|
|
|
"Save Local TV" vs. "Stop the TV Tax" Campaigns
- Thread starter Chinese Jamaican Bloke
- Start date
cacruden
Senior Member
It's all a big fraud, the "over the air" stations put up the signals over the air - supported with advertising (which is their model) - don't have to bid in a competitive market for their licensed frequency (like cell phone companies etc.). Then along come cable companies, which started off as "community antennas" (most of the programming was over the air) but because communities did not really want all these big ugly arials - these CATV providers allowed you get pay to get the feed from the antenna to your local station - and still everything was fine (although these cable companies for the most part were not very profitable - in fact they lost money for a long time). BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes) provided local people with access to the growing US market of specialty programming, and in response the CRTC licensed and protected these specialty channels - which also provided the CATV (now just referred to as cable) suppliers to sell additional stations - and this is where the investment started to really pay off (slowly in the beginning).
Now of course these OTA (over the air) television stations are saying that cable is "stealing" their signal and we should pay for them over cable, but the truth is that most of these stations are such low power (just enough to force it to be carried on cable) that they really require cable to carry them. US OTA stations average around 100 times more powerful broadcast signals. (this is where the fraudulently claiming that cable is just "stealing")
Now, if they allow OTA stations to charge cable, then I should be able to receive those OTA - and subscribe separately to cable ONLY for stations that I want that I cannot receive OTA - this is why the it really is equivalent to a tax. If these stations want to go to a pay model - let them - and in return we take back the "free airwaves" - and if they want that way as well - then license them at significant fees (like LOOK TV had to do for their now deceased OTA cable).
Now of course these OTA (over the air) television stations are saying that cable is "stealing" their signal and we should pay for them over cable, but the truth is that most of these stations are such low power (just enough to force it to be carried on cable) that they really require cable to carry them. US OTA stations average around 100 times more powerful broadcast signals. (this is where the fraudulently claiming that cable is just "stealing")
Now, if they allow OTA stations to charge cable, then I should be able to receive those OTA - and subscribe separately to cable ONLY for stations that I want that I cannot receive OTA - this is why the it really is equivalent to a tax. If these stations want to go to a pay model - let them - and in return we take back the "free airwaves" - and if they want that way as well - then license them at significant fees (like LOOK TV had to do for their now deceased OTA cable).
Last edited:
kettal
Banned
^^ are you claiming that cable is a competitive market? They're still regional monopolies, so they have to be subject to a certain amount of regulation.
kettal
Banned
From a newspaper owned by Canwest Global... how shocking.
AGTO
Banned
They compete with satellite services.
quickcurrent
New Member
Networks derive the vast majority of their revenues from those pesky ads that they subject us all to every few minutes. Then they send out OTA signals that are at best mediocre compared to their American counterparts. Those that use OTA antennae know that they can receive signals from Buffalo as clear if not better than most Toronto signals because the networks are too cheap to invest in delivering high quality signals over the air. It's time for them to deliver quality signals if they wish to continue having viewers watching all their crappy ads, reality show BS, talk show BS and cooking shows, which it seems is all that's on offer these days.
The networks also make money by selling their signals to the cable and satellite providers. Cable and satellite providers in turn charge their subscribers a fee so they can pay for the signals they buy to re-sell to their subscribers.
I don't know why cable and satellite companies have to pay so that the networks can keep sending out their crappy programming filled with commercial ads with pathetic OTA signals.
Cable an satellite providers offer more stations, particularly sports and specialty channels, however their best signal resolution is inferior to what is sent out over the airwaves because of the compression algorithms they need to use cram so many channels into the bandwidth they have available.
No matter how you look at it, the viewers are getting inferior service from all - better resolution via OTA but weak signals. Analog cable signals are the worst possible, but even digital cable and satellite signals are poorer resolution than the OTA signals. Many of the satellite channels are repeated many times over on different channel numbers so subscribers can get lots that are all the same - crappy. Throw in different TV formats 4X3 and 16X9 and what you get is a whole lot of crappy programming with distorted images, poor quality resolutions and poor OTA signals.
Consumers deserve better. This fight between the cable and satellite companies vs. the networks will do nothing to improve any of the offerings of any of them. All it does is it publicizes the differences amongst them and the CRTC. My guess is that a tax on cable and satellite providers will not improve the OTA signal delivery nor programming. All that it will do is transfer revenues from one to another at the subscribers expense so their shareholders and executives can get richer.
Rather than joining this fight which belongs only to those that are ripping us off, consumers need to start a fight of their own. Refuse to pay for (cancel) cable and satellite subscriptions that contain more commercial ads than programming and demand better OTA signals - then put up an OTA antenna that will bring you the clearest picture possible. Since they're not going away any time soon, let the ads pay for it all. When cable and satellite providers offer a signal of comparable quality to OTA or better and offer a la carte channels without ads, then they may be worth looking at.
quickcurrent
The networks also make money by selling their signals to the cable and satellite providers. Cable and satellite providers in turn charge their subscribers a fee so they can pay for the signals they buy to re-sell to their subscribers.
I don't know why cable and satellite companies have to pay so that the networks can keep sending out their crappy programming filled with commercial ads with pathetic OTA signals.
Cable an satellite providers offer more stations, particularly sports and specialty channels, however their best signal resolution is inferior to what is sent out over the airwaves because of the compression algorithms they need to use cram so many channels into the bandwidth they have available.
