• 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

Who Decided WJBK Detroit Should Be The Canadian Satellite Fox Affiliate?

From my experience, I doubt if Thunder Bay would have any significant interest in Twin Cities TV versus anyplace else...save for maybe a few sports broadcasts. The main interest in Canada would be getting U.S. network programming (as opposed to local stuff). My guess...and it's just a guess...is that it may have been easier for Thunder Bay to add on to an existing microwave network in pre-satellite days. Given that the local audience would have been used to Twin Cities TV, it then subsequently could've been logical to switch to a satellite delivered feed when that became available.

Again, I'm just guessing, and I stand to be corrected.

When I was in Fort Frances (across the river from International Falls, MN) and Winnipeg this past July, US Network TV was mostly from Minneapolis.
 
I wonder if some Ontarioans receive the PT24 feed of WSEE for CBS?

-crainbebo
 
cyberdad said:
From my experience, I doubt if Thunder Bay would have any significant interest in Twin Cities TV versus anyplace else...save for maybe a few sports broadcasts. The main interest in Canada would be getting U.S. network programming (as opposed to local stuff). My guess...and it's just a guess...is that it may have been easier for Thunder Bay to add on to an existing microwave network in pre-satellite days. Given that the local audience would have been used to Twin Cities TV, it then subsequently could've been logical to switch to a satellite delivered feed when that became available.
Thunder Bay years ago got the nets from Duluth. The issue is the stations made hops through different translators up the north shore so by the time it got to Thunder Bay they looked like hell. They gathered them OTA from a translator network in Grand Portage, MN (right on the border) which got their version from Grand Marais which got them from Duluth. When I lived in Duluth we saw lots of Ontario license plates in the parking lots by the malls and stuff....It got switched to Detroit in the mid 80's.

When I was in Fort Frances (across the river from International Falls, MN) and Winnipeg this past July, US Network TV was mostly from Minneapolis.
actually the IFalls translators there rebroadcast the Duluth stations, not Minneapolis
 
CRTC decision back in the day for Thunder Bay to switch from Duluth to Detroit

Ottawa, 14 March 1986
Decision CRTC 86-219
Maclean-Hunter Limited, operating under the name of Maclean-Hunter Cable TV
Thunder Bay, Ontario - 852445600

At a Public Hearing held in Toronto on 16 December 1985, the Commission considered an application by Maclean-Hunter Limited (Maclean-Hunter) to change the authorized distribution of the broadcasting receiving undertaking serving Thunder Bay by substituting the carriage of the 3+1 U.S. television network signals, received via satellite from the Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. (CANCOM) network, for those received over-the-air.

Maclean-Hunter indicated that the signals of WDIO-TV (ABC), KDLH-TV (CBS), KBJR-TV (NBC) and WDSE-TV (PBS), which are received over-theair from Duluth, are of poor quality and subject to co-channel interference and fading, particularly during the summer months, and that several complaints had been received from subscribers in this regard.

At the hearing, Maclean-Hunter advised the Commission that a study conducted by the Department of Communications in 1983 had concluded that it was certainly not the equipment that was causing the problem, but rather the method of delivery, "whereby the first receiving site for the Duluth stations was established at Grand Marais, Minnesota. The signals received at this ... site were retransmitted by low-power UHF translators to Grand Portage, Minnesota and then again retransmitted on different UHF channels". As a result, these American signals are relayed over a total distance of some 190 miles.

Maclean-Hunter added that, in 1983, it had commissioned the operator of KDLH-TV, the Duluth CBS station, to conduct a microwave feasibility study and that, until last year, it had been trying to negotiate an agreement with the Duluth broadcasters for the construction and operation of a microwave system to improve the technical quality of the Duluth signals in Thunder Bay, but it had not been able to arrive at a satisfactory long-term arrangement.

