- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
No More Free TV
Over the air broadcast is over. Feds ok new cable and satellite fees. An era ends.
Rabbit ears won't work anymore.
Since the debut of broadcast television in this country more than 50 years ago, millions of Canadians have grown to expect free access to local television signals. While the mechanism for accessing those ad- or taxpayer-supported broadcasts has evolved from rooftop antennae to cable and satellite distribution, access has consistently been free (cable obviously charges for access, but it does not pay for carriage of local signals).
Last week, Canada's broadcast regulator issued a decision that will bring the era of free local television to an end for many Canadians. Whether through the elimination of local over-the-air broadcasts or via additional cable or satellite charges to cover a new fee-for-carriage system, free is out and new fees are in.
The changes are the result of two policy decisions by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. First, the CRTC set the ground rules for the digital transition of Canadian broadcasting by determining that many Canadian communities are likely to lose their over-the-air signal as part of the change.
We're late to the digital reality
In just over two years, Canada is scheduled to bring its television broadcast system into the digital world with a mandated conversion from analog to digital. The move is long overdue (the United States completed its transition last month) and will bring considerable benefits by introducing greater broadcast efficiencies and freeing up valuable spectrum that can be used for new wireless services.
Canadian broadcasters have resisted investing in the new digital transmitters, however, claiming that the additional costs are difficult to justify given the shrinking market share of over-the-air broadcasting. With less than 10 percent of Canadians still relying on over-the-air signals (most use a broadcast distributor such as a cable or satellite provider), the broadcasters argued that the digital transition was economically viable only in major markets.
The CRTC largely agreed, ruling that broadcasters are expected to convert to digital transmitters only in major markets, which it defined as "the national capital and all provincial and territorial capital cities, as well as markets either served by multiple originating stations (including CBC stations) or with populations greater than 300,000."
In Ontario, that covers Toronto, Hamilton, Barrie, Ottawa, London, Windsor, and Kitchener. It excludes several important communities such as Kingston, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay. Moreover, nationally every province has its share of exclusions, including Kelowna, Abbotsford, Red Deer, and Brandon.
Fee for carriage wins the day
As some communities face the prospect of losing their over-the-air signal, cable and satellite subscribers should prepare for paying for local signals. After twice rejecting requests for a fee-for-carriage system for local broadcasts, last week the CRTC reversed course. Cable companies and their subscribers pay for premium channels such as TSN or CNN, but local signals are carried without compensation, resulting in a broadcaster-led campaign in support of the imposition of new fees for carrying the local signal.
The Commission did not set a fee, but it did order both the broadcasters and broadcast distributors to negotiate a settlement. If the two sides are unable to do so, it promised to arbitrate a solution. The policy reversal -- coming just days after a House of Commons committee declined to establish fee-for-carriage -- is sure to set off a battle between broadcasters who argue that the fees are needed for their long-term sustainability and the cable and satellite providers, who view it as a cash-grab that could add $6 per month onto many cable bills.
As that fight unfolds, it is Canadian consumers who find themselves stuck in the middle, with some paying more for the same services and others about to lose access to broadcasts altogether. ![]()



10
Login or register to post comments
OilbertaRedTory
2 years ago
The Corporate Compact Clique ...
... has decided that the profiteering oligopolies shall continue to govern the publicly-owned communications utilities.
A forced market is no free market.
Here's to 1837.
ME2
2 years ago
Convenient ideology
What??? These champions of "Free Enterprise" need restrictive government regulations in order to make money?
But isn't that called Fascism?
Hughes
2 years ago
Bulldung!
CRTC Mission Statement
To ensure that Canadian communications contribute fairly and equitably to Canada's economic, social and cultural prosperity through regulation, supervision and public dialogue.
CRTC Vision Statement
World-class quality communications, with a distinct Canadian presence, in the public interest.
Hughes’ Statement
Public dialogue? Did the CRTC ask the public if they would be willing to shell out more $ for an already overpriced product with no appreciable gain.
Did the CRTC ask the “over the air heads” how they felt about loosing their signal?
How is this in “the public interest” exactly?
Grumpy
2 years ago
Boycott TV
If one boycotts fee for TV and cable TV, the broadcast media will collapse. We need to use the power of the consumer to crush both the broadcast media and the CRTC.
robertmcclelland
2 years ago
Since corporate broadcasters
Since corporate broadcasters will no longer be broadcasting over the air does that mean the airwaves can be returned to the people for their use?
freebear
2 years ago
This is a Test of the Emergency Broadcast! Anybody there?
So you will have to pay to see/hear any emergency broadcast, or you will have to rely on radio!
No surprise, everything is for sale on Earth!
Keep in mind you need electricity to watch yuour cable channels, surf the web, listen to the radio, download your new 'J Tunes' songs, send e-mails, and so on.....
So don't cry when they finally decide BC needs a nuclear reactor or two to meet the insatiable demand for electricity.
You can bet the farm (wish I had one!) electricity rates are soon to go up and many households will soon have to decide whether cable is worth it when it costs so much to power the TV.
Or invest in a small wind turbine or solar array on their suburban roof (If city hall would even consider allowing you to generate your own electricity (NIMBY) or compost your human waste.
cocean
2 years ago
TV vs Internet
My only concern is whether broadband fees for Internet access will be affected.
I long ago got rid of my TV. With 40% of what is aired used up in commercials, it makes no sense for anyone to pay to be sold something. I've better ways to invest my leisure time and entertainment dollars.
packrat
2 years ago
and the OTHRE cable regs?
It seems to me cable was REQUIRED to do local broadcasting... You turn up with an idea, they'll help make it into TV.
anyone ever seen any?
maybe if we enforced the regs we have...
packrat
ME2
2 years ago
TV vs Anything
Yes, cocean, as a non-watcher of TV too, I've often wondered how anyone would be gullible enough to pay for programs that have cost the seller nothing (having already been paid for by the advertisers) and then have to pay a bonus for the package that has the least mind-numbing crapola in it, and THEN have to waste 40% of one's time watching advertising.
Without the advertising, very likly you'd have to pay for each program. I wonder how many would?
God, most of that stuff is so bad, you'd think even voting would be a welcome diversion :-)
dorothy
2 years ago
I'm confused...
It seems to me this article is trying to say too many things on top of each other, and what it says about any one thing ends up not being clear.
It sounds as if the author thinks there is a division between digital and OTA signals, although digital signals can be OTA. Then it sounds like signals won't be free for anyone, or that those who until now got them for free will have to pay, or even if they are willing to pay, in some cases the signals won't be there to pay for. I do not feel informed but more like pestered by an incoherent mess. One more proof reading by a test idiot would have been good.