenses to those to want to run Canadian content like the Toronto Star and Star Ray TV.
>
> One function of the CRTC that you didn't mention, but was of
> direct consequence to Star Ray TV was their evaluation of
> the financial worthiness of the applicant's business plan.
> While you may dismiss their findings as pre-ordained, I
> prefer to take their determination at face value. But even
> if the CRTC were disbanded, would that role of evaluating
> business plans also go away? I doubt it. Rather, that role
> would be tranferred to whatever new structure was in place,
> which leaves you right where you are now: the agency charged
> with evaluating business plan worthiness found yours
> lacking, regardless whether the agency was the CRTC or some
> other. You yourself promoted such evaluation when you
> critiqued TVN's business plan, and if the CRTC shares your
> opinion, they will probably reject the TVN application.
> That role IMO is appropriate.

Star Ray TV had every right to expect cable coverage, it's in the regulations. The CRTC said no cable coverage therefore your business plan is bogus. They then claimed they were studying the matter of LPTV in urban areas and refused to accept applications for two years.

If the CRTC had any interest in promoting newcomers, it could have left Star Ray's application open and allowed Star Ray to submit a revised business plan for OTA (over the air) only. We now have LPTV regulations and have submitted a new application. The CRTC has not acted on this application in over a year.

Even though I feel Mr. Wilks's business plan is unworkable, I still said he should have the chance to go broke. That's the point, the risk is TVN's risk not the CRTC's.

It should be noted that the FCC does not require a business plan for LPTV.
The only requirement is that the station be on the air within a year. The initial LPTV awards in the US were made by lottery in the early 80's. Fat chance of that ever happening here.

Star Ray TV would have no problem in the US. We could buy a failing LPTV cheap or a construction permit for a new station. No CRTC logging or content regulations either.
>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

The Toronto Star ALSO would have known FAR MORE about Toronto than Craig Media, a company out West, no where near Toronto!...However, The Toronto Star ALSO had an oportunity to buy Toronto one when it was sold to Chum group, and, without CRTC interference, it STILL never happend.<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"









</P>

 

[geolee]

CRTC. A hot button for some.

Wow this is a topic that needs to be approached carefully.
Wear an acid proof suit...

I am in the GTA, and have never heard of "Star-Ray", nor can I receive them "off-air". It will be a good catch for my DX collection.

Would LPTV be viable? I dunno. But I do like the idea. Required cable carriage would make it profitable venture though. Are people in Toronto's west side interested in east end activities - not really.

Chances are this arguement will continue for at least a few more years.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by geolee on 06/13/05 01:43 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[kurtbecker]

Re: CRTC. A hot button for some.

> Wow this is a topic that needs to be approached carefully.
> Wear an acid proof suit...

It's a difficult subject to discuss objectively for sure. The Star Ray TV group is quite angry after years of getting screwed by the CRTC. On the other side are the ones benefiting from CRTC corruption.
>
> I am in the GTA, and have never heard of "Star-Ray", nor can
> I receive them "off-air". It will be a good catch for my DX
> collection.

It's hard to pick-up Star Ray in the West End, the downtown towers are in the way. There is a clearing in the Annex around Bathurst and Bloor where you can receive it. I personally watched it in front of the Citytv building at Queen and John Sts. Nothing is in the way of the view from the transmitter site until about Bay Street going south west. There is an older gentleman that watches Star Ray on an old set with a loop antenna at Kipling and Eglinton in a high rise apartment. The most distant DXs durning conditions? Guelph, Downtown Hamilton, Niagara, South Brampton.

> Would LPTV be viable? I dunno. But I do like the idea.
> Required cable carriage would make it profitable venture
> though. Are people in Toronto's west side interested in east
> end activities - not really.

Actually when Star Ray was broadcasting programming, most of it was of interest to all of Toronto. I suppose some people wouldn't be interested in hockey games played by East End teams or the Beaches Easter Parade.
>
> Chances are this arguement will continue for at least a few
> more years.

I see no end to this unless the Liberals lose the next election.


>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Re: CRTC. A hot button for some.

> I see no end to this unless the Liberals lose the next
> election.

Where does it say that the conservatives or NDP are going to eliminate the CRTC...and replace it with what?

<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"









</P>

 

[kurtbecker]

Re: CRTC. A hot button for some.