It also indicated that it had concluded a 15-year fixed-rate agreement with CANCOM for the satellite delivery of more reliable, better quality signals at comparable cost.
Mr. George C. Jauss of the Duluth-Superior Area Educational Television Corporation submitted an intervention on behalf of the four Duluth U.S. television stations opposing the deletion of their signals and underlining the affinity that exists between the communities of Duluth and Thunder Bay.

At the hearing, Mr. Jauss stated that "the three commercial television stations have provided regional news, sports, weather, and feature programming of interest to all the people of the Western Lake Superior Region" in addition to the educational and cultural programs of WDSE-TV (PBS), which is watched at least once a month by half the residents of Thunder Bay. The intervener also pointed out that the U.S. stations had recently proposed to revise their offer of financial assistance for the initial establishment of the microwave system and indicated that they, too, were willing to provide a 15-year maintenance agreement.

In its reply, the licensee commented on the community of interest argument noting that it was more like "a one-way communications path" between the two cities, and stressed that the microwave feasibility study results indicated that satellite delivery was both more cost efficient and more reliable. Maclean-Hunter added that subscribers are not interested in the Duluth stations' local or regional programs, particularly their newscasts. Further, it noted, that the offer to contribute to the installation of the microwave system "came only after our contract with CANCOM was signed and this application was filed".

Opposing interventions were received from L. Ardis Hunter, John Moorhead and Ernie Epp, M.P., expressing interest in having the Duluth stations maintained.
The Commission also acknowledges the intervention submitted by the CTV Television Network Ltd. (CTV) regarding the importation by Canadian satellite of distant U.S. signals, potential loss of revenue for Canadian stations, breach of copyright, duplication of prime time programming and the ineffectiveness of simulcasting. In the Commission's view, the concerns raised by CTV have already been considered and addressed in a number of previous decisions, including Decision CRTC 83-126 which authorized CANCOM to distribute the 3+1 U.S. signals, and Decision CRTC 85-423 renewing CANCOM's licence. Decisions CRTC 86-183 and 86-184 dated 6 March 1986, which authorized several Manitoba cable licensees to replace two U.S. network signals from North Dakota with the corresponding signals received from CANCOM, also address some of the CTV concerns.

Thunder Bay Electronics Limited, licensee of CHFD-TV Thunder Bay, the local CTV affiliate, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TV Ontario) and the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association raised other related matters in their interventions. Thunder Bay Electronics Limited also indicated that the issue of the close community of interest between Thunder Bay and Duluth was absent from the Maclean-Hunter application.

Furthermore, the Municipality of Neebing and the Township of O'Connor, which also represented the Local Services Board of Pearson Township, urged in their interventions that provisions be made to maintain the Grand Portage transmitter should the proposal to replace the Duluth signals be approved. Mr. Vic Corbeil, Michael Samorodny, Michael Ludwig-Mawer and CANCOM also submitted interventions in support of the Maclean-Hunter proposal.

The Commission has examined carefully all the evidence submitted by the licensee and the interveners, including the evidence related to the technical quality of the signals. The Commission is satisfied that the licensee has adequately met the criteria set out in Public Notice CRTC 1985-60, and that, under the particular circumstances of this case, satellite signal delivery represents the most cost efficient and technically reliable means of providing high quality U.S. signals to Thunder Bay.

Accordingly, by majority decision, the Commission approves the addition of the signals of WXYZ-TV (ABC), WJBK-TV (CBS), WTVS (PBS) and WDIV (NBC) Detroit, Michigan, received via satellite from the CANCOM network and the deletion of the signals of WDIO-TV (ABC), KDLH-TV (CBS), KBJR-TV (NBC) and WDSE-TV (PBS) Duluth, Minnesota, received over-the-air.

The Commission also approves an amendment to the licence for this undertaking by increasing the maximum monthly subscriber fee from $9.00 to $9.40. The $0.40 fee increase is justified based on the difference between the additional costs to be incurred for the delivery of the CANCOM signals and the deletion of the maintenance costs associated with the over-the-air reception of U.S. signals.