No matter how you look at it, the viewers are getting inferior service from all - better resolution via OTA but weak signals. Analog cable signals are the worst possible, but even digital cable and satellite signals are poorer resolution than the OTA signals. Many of the satellite channels are repeated many times over on different channel numbers so subscribers can get lots that are all the same - crappy. Throw in different TV formats 4X3 and 16X9 and what you get is a whole lot of crappy programming with distorted images, poor quality resolutions and poor OTA signals.
Consumers deserve better. This fight between the cable and satellite companies vs. the networks will do nothing to improve any of the offerings of any of them. All it does is it publicizes the differences amongst them and the CRTC. My guess is that a tax on cable and satellite providers will not improve the OTA signal delivery nor programming. All that it will do is transfer revenues from one to another at the subscribers expense so their shareholders and executives can get richer.
Rather than joining this fight which belongs only to those that are ripping us off, consumers need to start a fight of their own. Refuse to pay for (cancel) cable and satellite subscriptions that contain more commercial ads than programming and demand better OTA signals - then put up an OTA antenna that will bring you the clearest picture possible. Since they're not going away any time soon, let the ads pay for it all. When cable and satellite providers offer a signal of comparable quality to OTA or better and offer a la carte channels without ads, then they may be worth looking at.
quickcurrent
Last edited:
AGTO
Banned
What's the issue then? How much do the OTA networks get per subscriber?
more stations then who?
OTA DVB is also compressed.
quickcurrent
New Member
It's a well known fact that the best picture quality comes to you over the air, just place two identical large screen TVs side by side one receiving OTA, the other cable/satellite and you can see the difference! Too bad Canadian network signals are of such poor strength !!!
Last edited:
AGTO
Banned
I'm not disputing that, but a lot of people seem to think that OTA DTV is not compressed.
Do you have numbers to back this up?
For example, CITYTV's Woodstock transmitter has an ERP of over a Megawatt.
ERP's from the CN tower are limited by the CRTC due to the larger population center close by.
This doesn't make any sense, obviously. Broadcasters and cable companies are not the same thing.
In order to squeeze the data into a 6MHz wide channel, the signals are MPEG encoded (MPEG is a form of compression) rate shaped and limited to 19.8Mb/s.
Last edited:
quickcurrent
New Member
BTW, my intent was not to get into the nitty gritty of the details, but rather to point out to readers that the fight between the broadcasters (networks) and cable and satellite operators is not the main issue for TV watchers. There are other issues that TV watchers should be pushing for rather than taking the inferior crap being pushed on all of us by broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies alike.
Last edited:
AGTO
Banned
This isn't an issue either. You have no right to TV viewing. If you don't like what is offered by common carriers, don't subscribe.
Currently, MPEG2, but that could change.
Yes it is a wonder. I can receive everything from the CN tower, plus some from Buffalo and Rochester. Maybe your antenna is not aimed correctly.
BTW, ERP is the number to look for, not transmitter power.
Last edited:
Chinese Jamaican Bloke
New Member
CTV the leader in the save local tv campaign recently bought Dr Oz, Vampire Diaries and the remake of V. while simultaneously crying for more money for "local tv"
CTV Hypocrisy Television
CTV Hypocrisy Television
quickcurrent
New Member
You make too many assumptions and ridiculous statements, and now you're trying to be a smart alec with your effective radiated power ERP bull crap.
I don't subscribe to any service because they are all inferior. If you had learned how to read you would have noticed that that is exactly what I advocated above. I may not have the right to watch TV but then neither do the broadcasters have any right to pollute the air with their garbage and inundate us all with commercial ads. BTW, if it weren't for the viewers where would the broadcasters be? And, since you appear to work for one, where would you be without viewers? Don't get smart there, boy!
My antenna is aimed correctly, and regardless of where it's aimed, the CTV signal sucks big time.
And regardless of what you call the signals sent out by the networks, Toronto broadcast signals all suck except for perhaps CBC's. So if you work for one of the others, YOU are part of the problem.
Last edited:
quickcurrent
New Member
Yes, sir, the great CTV. Sucky TV at its finest.
cacruden
Senior Member
I actually prefer the way Singapore is approaching it (and Singapore is more run like a business - where things are planned to make money).
http://www.opennet.com.sg/announcem...network-reaching-the-first-home-in-singapore/
The network will be open and private competitors use that infrastructure for offering services - I believe even though the open network is being built under mandates from the government - pretty much the whole thing will be privately run etc. There is a separation between wholesale services and retail services.
I find it funny that one of the slowest technology-wise in Asia will likely have fibre rollout FBBx (H/B) before Toronto (that being Bangkok). I will laugh the day that happens because for all our history in telecommunications - things are so screwed up here.
http://www.opennet.com.sg/announcem...network-reaching-the-first-home-in-singapore/
The network will be open and private competitors use that infrastructure for offering services - I believe even though the open network is being built under mandates from the government - pretty much the whole thing will be privately run etc. There is a separation between wholesale services and retail services.
I find it funny that one of the slowest technology-wise in Asia will likely have fibre rollout FBBx (H/B) before Toronto (that being Bangkok). I will laugh the day that happens because for all our history in telecommunications - things are so screwed up here.