> > I see no end to this unless the Liberals lose the next
> > election.
>
> Where does it say that the conservatives or NDP are going to
> eliminate the CRTC

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
-- Ronald Reagan

NDP press release, August 10, 2004:

Angus calls on Liberal Cabinet to suspend CRTC decision immediately


Ottawa - Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins-James Bay, is calling on the Canadian Heritage Minister and the Liberal cabinet to immediately suspend the recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to deny the renewal of Quebec City's CHOI-FM. Angus is also calling for a comprehensive review of the mandate of the CRTC.

Speaking to a crowd of approx. 8,000 protestors on Parliament Hill today (many traveling the considerable distance from Quebec City), Angus demanded the Minister intervene.

"The Minister should immediately recommend to her cabinet colleagues that the CHOI-FM decision be suspended pending a full review of the mandate and authority of the CRTC," said Angus.

Angus called on the Heritage Minister to bring together a task force of broadcast policy experts, academics, elected Members of Parliament and stakeholders to review the current legislation that governs the CRTC. With a clear mandate to increase accountability and transparency, the task force would present proposed legislative changes to the House of Commons heritage committee for deliberations.

"I do not feel many of the most recent decisions by the CRTC are able to be fully justified," said Angus, pointing to the Commission's decision to terminate the CHOI-FM license, the refusal to approve Italian state broadcaster RAI and the severe restrictions placed on broadcasting Arabic news channel Al Jazeera.

"The CRTC is an un-elected board with the power to decide what voices have the right to be broadcast. When the Commission deems a specific point-of-view or voice has no right to heard in Canada, this must be taken with the utmost diligence and it must be able to withstand the scrutiny of the Canadian public. We must take a serious look at the way the CRTC is operating."


Extract from Conservative Party election platform:

"A Conservative government will initiate an overall review of the relevance of the role played by the CRTC in Canada’s communication and broadcasting industries."

Extract from Conservative Party candidate handbook:

"CRTC: . supports the restructuring of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, reducing its mandate to registration and/or marketing of bandwidth and to dealing with international communications negotiations."

Satellite Broadcasting: . believes a sound Direct-To-Home (DTH) satellite policy represents an opportunity to support Canadians' ability to develop an international market for their programs. Our approach would be to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with the United States to create an open market in the licensing of television satellite distribution. This agreement would make Canadian programming available in the United States and allow foreign programming to be available here in Canada for the free choice and benefit of all Canadians."

...and replace it with what?

That's the question we are exploring in this thread.

 

[Calgaryperson]

From the MOD...

I ask that you cease all personal attacks.

The title of this topic does merit discussion, but not personal attacks.
I am ready to close this thread down.

So please, cool down and chill.

***NO REPLYS TO THIS POST ARE NECESSARY***

The Mod...<P ID="signature">______________

Canada TV and College Radio</P>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Re: CRTC. A hot button for some.

>
> ...and replace it with what?
>
> That's the question we are exploring in this thread.
>
So far, the answer is to eliminate the CRTC, and let Industry Canada, the CAB, and CBSC work as a team to deal with radio and television issues, however, as I've mentioned befrore...there's still an important function that the CRTC seems to maintain well, and that's the communications end.

Pay phones are still only a quarter in Ontario thanks to the CRTC, and I believe that to be a good thing...I'd ramble on about why, and how phone companies make a killing off of todays technology enough to avoid a pay phone increase to 50 cents, (example: call waiting wasn't an option in homes when the pay phone was first increased from a dime to a quarter.) but I'm stoping myself now, because this is a radio-info board.
<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>

 

[geolee]

Our Hot Button Thread - another option to explore?

Should the CRTC be replaced, who would administer the issuing of licences?

Just because I would like to have a television station, does not really mean I can fire on up if I so chose to do so.

Initially the idea is interesting, to say the least, but say three groups all want to have channel 39, who gets it? To whom would we speak to prove our better worth?

When we were visiting England and Eire in 2004, I found it interesting that BBC and RTE do not charge when their signal is put on a satelite. It saves them thousands of Pounds and Euros to not have their signals encoded, and their viewership levels went up.

Could such a plan work here? CBC not charging for their signal on ANIK? Yes

This would be advantageous to CTV, but they own ExpressVu and would benefit there, but what about the guys at StarChoise? CTV still wants those bucks.

Could we see the end of terrestrial stations as we know it? Want to Zone-Shift? go ahead. From Newfoundland and working in Alberta? see what is happening back there. Could it have the potential to make many land based stations obsolete as we presently know it?

Do we want more American Cultural Imperialism? not me thanks.

Perhaps we have to start exploring "free to air" sat-services instead.

If CSR goes through, which has been rendered as I write, then we get more ACI.

So if Star-Ray wants to go to air, this might be his better option. Get some transponder space on a foreign bird, and broadcast back to Toronto; with your east end focus. Who will stop you then? might be cheaper than the electric costs of running a transmitter. Then advertise like mad all over the local area. Any good electronics shops about over there? Other 'pirate' operators could also do the same - imagine the fun we viewers would have.

"Free-to-home" satelite receivers are about $250.00, the cost of a good television antenna on your roof.

 

[kurtbecker]

Re: Our Hot Button Thread - another option to explore?

> Should the CRTC be replaced, who would administer the
> issuing of licences?
>
> Just because I would like to have a television station, does
> not really mean I can fire on up if I so chose to do so.
>
> Initially the idea is interesting, to say the least, but say
> three groups all want to have channel 39, who gets it? To
> whom would we speak to prove our better worth?

You could give them all a channel on channel 39. One terrestrial DTV frequency
can support 4 SDTV (standard definition) channels. Once terrestrial DTV goes through, there will be plenty of room for all types of channels. A "free cable" system over the air.

> When we were visiting England and Eire in 2004, I found it
> interesting that BBC and RTE do not charge when their signal
> is put on a satelite. It saves them thousands of Pounds and
> Euros to not have their signals encoded, and their
> viewership levels went up.
>
> Could such a plan work here? CBC not charging for their
> signal on ANIK? Yes

CBC had free unencoded signals on C-band, but they are no longer available.
>
> This would be advantageous to CTV, but they own ExpressVu
> and would benefit there, but what about the guys at
> StarChoise? CTV still wants those bucks.
>
> Could we see the end of terrestrial stations as we know it?
> Want to Zone-Shift? go ahead. From Newfoundland and working
> in Alberta? see what is happening back there. Could it have
> the potential to make many land based stations obsolete as
> we presently know it?

DTV should give terrestrial OTA a new life as "free cable."
>
> Do we want more American Cultural Imperialism? not me
> thanks.

I think it works 2 ways. How about Canadian Cultural Imperialism invading the US? "Open Skys" is much more advantageous for Canadian stations broadcasting original material, especially ethnic stations. Reaching the US market would be fantastic. Of course under "Open Skys" Canadian stations that rebroadcast US shows would be in trouble. Hence CRTC opposition.
>
> Perhaps we have to start exploring "free to air"
> sat-services instead.

A transponder is still big bucks, beyond the capability of a local community LPTV station. Star Ray has some new satellite gear, we are going to try to pick up digital free to air (unencoded) signals. So far we've had access to analog free to air stations on C and K band.
>
> If CSR goes through, which has been rendered as I write,
> then we get more ACI.
>
> So if Star-Ray wants to go to air, this might be his better
> option. Get some transponder space on a foreign bird, and
> broadcast back to Toronto; with your east end focus. Who
> will stop you then? might be cheaper than the electric costs
> of running a transmitter. Then advertise like mad all over
> the local area. Any good electronics shops about over there?
> Other 'pirate' operators could also do the same - imagine
> the fun we viewers would have.

A transponder is an option if the price goes down. Right now the best alternative to CRTC regulation is the internet. At http://tobroadcast.com
Star Ray TV has a live broadcast at 300k of the Toronto signal using Peercast.
The internet feed can be programed separately from the UHF channel.
Peercast (http://peercast.org) is a Napster-like peer to peer bandwidth sharing system that theoretically could have unlimited connections. This is a lot cheaper than a transponder.

tobroadcast.com also has video on demand promos of Star Ray TV shows.
>
> "Free-to-home" satelite receivers are about $250.00, the
> cost of a good television antenna on your roof.

UHF has appealed to Star Ray because its' a low tech universal format. People have picked up a TV in the garbage, fashioned antenna out of a coat hanger and some wire, and have watched us. Satellite and the internet are both high tech methods inaccessable to people of limited technical and/or financial means. Right now you can't beat analog OTA television as a democratic medium.