The Commission notes that the maximum monthly subscriber fee authorized herein includes pass-through fees of $0.61 to be paid by the licensee to CANCOM for the delivery of four television signals. Authority to charge the $9.40 will only be effective at such time as the CANCOM signals are provided to subscribers and is further subject to the requirement that only the actual pass-through fees paid to CANCOM are charged to subscribers.

DISSENTING OPINION FROM COMMISSIONER PAUL MCRAE
This dissension from the decision is based on two points raised during the hearing.
1) There is a very close relationship between the cities of Duluth and Thunder Bay. This is illustrated by three quotations from Ms. Labelle of Thunder Bay Electronics Limited: "The central issue conspicuous by its absence in the Maclean-Hunter application ... is the community of interest which exists between Thunder Bay and Duluth-Superior"; "One has only to consider that it is a full day's journey from Thunder Bay to the nearest Canadian city, while it is a 30-minute drive to the U.S. border, to understand why a tremendous spirit of kinship and competition has flourished between the two cities"; and "Your press clippings already tell you that the possibility of losing this media connection between the two cities sparked an emotional debate on both city councils. But without giving an exhaustive list of shared interests, we respectfully submit that community of interest is of critical consideration in this application".
2) Interventions by one individual, the Township of O'Connor, the Municipality of Neebing and the Local Services Board of Pearson Township, indicate that a real concern exists that the over-the-air service received could result in the loss or deterioration of over-the-air signals to "at least 2,000 households". Certainly these signals would improve if the microwave option was pursued.

Given these two points, and the very marginal cost differences, the application, I believe, should be denied, and further, the applicant should be directed to review again an earlier proposal to improve, by microwave, the existing signals from Duluth.
 
unclehonkey said:
cyberdad said:
When I was in Fort Frances (across the river from International Falls, MN) and Winnipeg this past July, US Network TV was mostly from Minneapolis.
actually the IFalls translators there rebroadcast the Duluth stations, not Minneapolis

Except the Shaw system serving Fort Frances get US nets from Minneapolis via satellite, not Duluth. The translators in Int'l Falls carry Duluth stations, but they're available via antenna only in Fort Frances.
 
actually the IFalls translators there rebroadcast the Duluth stations, not Minneapolis
[/quote]

Except the Shaw system serving Fort Frances get US nets from Minneapolis via satellite, not Duluth. The translators in Int'l Falls carry Duluth stations, but they're available via antenna only in Fort Frances.
[/quote]

Then that explains it. The hotel I was in had cable. I seem to recall that in addition to the US networks from the Twin Cities, there was also a PBS station from somewhere else. I want to say WNED from Buffalo, but I'm really not sure. Given the number of nights I've spent in hotels (lifetime platinum guest with Marriott), I could be thinking of somewhere else.
 
Speaking of American affiliates on Canadian cable, I think Temiskaming Shores to this day receives WGTQ for ABC. Sudbury had WWUP until just a few years ago. There may be some small systems that still carry WWUP and/or WTOM along Highway 17.
 
unclehonkey said:
CRTC decision back in the day for Thunder Bay to switch from Duluth to Detroit

Ottawa, 14 March 1986
Decision CRTC 86-219
Maclean-Hunter Limited, operating under the name of Maclean-Hunter Cable TV
Thunder Bay, Ontario - 852445600

Pardon my ignorance of Canadian broadcasting, but why would the CRTC be concerned about which U.S. signals are carried by some cable system? I know that governments the world over do regulate cable providers in various ways -- the "must carry" rule is a classic (and near-universal) example --, but if a cable system has the copyright clearance to carry a certain channel, why would the regulator need to become involved? In other words, why did Maclean-Hunter need to ask the CTRC for approval to switch channels on its own cable system?

(I'm currently in my native Slovenia, where cable systems are free to carry any signal, foreign or domestic, as long as they have that broadcaster's permission -- and pay them a fee. They don't need to obtain regulatory approval. It's pretty much the same in the U.S.)
 
