WHY NO DIGITAL SUB-CHANNELS?

[blackgold]

Why are there no digital sub-channels airing programming in Canada? It's unacceptable. Clearly, someone has got to start a digital sub-channel to serve people with diverse needs.

 

[spunker88]

You can blame the CRTC for that. As I understand each subchannel is considered a separate licensed channel that has to meet its own Cancon minimum along with other regulations.

With the recent CBC/Radio Canada signal shutdowns, you'd think they would have worked to get these placed on a subchannel of another station if operating a dedicated transmitter site was costing too much. It also would be nice to have subschannels for channels like CTV Two which only has a few over the air signals. Meanwhile the original CTV has many more transmitters and translators which could bring CTV Two to most of Canada as these sites become digital, since most rural sites are still analog.

 

[azumanga]

You can blame the CRTC for that. As I understand each subchannel is considered a separate licensed channel that has to meet its own Cancon minimum along with other regulations.

Though they are taking babysteps on this concept -- recently, they allowed CFTV-TV in Leamington, Ontario, a low-powered community broadcaster, to carry four separate subchannels on their signal.

 

[w9wi]

From the CFTV decision, theoretically quoting CRTC 2002-31*:

- Multicast services should make a positive contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system during the transition period.

- Each multicast programming service will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be licensed by the Commission separately from the main [digital television] service. A multicast service will generally be subject to the same Canadian content, logging and other regulatory requirements that apply to existing television services.

- The Commission’s predisposition will be to license new and innovative multicast services, in preference to those that duplicate existing over-the-air, pay or specialty services.

- The delivery of a multicast service may not take precedence over the broadcast of the [high definition television] version of a program whenever such a version is available.

* which is a typo, 2002-31 is the decision to allow the CBC to relocate an FM relay transmitter in Trois-Rivieres...

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

CBC/Radio-Canada could certainly benefit from digital sub-channels, as the cost of using and maintaining transmitters could be cut almost in half.

In most areas, the ".1" can be CBC and ".2" by SRC. For example, in Toronto, "5.1" would be CBLT; "5.2" would be CBLFT.

In Quebec, ".1" would be SRC; ".2" CBC. In Montreal, CBFT would be on "2.1" and CBMT on "2.2".

CTV can also benefit, using ".1" for CTV and ".2" for CTV-2 (the former "A Channels") in many areas, or the other way around (see below for an example).

In southern Ontario, "9.1" could in the Toronto area be CFTO-9; while "9.2" would carry CTV-2's CKVR-3 in Barrie. In the Barrie area, it would be the opposite: CKVR would be on "3.1" and CFTO simulcast on "3.2".

 

[rgseark2009]

From a perspective down here behind the Cornbread Curtain in the Midsouth US, the CRTC for the most part is a good firewall against the worst abuses that have occurred on the airwaves here in the States.....BUT.

Not permitting the CBC to put Radio-Canada on CBC DTV transmitters and vice versa in Quebec has been a fail. I realize that running 2 720p signals on an ATSC OTA signal is a compromise, but at least its better than nothing. Of course the CBC has itself been the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight with its killing of Radio Canada International and not pressing the CRTC for multicasting.

 

[w9wi]

From a perspective down here behind the Cornbread Curtain in the Midsouth US, the CRTC for the most part is a good firewall against the worst abuses that have occurred on the airwaves here in the States.....BUT.

Not permitting the CBC to put Radio-Canada on CBC DTV transmitters and vice versa in Quebec has been a fail. I realize that running 2 720p signals on an ATSC OTA signal is a compromise, but at least its better than nothing. Of course the CBC has itself been the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight with its killing of Radio Canada International and not pressing the CRTC for multicasting.

I would be VERY surprised if the lack of CBC transmitter sharing is the CRTC's fault. I would be just about certain the CBC never asked -- and would be just about certain that if they did ask, the CRTC would approve it.

 

[azumanga]

I would be VERY surprised if the lack of CBC transmitter sharing is the CRTC's fault. I would be just about certain the CBC never asked -- and would be just about certain that if they did ask, the CRTC would approve it.

The CBC did have subchannels on their mind when they made plans to close its analog repeater network, but rumor has it that they discarded the idea, as it would affect the picture quality on the main channel.

 

[EJ204]

The argument against subchannels because they reduce the quality of the main channel is a poor one. If someone is still getting their signal over the air instead of cable, I don't think they're going to notice a minimal reduction in the quality of the main transmission because of subchannels.

For the first couple of years after the digitial switchover, CBS O&O stations refused to run any subchannels. But that's now coming to a close as CBS stations launch low-cost news subchannels, including WCBS-TV NYC. I'd be surprised if the stations got more than one or two complaints that they're reducing the quality of the main channel.

As mentioned above, the CBC/SRC could give smaller communities both English and French service without having to maintain two separate transmitters. I wouldn't do it in larger cities in case the CBC/SRC wanted to eventually launch some new subchannels on those stations. Maybe they could even run CBC News/RDI on their subchannels.

Or how about something similiar to Me-TV/This/Antenna in the U.S.? Run classic TV shows from the past, a mix of Canadian-made TV shows with American classics. Mr. Dressup and Friendly Giant in the morning, and King of Kensington, Danger Bay, Beachcombers, etc. with Mary Tyler Moore, I Love Lucy and Twilight Zone during the day and evening. The CBC/SRC would have a new revenue stream with little effort or expense.

 

[w9wi]

People who switched from cable to OTA are telling me they're noticing the picture quality is *better* OTA. (there is good technical theory behind that, though I'm a bit surprised people are noticing)

But yes, I think most people would rather have more channels than an occasional bit of macroblocking on an especially busy scene.

The regulatory situation in Canada is such that any completely new channels (like a classic-TV thing) would have to be licenced as a completely new service. It's not like the US where you can launch a subchannel at will & just submit an ancillary service form at the end of the year. In Canada you'd need to ask permission in advance & show you weren't going to cannibalize the finances of other channels.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

In Canada you'd need to ask permission in advance & show you weren't going to cannibalize the finances of other channels.

Yes, and for example, here's a channel that had a vision and a plan for a community channel.
However, it was too much of a threat to the Rogers (local) cable ten community channel, so
a broadcast licence was never granted. (they may still be pirating on UHF 15 near Main Subway station in Toronto, I honestly do not know...)
----> http://www.srtv.on.ca/