TVWorldwide said:
Pardon my ignorance of Canadian broadcasting, but why would the CRTC be concerned about which U.S. signals are carried by some cable system? I know that governments the world over do regulate cable providers in various ways -- the "must carry" rule is a classic (and near-universal) example --, but if a cable system has the copyright clearance to carry a certain channel, why would the regulator need to become involved? In other words, why did Maclean-Hunter need to ask the CTRC for approval to switch channels on its own cable system?

(I'm currently in my native Slovenia, where cable systems are free to carry any signal, foreign or domestic, as long as they have that broadcaster's permission -- and pay them a fee. They don't need to obtain regulatory approval. It's pretty much the same in the U.S.)

Canada's broadcasting regulator has historically (and still to some extent) had an almost communist-like mentality about controlling what Canadians can and can't see on television. A number of years ago I had to try to explain to friends of mine in Mexico why we couldn't access Nickelodeon in Canada, and it felt strange talking about government control as if I was from North Korea or Iran. I think it is rooted in an irrational fear of American culture by the government, and requiring approval of U.S. station carriage on cable is just one way it manifests itself.

Many Canadians are as baffled as you are by the way the government controls broadcasting.
 
Back to the original question...

Maybe because WJBK was being relayed on satellite as a CBS affiliate before Fox even launched.
 
Thanks, M.J. While I'm not a political libertarian -- I don't instinctively oppose regulation in all its guises --, I was surprised to read about such regulatory micromanagement. (And sorry for going somewhat off-topic.)
 
I believe history is a big piece of it. The Spokane stations had a long history of microwave carriage to points north and east - before TV was widely developed in Montana, many parts of the Big Sky State got Spokane TV fed via microwave and cable, and I suspect there were further microwave links that took the Spokane signals northward into Alberta from there.

Also, it wasn't until the 1980s (or even early 1990s) that those Montana markets finally got complete "big 3" network service locally. Since the Canadians wanted to be able to source all of the networks from a single point whenever possible, that left a big, big gap in available markets between Fargo and Spokane. By the time that gap started to be filled with ABC affiliates in places like Billings and Missoula, there were already satellite feeds available out of Seattle, Spokane, Detroit, Buffalo and Boston.

As for Portland, it's a long way from the border, at least by Eastern standards. While WMTW's Mount Washington signal made it available in Quebec, there was no easy transmission path to get WCSH-TV and WGAN-TV over the mountains into Canada. That's why the Montreal systems had WCAX and WPTZ instead, and why they later added WEZF/WVNY instead of WMTW.
 
M.J. said:
TVWorldwide said:
Pardon my ignorance of Canadian broadcasting, but why would the CRTC be concerned about which U.S. signals are carried by some cable system? I know that governments the world over do regulate cable providers in various ways -- the "must carry" rule is a classic (and near-universal) example --, but if a cable system has the copyright clearance to carry a certain channel, why would the regulator need to become involved? In other words, why did Maclean-Hunter need to ask the CTRC for approval to switch channels on its own cable system?

(I'm currently in my native Slovenia, where cable systems are free to carry any signal, foreign or domestic, as long as they have that broadcaster's permission -- and pay them a fee. They don't need to obtain regulatory approval. It's pretty much the same in the U.S.)

Canada's broadcasting regulator has historically (and still to some extent) had an almost communist-like mentality about controlling what Canadians can and can't see on television. A number of years ago I had to try to explain to friends of mine in Mexico why we couldn't access Nickelodeon in Canada, and it felt strange talking about government control as if I was from North Korea or Iran. I think it is rooted in an irrational fear of American culture by the government, and requiring approval of U.S. station carriage on cable is just one way it manifests itself.

Many Canadians are as baffled as you are by the way the government controls broadcasting.

In Canada, they are worried about $$$, vs Mexico, also with the common language that Canada has (except for Quebec, and Northern New Brunswick) with United States. Canada worried about their revenue heading south of the border versus within the country.
 
One thing broadcasting-related that Canada does better than the US: The availabilty of signals from across the country. For example, cable systems in Eastern Canada carry Vancouver affiliates on digital cable and vice versa. The equivalent in America would be New York stations being seen on the West Coast and L.A. affiliates being seen on the East Coast.
 
@ TV Worldwide...

To be fair to the Canadian Govenment, they've long felt they must maintain a Canadian identity, being so close to the world's broadcasting and English-language cultural beacon. I've heard it described as a mouse sleeping next to an elephant. The mouse knows EVERYTHING about the elephant while the elephant may not even notice the mouse. I've also heard one official say that you should be able to know what country you're in when you turn on your TV. If the CRTC didn't step in, Canadian TV, cable and satellite would be totally dominated by American channels and networks.

So the CRTC does allow some but not all U.S. signals into Canada while working hard to develop Canadian broadcasting and Canadian voices. For instance, Toronto is not far from Buffalo, across Lake Ontario. All the Buffalo TV signals can be picked up in Toronto over the air. But the CRTC only allows five Buffalo stations to be seen on cable/satellite: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and PBS. That's pretty much the case across most of Canada, although in some places, including Montreal, they carry two PBS stations. In Vancouver, they also pick up a My Network station, as well as carrying a second PBS station. But I'm sure if the CRTC were ruling on it today, they'd say only five U.S. over-the-air stations are allowed. These other exceptions are grandfathered.

Even some of the American cable networks, Discovery, Food Network, House and Garden, had to promise the CRTC that when they first went on Canadian cable systems, they'd eventually develop a separate Canadian network that would air Canadian-produced programs, as well as American ones. Today, they all are doing that.
 
Gregg said:
@ TV Worldwide...

So the CRTC does allow some but not all U.S. signals into Canada while working hard to develop Canadian broadcasting and Canadian voices. For instance, Toronto is not far from Buffalo, across Lake Ontario. All the Buffalo TV signals can be picked up in Toronto over the air. But the CRTC only allows five Buffalo stations to be seen on cable/satellite: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and PBS. That's pretty much the case across most of Canada, although in some places, including Montreal, they carry two PBS stations. In Vancouver, they also pick up a My Network station, as well as carrying a second PBS station. But I'm sure if the CRTC were ruling on it today, they'd say only five U.S. over-the-air stations are allowed. These other exceptions are grandfathered.

Although I don't live there.... I'm pretty certain from past visits to Toronto, that on extended cable tiers, they now offer both ch. 23 and ch. 49 from Buffalo (CW and MyNetwork) ... which would blow the 5 station rule.
 
Canadian regulators make certain exceptions for upper digital cable tiers. WNLO and WNYO are indeed fairly widely available in Toronto and southern Ontario on the digital tier, but not on the analog tier.

This may be a distinction without a difference in 2013, but it was a big regulatory deal when the policy first rolled out a few years ago.
 
On upper tiers, some American superstations also were permitted: WTBS Atlanta, WGN-TV Chicago, WWOR New York and WSBK Boston. These stations carried their local sports teams, so if a Canadian team were visiting one of those U.S. cities, you could watch the game on the American superstation. These days regional cable networks carry most major league sports teams. You won't find their games on a broadcast station, even a superstation.

Today, WTBS and WGN morphed into cable networks. WWOR is no longer carried outside the NY area. And WSBK really has no sports anymore, although I think its still available on upper tiers in Canada. But then, you have to pay more for that service. If you just have standard cable TV, you likely only get five U.S. stations.

BTW, WTBS has become simply TBS in the U.S. but in Canada, it's called Peach (maybe because Atlanta is the Peachtree City?). It runs some of the same shows as TBS but not exactly the same schedule.
 
Gregg said:
BTW, WTBS has become simply TBS in the U.S. but in Canada, it's called Peach (maybe because Atlanta is the Peachtree City?). It runs some of the same shows as TBS but not exactly the same schedule.

It is my understanding that Peachtree is what you see OTA in Atlanta on ch 17. TBS is the national feed. So Canadian viewers are seeing the real WPCH.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom