Fagstein » CBC

Should the CBC dump TV?

Fagstein — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:33:38 +0000

Recently I've been thinking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and how it spends the billion dollars a year it gets from the Canadian taxpayer. It's not just because Sun Media is on a mission to have it shut down. There's also a debate over whether it should be exempt from cuts the federal government is imposing on all its services.

And there are people who think the CBC should be doing more than it does right now. OpenMedia.ca has a project called Reimagine CBC in which people are asked to pitch ideas to transform the public broadcaster and make it more relevant in this new media universe. There are things the CBC does already, like be active on social media. There are ideas that are so vague they sound like they came out of management.

Then there's Kai Nagata, who is suggesting the CBC get out of producing television entirely and shift all those resources to the Internet so it can become an online news and cultural leader. He even spiced up his submission by posting a video to YouTube parodying the Rick Mercer rants in which he explains his reasoning.

Nagata, you'll recall, is the former CBC and CTV television reporter who did not own a television.

His reasoning is interesting. He points out that people are moving away from TV and toward online these days, and suggests that abandoning television and focusing on online will give it more bang for their buck.

But I'm not convinced. For one thing, if the CBC succeeds in making killer web videos, wouldn't it just make sense to put that kind of stuff on television, where it can make more money? The CBC does have a lot of infrastructure, including hundreds of television transmitters, many of them in small communities where the CBC is the only over-the-air television. It also has regional control rooms and studios for newscasts that might be less important if everyone was getting their news from the web.

I think Nagata underestimates the power of television. Canadians still watch it, and many supplement it with online consumption of media. CBC's ratings may be low compared to CTV and Global, but they're still high when compared to most cable networks, and more people watch television shows on TV than online.

And that's assuming we forget all about Radio-Canada. Nagata points to the success of its Tou.tv online video website, but seems to ignore that the thing that makes it so popular is that it has a bunch of television series on it.

What should the CBC get out of?

Still, I like Nagata's suggestion because it gets us thinking. I don't want to start sounding like Pierre Karl Péladeau, but it annoys me a bit that the CBC competes directly with private broadcasters in some areas. Particularly areas where the private sector does a better job.

Like local news. In Montreal, the market leader among anglophones is CTV's CFCF. It kills in the ratings. It has more hours of original local news than its competitors combined. It has more journalists, and more of its news is local.

So why is CBC trying to compete? More importantly, why is the CBC trying to compete by doing the same thing? Why not abandon the supper-hour newscast and do something else, like local cultural programming?

On the French side, it's a bit more complicated because Radio-Canada is so popular and because the main private broadcaster already produces so much original programming. On one hand, there's a good argument that the culture is healthy enough that it doesn't need the CBC's help, and that removing the public broadcaster would make the private broadcasters healthier and encourage them to invest more in original Canadian programming. On the other hand, shutting down Radio-Canada would lead to having only one major television player in French, and that's very worrisome. It would also be a net loss for original Canadian television no matter how you slice it.

CBC television can be thought of in two ways: a creator of television programming and a conduit for that programming. For scripted series, "creator" usually means that the CBC hires a production company to produce a TV series and it airs episodes of that series. A scheme could be conceived in which those series are still produced but air on private television, on cable or online.

Or what if the funds that went into the CBC were instead transferred to the Canada Media Fund, which helps fund television series no matter what network they air on? What if we focused our money more on creating better Canadian television series, ones Canadians actually wanted to watch? What if we got rid of the overhead and gave all that money directly to the people who actually produce Canadian television programming?

And what if, instead of a network that carries the CBC network to distant communities, infrastructure was used to bring both private and public Canadian programming to them? What if CBC's production facilities were made available to ordinary Canadians to make their own television, which could then be uploaded to YouTube or the CBC's website for people to see?

I don't think anything like that is going to happen. Even if we establish that it makes sense, there's still too many unanswered questions. Cutting local stations would seriously affect CBC News Network. And communities will resist efforts to take away their television stations, even if they're just low-power retransmitters of distant CBC stations.

But this discussion needs to start somewhere. And that means we have to figure out exactly what we need the CBC for, and what we'll need it for in 10 or 20 years. I don't have all the answers, but I think technology has changed enough that we don't need the CBC to be doing the exact same things it was doing 30 years ago.

Caption CBC president Hubert Lacroix

Fagstein — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:00:48 +0000

Yearning for local television

Fagstein — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:47:52 +0000

Last month, CBC television aired a half-hour special program called Secrets of Montreal.

The show, hosted by evening news anchor Debra Arbec, talked to some figures in the anglo Montreal cultural community about some of their cultural "secrets". The guests include some pretty big local names, like comedian Sugar Sammy, filmmakers Jacob and Kevin Tierney, chef Chuck Hughes and musician Melissa Auf der Maur. They talk about restaurants, bars, urban spaces and other things they love about this city.

This, all in high definition (actual HD, not the fake HD we see on the newscasts). I actually can't think of another program produced for a local audience by any of the three anglo broadcasters in this city that was done entirely in HD.

Secrets of Montreal host Debra Arbec

It's not the greatest half hour of television ever (that soundtrack gets annoyingly repetitive after a while, for one, and some people have noted the Travel Travel-esque vibe), but it's the kind of thing I'd love to see more of: local programming that isn't confined to a newscast.

Even though Montreal has three local English-language television stations (four if you include the multiethnic CJNT/Metro 14), none of them air original local programming that isn't either confined within the schedule blocks of their newscasts or done from their news sets. Not to take away from the quality of local news being produced by these stations, but there are some things we'd like to see that can't be converted into a two-minute news package or six-minute sit-down interview.

Seeing this show was a breath of fresh air, a sign that maybe the CBC was starting to rediscover the idea that its programming should reflect not only the national culture but the local one as well. And I was hopeful that this was a sign the local stations were getting more control over their programming schedules and/or budgets, being able to work on special projects like this.

But I was disappointed somewhat when I discovered through Google searches that this idea didn't come from CBC Montreal. "Cultural secrets" shows were produced across the country: Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and apparently other places as well. All were done to coincide with "Culture Days" and the CBC's 75th anniversary. All followed roughly the same idea, and all aired Sept. 29th at 7:30pm, in the timeslot normally reserved for Jeopardy. (In fact, for Videotron illico users, the show was listed as an episode of Jeopardy, and remains labelled as such on my PVR. This may have resulted in many potential viewers missing the show.)

What bugged me about this national congruence was that it reminded me how much of what happens locally at the CBC is actually decided nationally, imposed on the regions in a cookie-cutter fashion.

It reminded me of Living [insert location here], the regional lifestyle show duplicated across the country that was cancelled during the big round of budget cuts in 2009. At least that was regular programming instead of a one-off show.

When I start giving more serious thought to proposals of radical changes at the CBC, this is one of the reasons why. The other stations are doing daily local newscasts (and, unlike CBC Montreal, they don't take the weekends off). If this network is going to be funded mainly through government financing, shouldn't it offer something different?

I'm aware of - and sympathetic to - the budget constraints faced by CBC and its Montreal television station. But English Montreal (and, for that matter, English Quebec) is a linguistic minority, and one would think the CBC would be a leader in giving this community a voice. Lately, it's seemed more like an also-ran, which is particularly outrageous considering how little is done outside of news at CTV and Global.

Secrets of Montreal, directed by Vincent Scotti and Filippo Campo, and starring Debra Arbec, can be viewed in its entirety on the CBC website.

The CBC/Quebecor misinformation war

Fagstein — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:57:53 +0000

To understand the ongoing war between Quebecor and the CBC, you have to understand a bit how television works in Quebec.

In English Canada, the conventional television networks make money by buying popular American series, running them during prime time and selling commercials. It takes little effort, and brings in a lot of reward. The CBC, meanwhile, does its best to produce original series, but few of them have a chance competing against the big American shows, so CBC falls significantly behind in the ratings. (Actually, overall CBC is No. 2 in prime-time behind CTV, thanks to powerhouses like Hockey Night in Canada.)

In Quebec, things are different. Francophones here like to watch things in their own language, so American shows aren't as popular as home-grown ones. (Generous government subsidies helps here too.) While the networks do bring in American shows, have them dubbed and aired during prime time, the big shows are original productions. So Radio-Canada television can be commercially competitive and very Canadian at the same time.

In Quebec, the two big players in television are Radio-Canada and Quebecor's TVA network. Télé-Québec and V, the other conventional networks, fall in with specialty channels like RDS, Canal Vie, Canal D, etc. in a secondary tier.

So when TVA looks at the competition, it looks at Radio-Canada. And there's this annoying little fact at the back of its mind when it takes that look: Radio-Canada has a competitive advantage given to it directly by the government.

Billion-dollar leg-up

Radio-Canada, along with the CBC, gets $1.1 billion annually from the Canadian government, as the public broadcaster. That money is spent on all sorts of things, but particularly radio and television programming. Because both CBC and Radio-Canada sell advertising for their television stations, the giant subsidy effectively covers the loss they incur by spending much more on production than they get in ad revenue.

Imagine being in any other business where your biggest competitor is handed a truckload of money from the government every week. Imagine that business then lowered its prices to below cost, and had the government cover that loss.

I'm not saying I agree with the organized campaign against CBC and Radio-Canada being put together by Quebecor's media outlets. For one thing, I'm not crazy about a bunch of journalists working for one company engaging in a campaign against their employer's competitor.

But I do understand the basics of the argument: The CBC is at an unfair competitive advantage compared to private television networks. It's an argument that doesn't really work in the rest of Canada because the CBC doesn't really compete with CTV and Global. But it does work in Quebec, because Radio-Canada and TVA compete directly with each other.

The "CBC sucks" Network

In case you've been living under a rock for the past year or so, Quebecor has been targetting the CBC. Journalists at Sun Media file tons of access to information requests against the public broadcaster - an average of more than one a day in 2007, so much that the CBC asked the government to step in because so many requests were coming from the same source. Columnists attack the CBC at the slightest whim, while staying silent on anything negative about Quebecor.

Sun News Network has been particularly vicious. "CBC Money Drain" appears in the generic opening of one of its prime-time shows, and segments about media criticism focus mostly on the CBC, which it refers to as the "state broadcaster", despite how ridiculous that comparison is. Sun News has repeatedly called for privatization or shutdown of the CBC and Radio-Canada.

The public broadcaster has so far reacted in kind of a mixed way. It defends itself, but politely. It calmly explains its role as a public broadcaster to those who ask. It responds to a flood of access-to-information requests from Quebecor media outlets by posting all the documents online. It sends letters to the editor correcting bad facts and incorrect assumptions.

In recent months, there has been a bit more directed directly at Quebecor. Sarcasm, for one. Or taking its case to third parties, like this letter sent to The Gazette, which the CBC accused of falling for Quebecor's misinformation. (UPDATE: Quebecor's Serge Sasseville emails me to point out his response to that letter, also published in The Gazette)

The gloves come off

It's only this week that the CBC has, in the words of some of its defenders, taken the gloves off and fought back hard against the Quebecor machine. It released a statement on Wednesday attacking their anti-CBC talking points. That got attention from such news outlets as the Globe and Mail, and lots of play on social media.

It also prompted an angry response hours later from Quebecor, taking on the anti-talking-points point by point. (UPDATE Oct. 21: A second press release from Quebecor, threatening legal action if the CBC page isn't taken down)

This was a day before Quebecor boss Pierre Karl Péladeau appeared before a committee looking into the CBC's refusal to disclose information requested by Quebecor journalists. There, Péladeau denies waging a war against the CBC, but says it has to be accountable. (See coverage from Globe and Mail, Canadian Press, Ottawa Citizen)

So who's right?

While many people who instinctually love the CBC and hate Quebecor cheer at the Mother Corp fighting back, I find myself a bit disappointed. It feels like the CBC is sinking down to Quebecor's level, and many of the facts they put out have the same problems when it comes to lack of context or oversimplification.

Let's take a look at the arguments from each side individually:

Quebecor Media is waging a coordinated war against the CBC: Péladeau denies this. But he does so in sort of a self-contradictory way. Péladeau claims that his journalists work independently, without anyone telling them what to do. But then he says his journalists have never sought journalistic sources. How does he know this? How can he pretend to speak for his media empire if he says his journalists act independently?

It's obvious that Quebecor's outlets, particularly Sun News, Sun papers and the Journals, have a beef with the CBC. Whether that's because of corporate edict or just because those outlets hire like-minded people as journalists is up to the public to decide.

Quebecor's access-to-information requests seek journalistic sources: I've yet to see a proper accounting of exactly what requests Quebecor have filed that have been denied, so I can't answer this question. I suspect it's more subtle than this, and the problem comes down to a matter of interpretation. The CBC can deny requests for information about its "programming activities", for example, but how far does that go? Is Rick Mercer's expense account fair game? Don Cherry's employment contract? The CBC's deal with the NHL? Quebecor denies it is asking for the identities of the CBC's Deep Throats, but compares its requests to asking for lunch receipts of senior executives, information which is already posted online.

The CBC is using taxpayer money to hire lawyers to fight transparency: Well, yes. Specifically, they're fighting the access-to-information commissioner, arguing that only a judge should be able to determine what information should be released. I don't agree with this, but the argument that the CBC shouldn't use lawyers because they're taxpayer-funded is ridiculous. The alternative would be to cave in to every demand, no matter how damaging.

CRTC chair Konrad von Finkenstein has called for the access-to-information law to be clarified. The CBC also says it is trying to clarify the rules, rather than admit they're fighting them.

"Quebecor has received more than half a billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies and benefits from Canadian taxpayers over the past three years, yet it is not accountable to them." The CBC links this statement to a presentation (PDF) that breaks down that figure. By the CBC's own numbers, more than half of that "half a billion dollars" is their calculation of how much Quebecor "saved" in the last spectrum auction because it bid on frequencies that were set aside to new entrants into the wireless market. The figure is based on the assumption that if Bell, Telus and Rogers were not prevented form bidding for those frequencies, that they would have gone for as much as the frequencies not set aside for new entrants were sold for. That's a big assumption. And even if we accept that, calling this a "subsidy", even an "indirect" one, is a big stretch.

The rest of those subsidies are things like the Canada Media Fund, the Local Programming Improvement Fund, and government tax credits for TV production. All of these are things that CBC programming is also eligible for, and is above the $1.1 billion annual subsidy from the Canadian government.

Plus, the CMF and LPIF are funded primarily by cable and satellite companies like Videotron, not by the federal government. Quebecor points out that Videotron pays slightly more into the media fund than TVA takes out of it, which means Quebecor is subsidizing the CMF, not the other way around.

I get the point that Quebecor receives public money too, but the CBC's figures are exaggerated.

Quebecor complained to the prime minister that CBC wasn't taking out ads in its newspapers. Quebecor said it was "false" to say they've complained about the lack of advertising, then proceeded to complain about the lack of advertising. Péladeau testifed on Thursday that in fact a letter was sent to the prime minister complaining about the lack of newspaper ads. (UPDATE Oct. 21: A similar strange reasoning appears in the legal letter Quebecor sent CBC: Saying the statement is false and then repeating it in different words. Maybe there's a difference I don't understand?)

The truth is that both Quebecor and the CBC are engaged in a boycott of each other. There are no ads for the Journal de Montréal on Radio-Canada either. It's not absolute, but there's a big difference in advertising buys when you compare TVA to Radio-Canada, or La Presse to the Journal de Montréal.

Quebecor Media is also owned by the government. This logic is based on the fact that the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the government's investment arm, has a 45% stake in Quebecor Media, dating back to when Quebecor bought Videotron. This is a big stake, but still a minority one, with Quebecor Inc. having the rest. The big distinction here is that the Caisse is an investment organization that puts money in companies expecting a healthy return. The government isn't funding Quebecor Media as much as Quebecor Media is funding the government through its profits.

The Quebecor war machine

It's funny how all the big public media wars in Canada involve Quebecor. It's at war with the CBC over access to information. It's at war with Bell over specialty channel carriage (even though Bell has gotten a major competitor to vouch for its fairness). It's at war with La Presse over the secret deal it imagines Gesca has with the CBC. It's at war with Transcontinental over community newspapers.

If I was paranoid, I'd think Quebecor just likes picking fights.

Even more details about Montreal’s digital TV transition

Fagstein — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:01:51 +0000

Mount Royal tower is about to go digital

I wrote a feature that appeared in Saturday's Gazette (Page E3, for those clipping) about the transition from analog television to digital, whose deadline is Aug. 31.

The main story focuses mainly on how local broadcasters are coping with the transition. It's a big endeavour, and with less than 10% of Canadian households still using antennas to get their television service, it's difficult to justify the cost (in the neighbourhood of $1 million per transmitter, but varying widely) of replacing the analog with digital.

That's to say nothing about the consumers, many of whom are on the lower end of the income scale, who must now spend money on new equipment.

The sidebar focuses on consumers, and tries to explain how people can prepare. If you haven't already heard 1,000 times, cable and satellite subscribers are unaffected. If you get your service by antenna, you either need a TV with a digital ATSC tuner (most new HDTVs have one) or a digital converter box.

My editor was very generous with the assigned length (in all it clocks in at a bit under 2,000 words), but even then there's a lot of information I had to leave out, including a few conversations I had with actual TV viewers. I'll try to include most of that information here.

The digital transition in Montreal

First, here's how the digital transition is going for the nine television stations broadcasting in Montreal (updated 9am Sept. 1):

Five (CFCF/CTV, CFTM/TVA, CIVM/Télé-Québec, CFJP/V and CJNT/Metro 14) have completed the transition, switching off their analog transmitters and replacing them with digital ones that are now transmitting. They should all be at full power from their permanent antennas.
Three (CBMT/CBC, CBFT/Radio-Canada,CKMI-1/Global) have shut down their analog transmitters and have digital ones operating on their permanent assigned channels, but are not yet operating from what will be their permanent antenna on top of the Mount Royal tower. (CBMT and CBFT are also running at reduced power.) Those who don't get these signals now may see that improve over the coming weeks.
One (CFTU/Canal Savoir) has been given a two-month extension to make the transition. It is still broadcasting in analog until the digital transmitter begins running.

Here's more detail, by station. A few explanations first:

Power: Digital transmitter power for most of these stations is considerably less than analog power. That doesn't necessarily mean the digital signal will be weaker. Because digital transmitters are far more efficient than analog ones (about 10 times in the case of UHF transmitters), the same range can be achieved with much less power. Most stations expect their coverage area will remain about the same. I use "authorized power" here to denote the average effective radiated power authorized by Industry Canada. The actual transmitters could be operating at less power than this.
Virtual channels: It's kind of complicated, but the ATSC digital standard allows stations on one channel to pretend they're on another. This is used so that stations that must change channels as part of the digital transition can show up on TVs under their former analog channels. So CBMT (CBC Montreal), for example, will actually be transmitting on Channel 21, but will appear on TV sets as Channel 6.1. The ".1" denotes the digital subchannel, because digital transmitters allow more than one channel to be transmitted. So far no Canadian broadcaster is taking advantage of this.
CRTC cost estimate: The CRTC commissioned a study by engineers to determine a rough idea of the cost of changing transmitters to digital. This cost depends on a number of factors, including the pre- and post-transition channels. It should be taken with a truckload of salt, because it doesn't take into account any particular characteristics of individual transmitters.
PSIP: The Program and System Information Protocol is a system that allows digital transmitters to send information to TV receivers. Among them, content ratings and program descriptions, like you'd find in a digital cable or satellite menu. Its use by broadcasters in Canada is mixed, because it's not seen as a necessity.

CBMT

Status: Transmitting in digital on permanent channel but temporary antenna.

Brand: CBC Montreal
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 6
Authorized power: 100,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down 12am Sept. 1

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 20
Authorized power: 57,410W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: switched to post-transitional channel on or before Aug. 27

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 21
Authorized power: 436,340W
Location: Mount Royal tower (same as analog)
Status: will become active when new antenna is installed by November

Virtual digital channel: 6.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Not properly. Shows are given names like "CBMT Montreal English HD, Event 470" without descriptions
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (606), Bell TV (896/1030), Bell Fibe (1206)
Digital transmitter location: Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $3,191,581
Retransmitters: Dozens of analog stations throughout Quebec (CBC Montreal is the only CBC station in Quebec with original programming). Digital transition postponed until Aug. 31, 2012 in the following mandatory markets: Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay
Digital transition website: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/dtv/Montreal_CBC.shtml

CBMT has had its digital transmitter up since 2005, but it's waiting until Aug. 31 to shut down the analog one. While the transition in Montreal is expected to happen on schedule, CBC decided it didn't have the money to make the switch for retransmitters (including Quebec City and Sherbrooke). The CRTC said it would allow a one-year extension so the analog to keep the analog transmitters running so they wouldn't have to be shut down, but the CBC's Steven Guiton told me they will probably just ask for another extension when that one comes up.

I asked José Breton, the guy who protested outside CBC in Quebec City demanding they not shut down the transmitter there because he wanted to watch Hockey Night in Canada, about the extension. I thought he would be happy, but turns out he's not. "It's a false compromise," he said. Instead, the CRTC should have forced CBC/Radio-Canada to setup digital transmitters in mandatory markets before the deadline instead of saving money for "some white-collars' salaries". He also suggested the CRTC was being influenced by cable and satellite lobbyists.

CBMT's digital transmitter has already switched to its permanent channel (which means digital tuners must rescan for channels to find it).

CBC Montreal's newscast has been 16:9 since 2009, though the quality of the video during newscasts is poor even by standard definition standards.

As noted in the guide in The Gazette, because CBMT transmits in analog on Channel 6, which is just below the FM radio band, its audio channel can be heard at 87.75MHz. Most FM radios allow you to tune that low, even though the band ends at 88 MHz. The only perceivable difference between the audio channel of an analog TV transmission and an FM broadcast radio transmission is that the former has a lower volume. So people can do things like listen to Hockey Night in Canada on the radio. This will, unfortunately, end on Sept. 1 when the analog transmitter goes down.

CFCF

Status: Transmitting digital-only as of Aug. 31.

Brand: CTV Montreal
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 12
Authorized power: 325,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down 12:05am Aug. 31 (this was pushed up a day, was originally to be Sept. 1)

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 51
Authorized power: 2,700W
Location: Bell-Nexacor tower on Remembrance Rd.
Status: reduced power significantly around Aug. 27, shut down just after midnight Aug. 31

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 12 (same as analog)
Authorized power: 10,600W
Location: Mount Royal tower (same as analog)
Status: active as of 12:50am Aug. 31

Virtual digital channel: 12.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Unknown
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (607), Bell Fibe (1205)
Digital transmitter location: Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $440,619
Retransmitters: None
Digital transition website: http://www.ctv.ca/digitalswitch/

CFCF setup a temporary digital transmitter in January specifically so it could get it on air before the Super Bowl to take advantage of simultaneous substitution in HD. In a letter dated Jan. 4, 2011, CTV VP Kevin Goldstein specifically cited the Super Bowl as reason to expedite the application:

CTV respectfully requests that the Commission consider this application in an expedited manner as we hope to have Commission approval on or before January 28th, 2011 in advance of the broadcast of the Super Bowl on February 6th, 2011. CTV holds the Canadian broadcast rights to one of the most high profile sporting and broadcasting events of the year and approval of this application will rectify some concerns we have with respect to the requirements of certain BDU's to carry out simultaneous substitution during this broadcast.

CRTC gave approval on Jan. 21. The digital transmitter went live on Jan. 28. It's on a small tower on Remembrance Rd. near Beaver Lake, about 400 metres from the main Mount Royal tower and with an antenna about 100 metres below where their analog one is.

CTV Montreal General Manager Don Bastien said everything is ready to go. The digital transmitter has been tested twice and all that's left is to wait until the cutoff date. The analog transmitter is set to shut down at 12:05am on Sept. 1 - just after the end of the late newscast - and the permanent digital transmitter (using the same antenna and same channel) should be up 45 minutes later, he said.

Technical changes - including replacing the antenna, which had been in use since 1961 - happened last summer. Television transmitters on the Mount Royal tower were shut down overnight throughout the summer months as the tower was altered to prepare for the digital transition.

Bastien said the coverage area of the digital transmitter should be about the same as the analog one was (exact comparisons are difficult because of how reception of analog and digital signals differs).

CKMI-1

Status: Transmitting digital-only using temporary antenna as of Aug. 17.

Brand: Global Montreal
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 46
Authorized power: 33,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down Aug. 13

Transitional/post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 15 (was assigned 51, but got approval to use 15 instead)
Authorized power: 8,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower (running on temporary antenna at base of tower)
Status: active since Aug. 17

Virtual digital channel: 15.1 (Global is the only Montreal station to choose a virtual channel different from its analog one)
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: No (except ratings)
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (608, replaced Global Toronto HD on Aug. 23)
Power (average ERP): 8,000W
Digital transmitter location: Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $280,544/$380,994
Retransmitters:

Quebec City (CKMI), Channel 20, digital as of Aug. 13
Sherbrooke (CKMI-2), Channel 11, digital as of Aug. 10

Digital transition website: http://www.shaw.ca/dtv/

Global Montreal used to be based in Quebec City (which is why Quebec City's station is CKMI and Montreal's is CKMI-1). Canwest bought the station and setup transmitters in Montreal and Sherbrooke to create the regionally-licensed Global Quebec network. It then asked the CRTC to be re-licensed as a Montreal station so it could be allowed to seek local advertising.

CKMI-1 was the first of the nine Montreal stations to shut down its analog transmitter. It went dark on Aug. 13, and the digital transmitter started transmitting on Aug. 17. Global has been announcing that it's now on Channel 15, and its virtual digital channel is 15.1. Its satellites in Quebec City and Sherbrooke had already made the transition earlier in the month. Both remain on the same channel.

Videotron has been carrying Global HD from Toronto, which has been kind of a strange situation where Montreal viewers have been seeing Toronto local newscasts unless they switch to the standard-definition version of the channel. Videotron replaced Global Toronto HD with Global Montreal HD on Aug. 23. (Global was so happy it sent out a press release on the subject.)

Global Montreal's newscast is technically in high definition. The opening graphics are HD, as is the weather report (which is done out of Toronto). Master control is in Edmonton (I made a mistake in the original article, saying it was Vancouver - it switched to Edmonton in May 2009), which has HD facilities. Even the studio cameras are HD (the newscasts are anchored in Montreal, in a green room), but the data connection between Montreal and Edmonton isn't fast enough to deliver an HD signal.

Thankfully, Global is owned by Shaw, which has experience in telecommunications. A fat pipe is being setup, edit suites in Montreal will be upgraded and HD field cameras will be issued. "We are optimistic that our newscast will be produced in HD by the end of the year," said Shaw Media's Dervla Kelly. Once that happens, CFCF will be the only station in Montreal that produces a newscast that's not in HD.

"We've increased our over-the-air coverage area in all three markets," Kelly said of Global's Quebec stations. "More viewers will have access to our digital signal than had access to our analog signals."

CJNT

Status: Transmitting digital-only as of Aug. 27.

Brand: Metro 14
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 62
Authorized power: 11,000W
Location: roof of building next to Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down morning of Aug. 27

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 69
Status: never used

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 49
Authorized power: 4,000W
Location: roof of CTV building next to Mount Royal tower (same as analog)
Status: began operation on evening of Aug. 27

Virtual digital channel: 62.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: No
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (expecting 614 on Aug. 30)
Power (average ERP):
Digital transmitter location: Roof of CTV transmitter building next to Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $273,881
Retransmitters: None
Digital transition website: http://www.metro14.ca/

You know CJNT, right? The multicultural station? It was scooped up by Canwest after failing to make money for many years, and it continued to not make money. Canwest threatened to shut it down along with the rest of its secondary E! network, but a company called Channel Zero bought it and sister station CHCH Hamilton for a grand total of $12. Since then, the station has produced no original programming, and has been embarrassingly repeating local shows from 2009 to fulfill its CRTC requirements. It has promised new programming for this fall, though, and some of it has already begun.

Metro 14 (the number is reference to its Videotron digital cable channel) went pretty well as scheduled for its digital transition. According to its schedule, the analog transmitter was to be shut off at 7am on Aug. 27 and the digital one was to be operational by 6pm. The delay was necessary to retune the antenna from Channel 62 to Channel 49. CHCH Broadcast Operations Manager Wayne Rabishaw, who is handling the CJNT transition along with four transmitters of CHCH, said the coverage area would actually greatly improve with the change, almost doubling, because the antenna they're using (which the station originally got used) was actually better for Channel 49 than Channel 62.

CHCH itself made the switch on Aug. 15, and Rabishaw said they had already gotten hundreds of phone calls from viewers. London and Muskoka were scheduled for this week, and Ottawa is set for Aug. 31. Their four remaining retransmitters (Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay and Timmins) will stay analog for now.

Rabishaw couldn't put a price on the CJNT transition, but said switching all five transmitters will cost Channel Zero "several million dollars".

CJNT is transmitting in HD, but so far I haven't spotted any actual HD programming on it. (Lots of programming in SD with black bars around it, though.) Rabishaw said programming will be in HD.

Metro 14's note says Videotron will add the station's HD feed on Channel 614 on Aug. 30. Cogeco will also begin carrying the station in standard and high-definition, but the satellite companies (Bell and Shaw) are only taking it in standard definition for now.

Once Videotron adds the HD feed, viewers can expect simultaneous substitution to begin in HD for American programming carried on CJNT. This includes 20/20, Nightline and Jimmy Kimmel Live.

CBFT

Status: Transmitting digital-only, on temporary antenna.

Brand: Radio-Canada Montréal
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 2
Authorized power: 100,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down at 12am Sept. 1 (the last thing that aired was a beer ad)

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 19
Authorized power: 54,970W
Location: Mount Royal tower (temporary antenna at base of tower)
Status: active

Post-transitional digital channel:

Channel: 19 (same as transitional)
Authorized power: 447,820W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: will be active once new antenna is installed

Virtual digital channel: 2.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: No
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (602), Bell TV (1802/860), Bell Fibe (1112), Shaw Direct (244/380)
Digital transmitter location: Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $4,266,294 (highest in Montreal)
Retransmitters: 28, none in mandatory markets or above Channel 16
Digital transition website: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/tvn/montreal_radio-canada.shtml

Like CBC, Radio-Canada has had a digital transmitter in Montreal since 2005. Since the transitional and post-transitional channels are the same, it is effectively operating in post-transitional mode, though I'm guessing from my signal meter that it's not operating at the post-transitional power level yet. At nearly 450,000W, it will be the most powerful digital television transmitter in Quebec.

Just about all of Radio-Canada's local and national programming has been in HD for some time.

Radio-Canada, like the CBC, will keep analog transmitters running in mandatory markets where it doesn't originate programming. This mostly affects the Prairies, southern Ontario and Atlantic Canada. All mandatory markets in Quebec will transition.

Radio-Canada also has two full-power transmitters that are on channels in the 52-69 range: Sainte-Famille and Lac-Etchemin, both retransmitters of CBVT (Quebec City) and both on Channel 55. The Lac Etchemin transmitter will become low-power, staying on the same channel, while the Sainte-Famille transmitter will be shut down.

CFTM

Status: Transmitting digital-only as of Sept. 1.

Brand: TVA Montréal
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 10
Authorized power: 325,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down 12:01am Sept. 1

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 59
Authorized power: 6,140W
Location: TVA building (1600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. E.)
Status: never used

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 10 (same as analog)
Authorized power: 11,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower (same as analog)
Status: active as of 12:35am Sept. 1

Virtual digital channel: 10.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Unknown
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (604), Bell TV (1804/861), Bell Fibe (1115), Shaw Direct (245/381)
Digital transmitter location: Mount Royal tower
CRTC cost estimate: $440,619
Retransmitters: None (but this is the flagship station of the TVA network)
Digital transition website: http://tva.canoe.ca/emissions/transitiontelenumerique/

TVA has, strangely, not been broadcasting in digital yet (or if it has, it's such low power that nobody has seen it). The plan is to make the switch directly on the night of Aug. 31 to Sept. 1. TVA has to coordinate its switch with CTV, since both use the same antenna.

TVA's local and national newscasts and other programming have been in HD for quite a while. Because it doesn't simulcast American programming, it doesn't need to setup a digital transmitter to take advantage of simultaneous substitution.

Across Quebec, TVA owns six stations, five of which will switch to digital (Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke, Saguenay, Trois-Rivières) and one will not (Rimouski). The transmitter in Saguenay (CJPM) will run at first on a temporary digital transmitter, and then a full transmitter by Oct. 31, TVA's Serge Sasseville said. You can get channel information in this PDF file.

There are also four TVA affiliates not owned by Groupe TVA. Two stations in western Quebec are owned by RNC Media and are in mandatory markets (Gatineau and Rouyn-Noranda).

Two others in eastern Quebec are owned by Télé Inter-Rives:

CIMT in Rivière du Loup (a mandatory market), which has eight retransmitters, including one that fills a hole in coverage in the city of Rivière du Loup, and one in Edmunston, NB.
CHAU in Carleton-sur-Mer (which is not), which has 11 retransmitters around the Gaspé peninsula and northern New Brunswick.

Even though the CRTC's requirements would only force Télé Inter-Rives to switch its transmitters in Rivière du Loup to digital and move its retransmitter in Les Escoumins off of Channel 57, it has applied to switch all of its transmitters to digital. The transition for CHAU and its retransmitters has been delayed until mid-November due to delays in getting equipment. But since these are all transmitters that could stay analog if they wanted to, there's no deadline for making the change. CIMT and its retransmitters are still set for a Sept. 1 transition.

CFJP

Status: Transmitting digital-only as of Aug. 31.

Brand: V
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 35
Authorized power: 697,000W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down 11:31pm Aug. 30

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 42
Authorized power: 13,900W
Location: Sherbrooke St. E. (corner of Amherst St.)
Status: shut down Aug. 30

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 35 (same as analog)
Authorized power: 13,750W (note this is actually slightly less than transitional transmitter)
Location: Sherbrooke St. E. (same as transitional)
Status: active as of 11:35pm Aug. 30

Virtual digital channel: 35.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Unknown
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (605), Bell TV (1803/862), Bell Fibe (1114), Shaw Direct (248/388)
Digital transmitter location: Sherbrooke and Berri Sts. (analog transmitter is on Mount Royal tower, but digital one will stay downtown for "strategic reasons", the network says)
CRTC cost estimate: $280,713/$463,894
Retransmitters: None

V was kind of hard to get a hold of for this article. Emails and phone calls went unanswered until I finally heard from spokesperson Tim Ringuette, who blamed the network's fall launch for keeping him busy. Ringuette said the station has moved its digital transmitter off the Mount Royal tower site. "Décision stratégique," he wrote in a brief email. This most likely translates to "money" and V's reluctance to spend a lot of it renting expensive space on the Mount Royal tower (not to mention all the engineering work that goes into setting up a transmitter next to a bunch of other high-powered transmitters).

Ringuette said the coverage area should be almost identical to the analog signal now. I'm very skeptical that a transmitter on a downtown building (more than 200 metres lower in elevation) at a tiny fraction of the power can have the same coverage, particularly because I don't receive the digital transmitter at all right now.

CIVM

Status: Transmitting digital-only as of Sept. 1

Brand: Télé-Québec
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 17
Authorized power: 889,500W
Location: Mount Royal tower
Status: shut down for good at 1:30am Sept. 1

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 27
Authorized power: 8,956W
Location: Olympic Stadium
Status: shut down just after midnight Sept. 1

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 26
Authorized power: 160,600W
Location: Olympic Stadium (same as transitional)
Status: active as of 2:45am Sept. 1

Virtual digital channel: 17.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Yes (detailed)
Available in HD on: Videotron illico (603), Bell TV (1839/799), Bell Fibe (1138)
Digital transmitter location: Olympic Stadium (analog transmitter is on Mount Royal tower, transitional digital one has been broadcasting from Olympic Stadium and will stay there post-transition)
CRTC cost estimate: $522,438/$676,519
Retransmitters: 11 (All Télé-Québec stations are effectively retransmitters of CIVM, and Télé-Québec plans to switch all of them to digital, regardless of market size)
Digital transition website: http://transitionnumerique.telequebec.tv/

Télé-Québec is the only one of the four French Quebec networks that has committed to transitioning all its transmitters to digital, regardless of market size. "La transition au numérique est notre priorité," said spokesperson Catherine Leboeuf. "Il s’agit du plus important changement technologique à court terme."

Digital transmitters are running in Montreal and Quebec City, the rest are scheduled to transition by Sept. 1.

Two exceptions are CIVB Rimouski and CIVB-1 Grand Fonds (which serves Rivière du Loup but is not considered a mandatory market station). They will be switching Sept. 7 and Sept. 15, respectively, and will maintain analog signal until their transition. Their website has a breakdown by transmitter.

The Montreal transmitter was setup on Olympic Stadium instead of Mount Royal and will remain there. The signal is very strong on the eastern side of the city, but those on the western side of the mountain are reporting trouble receiving it.

CFTU

Status: Transmitting in analog only. Transition deadline delayed until Oct. 31.

Brand: Canal Savoir
Analog transmitter:

Channel: 29
Authorized power: 10,000W
Location: Université de Montréal tower
Status: active, to be shut down by Oct. 31

Transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 54
Status: never used

Post-transitional digital transmitter:

Channel: 29 (same as analog)
Authorized power: 387W
Location: Université de Montréal tower
Status: to be activated by Oct. 31

Virtual digital channel: 29.1
Broadcasting program information via PSIP: Unknown
Not available in HD on cable/satellite
Digital transmitter location: Université de Montréal
CRTC cost estimate: $210,606
Retransmitters: None
Digital transition website: http://www.canal.qc.ca/passage_au_numerique.php

Canal Savoir had the most interesting transition story, so much so that I made it the lead of my article. General Manager Sylvie Godbout explained to me that, you see, they wanted to make the transition deadline, but haven't been able to access their transmitter because (1) the university is removing asbestos in the tower, and (2) a quartet of young peregrine falcons was just born there and couldn't be disturbed by construction work. (They're not technically endangered, but they're considered at risk, depending on the region and subspecies.)

The asbestos work makes sense. The university decided to do it in August when there weren't that many students around. The birds are just funny. In researching the article, I discovered that there's even a blog dedicated to them. They're named Tawodi, Rick, Éole and Altius, they're all boys and were hatched in early May. You can see videos of their development if you go back a few pages on the blog.

So the CRTC has "graciously" given them an extension until Oct. 31. Godbout said the plan is to get it done before the end of September. Until then, the analog signal will keep running.

A station run mostly by volunteers with an annual budget of $1.2 million, Canal Savoir would seem the least likely to want to spend a lot of money on a new transmitter. Godbout didn't pretend as though the money wouldn't have been better spent on programming, but she said they've known about this coming for three years and have been setting money aside for it. She wouldn't say how much it's going to cost (mostly because she doesn't know exactly), but it wasn't anywhere near the $1 million a transmitter figure that has been cited by the major broadcasters.

Canal Savoir is saving money, Godbout said, thanks in large part to assistance from Télé-Québec (Godbout used the term "graciously" more than once). Their analog transmitter - running for 25 years - was a used one from the provincial public broadcaster, and their technical help has also come from them. Though the station will have to buy a new digital transmitter, it will get help installing it.

Among the work that needs to be done is to reinforce the base of the antenna. Not easily done without disturbing the nest of some peregrine falcons that sits on the same tower.

Godbout also looked on the bright side: the old transmitter is the size of a fridge, and the new one will be smaller and generate much less heat, while serving the same population.

Though, Godbout said, she's going to have to buy herself a digital converter box. Not because she doesn't have cable service, but just so she can check on her station's transmitter from home.

Stores: What DTV transition?

I stopped by a few electronics stores to see how they were promoting the converter boxes people would need to get their TV signals after the transition. I was puzzled to see not one of them was actually promoting this, just a week before the end of analog TV.

The Source, which is owned by Bell (and plugged by name in its DTV transition ads, which is kind of pushing an ethical boundary there), had plenty of information and displays about Bell TV service, but I found only a single DTV converter box, and a few tearsheets about the transition.

At Future Shop downtown, lots of shiny HDTVs, but no big signs explaining the DTV transition. I found the converters on a shelf next to cable and satellite boxes. There were about 20 of the cheap Access HD box, which is about the size of a portable CD player and costs $50, but has a reputation online of getting very hot and forgetting its digital channel programming every time it's turned off. There were also some Coby boxes for sale for $60.

The flyers that came out this weekend for Future Shop and Best Buy also aren't really plugging the DTV transition. Both have the Access HD box, but Future Shop has it on page 28 and Best Buy has it on the back page.

A media spokesperson for Future Shop nationally said sales of converter boxes are "exceeding expectations". I'm guessing those expectations were fairly low.

When I went to Future Shop, I saw some people eyeing the converter boxes, spending quite a while trying to figure them out. I also overheard conversations between customers and staff looking at HDTVs that made it clear they had heard about the transition.

At Centre Hi-Fi, I stopped by, couldn't find the converters, and when I asked a staff member where they were he said they were all sold out. A few days later they had more Access HD boxes in the store.

("Access HD" is kind of a misnomer, implying that ... well, it's HD. It converts HD signals into analog, which is definitely not HD.)

My experience suggests you shouldn't have too much of a problem finding converter boxes unless there's a sudden rush for them (which could happen Sept. 1). Just stay away from The Source.

Digital subchannels: no thanks

One thing that kind of bugged me in the wake of the CBC transition delay was why Canadian stations weren't using digital subchannels. The American networks are taking advantage of this technology, with a main channel carrying HD programming and multiple standard-definition channels with things like 24-hour weather, repeated newscasts or alternative network programming. But Canadian broadcasters aren't using it.

I, and others, thought this would be a fine solution to CBC's problem. In most of the markets affected, the CBC is setting up a digital transmitter for its other network. Quebec City has a Radio-Canada digital transmitter, Fredericton has a CBC digital transmitter, etc. Couldn't they add a standard-definition subchannel with the other network on it? Quebec City's Radio-Canada station would be in HD on 12.1, and CBC could be in SD on 12.2.

Martin Marcotte, CBC's director of transmission (yeah, they have one of those), explained thusly:

CBC has looked at multiplexing of signals on a single transmitter.

First, that approach is not consistent with our general policy of building DTV transmitters only where we have originating stations.

Second, CBC-SRC wishes to transmit at the highest quality possible.

Third, it is correct that the subchannel would need to be SD so there would be a quality difference between the main channel and the subchannel.

Fourth, we are investigating mobile TV applications. Because a digital channel has a fixed bandwidth, any additions whether subchannels or mobile TV take away capacity from the main channel. That means a drop in quality. If you have a or more subchannels and mobile TV, the main channel essentially becomes SD or worse.

It sounds like a lot of different reasons, but it basically boils down to CBC not wanting to degrade the quality of its HD signal to fit in a secondary SD signal. While they would technically have to do that, I don't think compressing an HD signal from 19 to 15 megabits per second results in such a dramatic decrease in quality that it can't be done.

As far as the CRTC is concerned, there's no rule against using digital subchannels (or "multiplexing", as it calls the technology). But the subchannels would have to be licensed. So if, say, CTV wants to put its new CTV Two network as a subchannel to CFCF, it would probably have to get the okay from the CRTC before doing that.

Some people have suggested having specialty channels as digital subchannels (RDI on Radio-Canada's subchannel, Bold on CBC's, CTV News Channel on CFCF's, etc.). That probably wouldn't work out too well because of complaints from cable and satellite companies. They took RDI to task for having a livestream of the channel on its website, arguing that specialty channels shouldn't be distributed freely if they expect cable and satellite companies to pay for them. A similar issue would arise if the channels would be broadcast freely. Or, alternatively, the cable and satellite companies could then decide or even be forced to treat the specialty channels as over-the-air broadcasters and carry them free of charge to subscribers. The broadcasters probably wouldn't want that.

Is this even necessary?

In 2009, when the United States was set to do its digital transition, I argued that it seemed unnecessary. I understood the need to vacate part of the TV broadcast spectrum to sell off for better uses, but it seemed entirely possible to do this by simply reassigning channels 52 and above lower vacant channels in all but the biggest markets. How many markets do we have with more than 50 television channels, even if you include neighbouring markets?

It's not like digital television takes less space. Each channel still gets the same 6 MHz allocation. The only difference is that more information can be packed into that space now, allowing for HD or subchannels.

I asked the CRTC about this. They sent me to the Heritage department. Chaouki Dakdouki, the director of distribution and access policy (and possibly the most punctual person in the world - he said he'd call me at 10:30am, and my phone rang at exactly 10:30am), mentioned that digital signals will reduce interference between signals that are on adjacent channels. This would allow channels on adjacent channels in the same market instead of being spaced two apart. If this is true, then it makes sense. But even then, there aren't that many markets with more than a handful of stations - and few markets even have anything transmitting in the channels they want to get rid of.

It's too late to change anything now, but I still think some stations are being forced to switch unnecessarily. Thankfully the CRTC came to its senses and isn't forcing small towns to switch yet. The CBC has made it pretty clear most of those small transmitters will never be replaced with digital ones.

No coupon program

Those who were following the U.S. DTV transition might remember there was a coupon program that gave households discounts on converter boxes. It caused some ruckus because the government ran out of coupons (or, more accurately, ran out of money in the coupon program). This contributed to the decision to delay the transition a few months.

In Canada, there is no coupon program. No assistance for poor Canadians (or small broadcasters) to help them make the switch. It "wasn't deemed necessary," Dakdouki said, because of how few Canadians this would affect.

It's a curious position. The proportion of Canadians using antenna TV is lower than the U.S., but not by that much. And the U.S. drastically underestimated how many people would need converters for the digital transition. Judging from what I heard from Future Shop, I think the same might be happening here.

Dakdouki also pointed to the fact that, of the 7% or 8% of Canadian television viewers who don't have cable or satellite TV, about 35% of them watch programming online or through other means, which knocks this number down even further. I don't know how this compares to the United States, but it's interesting to note how fast other forms of television distribution are growing.

Antennas: Rabbit ears aren't dead

This transition is being called the death of "rabbit ears", but that's not exactly true. There's no difference between a digital and analog antenna, because the antenna is just a piece of wire cut to match a certain frequency. There's no reason analog antennas, including rabbit ears, can't be used for digital.

Antennas marketed as DTV-ready are different in two major ways: They have higher gain (which gives you a stronger signal whether in analog or digital), and they're better tuned to UHF frequencies (channels 14+) than VHF ones (2-13). This takes into account the fact that many VHF analog stations are switching to UHF channels for their digital transmitters. Most rabbit-ear antennas have long telescoping rods for VHF and a small loop for UHF. It's tempting to play with the length or position of the VHF antennas when watching a UHF station.

In Montreal, two stations are moving from VHF to UHF: CBMT (CBC) and CBFT (Radio-Canada). Two stations are staying on the (high) VHF band: CFCF (CTV) and CFTM (TVA). And the rest are staying on UHF.

The difference between Channel 2 (55 MHz) and Channel 10 (193 MHz) - the lowest post-transition channel in the city - is very significant, so there's definitely a shift upward in terms of frequency range (which means a shift downward for antenna length). But rabbit ears that pick up a wide range of frequencies should be able to pick up most strong stations.

Since most stations won't be at full power until after the Sept. 1 transition, I would recommend waiting until after that (maybe even give it a week or two in case things need to be fine-tuned) until deciding that your existing antenna is insufficient for the task.

Thoughts from viewers

I asked for input from antenna TV watchers while researching the article. I got plenty of responses, though most were people who either already had digital TVs or tuners or were planning to get them by the deadline. I had a vision of the perfect source for the story, a poor family with a dozen kids and an old TV, too poor to buy a converter but who sat by the old box and watched the broadcast networks for hours a day.

The closest I got to the perfect source was a man who wrote in to the paper in early August. The handwritten letter was left on my desk one night with a note from my editor saying that sometimes it just falls in your lap. I called him up, but while he was fine sharing his story, he didn't want his name publicized. He didn't want people to know he was on social assistance. Understandable, but frustrating. He said he'd probably buy a converter, and half-joked that he'd go around collecting refundable cans and bottles to raise the money.

For the record, here are some stories I've heard from the rest of you. Hardly a random sample, but interesting anecdotally:

Micah Galizia: "I watch OTA with an antenna and am very happy the DTV conversion is finally here. ... My TV is about five years old."
Regis Glorieux: "Cut the cord when I moved from Montreal to St-Eustache over 15 years ago. Been on antenna ever since. ... Our TVs are old school analog tube, I bought a couple ATSC digital tuners a couple of years ago when the US stations were switching over to digital."
Richard Archambault: "2 TVs (one is digital ready, small bedroom TV isn't) - both with DVD players; 2 young children at home who watch TeleQuebec on TV ... My wife and I usually watch the news, DVDs (including TV series), docs and movies on TeleQuebec and occasionally whatever other stuff may be on, but otherwise turn it off if there's nothing. I used to not be able to afford cable (rather pay for Internet access), but I recently got a promotion and thus I could afford it now if I really wanted to, but.. I find that when I visit my mother's house, sometimes I'll spend 20 minutes flipping through channels and not really finding anything worthwhile. Ideally, if I could pick only the channels I wanted (NatGeo, Discovery, maybe a sports channel for the occasional Habs game midweek when CBC doesn't play them usually, Spanish-language channels for my wife), and if I wasn't limited by the amount of Canadian channels I am required to have (I invariably have too many non-Canadian channels when I test-run my channel selections on Bell or Videotron's websites, for "pick your own" packages), then, and only then, would it be worth paying cable. So yeah, I figure I'll get a new antenna eventually, sometime in September likely."
Sarah Szefer: "Yes, I'm still using rabbit ears to access digital TV on my HDTV. Although I do get tons of interference from the Montreal Port (which means no US stations come in at all), I still can get flawless signals from Rad-Can, CBC, V, and Télé-Québec."
Rose-Line Beaupre (Regina): "I own 2 television sets. I have bought a converter box for one TV only. It was about $90. It's a very old TV and in a year or when the TV dies, I will buy a digital TV and put the converter to the other TV. The other TV is mostly used to watch movies when I'm working in my sewing room. I don't watch a lot of TV and this is the first reason I don't have cable. It's not worth the money. I'm a Francophone native living in the Prairies. I essentially bought the converter box to be able to watch Radio-Canada - Regina and watch the national news from Montréal. The news are also available on the net but I don't want to be limited to the computer in order to stay connected."
Jack Nathanson: "I am still on analog. I get the impression that the digital broadcasts won't actually begin until after September 1, so I won't get a digital box until after the analog signals have stopped." (I called Nathanson, and gave him some information about the transition. He lives on the fourth floor of a building in the Snowdon area, which should have pretty good reception. He says he used to watch a lot of TV, but does less so now. Still, he'll probably get a converter box.)

Thanks for everyone who shared their experiences. Feel free to add your own below, or ask any questions you might have.

No conspiracies

In talking to people and reading comments about the digital transition, a lot of the ones familiar enough with media ownership believe broadcasters are manipulating the switch in some way as to force people to aligned cable and satellite services. (CTV is owned by Bell, Global is owned by Shaw, and TVA is owned by Quebecor, which also owns Videotron.) Strained logic has even been contradictory - some claiming that an early switch is pushing people to pay for TV because they no longer get analog signals, others claiming a late switch is pushing people to pay because they think they can't get HD over the air.

The evidence indicates that, if anything, the opposite is true: broadcasters affiliated with cable companies are more likely to provide a better signal after the transition. Of the broadcasters on the Mount Royal tower that are not CBC/Radio-Canada (which runs the tower), it's the two that aren't affiliated with cable companies (CIVM/Télé-Québec and CFJP/V) that have decided to move off the tower, sacrificing coverage in order to save on rent. TVA, CTV and Global are staying on the tower, and are either replicating their coverage area or improving it slightly. (CJNT/Metro14 is not on the tower itself, but at its base, but its coverage has improved significantly.)

That's not to say there isn't some silliness going on. CTV's transition information points people to buy Bell TV or converter boxes at The Source, which is also owned by Bell. Shaw is plugging their free satellite program (but not very much - they're doing this as part of a promise to the CRTC, but the fewer satellites they give away, the less it costs them), but otherwise not pushing people to get Shaw service. (Global's story about the DTV transition even points to competitors' programs.) And TVA's transition page makes no mention of the word "Videotron".

But what really matters - and where the costs really lie - is the transmitters. The CRTC is forcing the switch, broadcasters have waited until the last month if not the last minute so their analog viewers have service as long as possible, and the digital transmitters for the most part try to replicate coverage area. In short, I don't see much of a conspiracy here.

CBC gets to keep some analog TV running

Fagstein — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:20:10 +0000

José Breton must be happy.*

He's the guy in Quebec City who protested that CBC was going to shut down its TV transmitter there and not replace it with a digital one. Being a hockey fan, his main issue was that he wouldn't be able to get Hockey Night in Canada without cable.

In a decision published Tuesday morning, the CRTC decided to give the CBC another year to make the conversion in 22 markets that are large enough that the CRTC designated them for mandatory conversion but small enough that they do not have original programming and the CBC was prepared to pull the plug on them rather than spend millions on new transmitters.

These include transmitters in Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières and Chicoutimi that rebroadcast CBC Montreal. They also include a large number of Radio-Canada's transmitters outside Quebec. The Globe and Mail has a map here.

Breton wasn't the only one trying to stop his city from falling through the cracks. The city of London, Ont., actually passed a resolution demanding the CBC save its transmitter there.

Since Radio-Canada transmitters in Quebec are shutting down, the CBC is going to use the old Radio-Canada analog transmitters in Trois Rivières and Quebec City for CBC programming, taking advantage of the better coverage of those transmitters. On the flip side, its transmitter in Chicoutimi (Saguenay) will see its power drop significantly because it's on a channel that is supposed to be vacated.

Here's what's going on for each transmitter:

CBMT Montreal must still terminate analog transmission on Channel 6 by Aug. 31. Its transitional digital transmitter on Channel 20 will move to Channel 21.
CBJET Saguenay will drop in power significantly, going from 12,000 watts to just 496. Because it's running on Channel 58, which is one the government is forcing all television stations to move off of (big cities or small), it drops to low-power unprotected status. This also means that Industry Canada (which regulates frequency allocations) can force it to move frequencies if it wants to give it to someone else.
CBMT-1 Trois-Rivières switches from Channel 28 to Radio-Canada's old spot on Channel 13, and gets a power boost from 33,000 to 47,000 watts, in order to increase its coverage area.
CBVE-TV Quebec City switches from Channel 5 to Radio-Canada's old spot on Channel 11, and gets a power boost from 13,850 to 33,000 watts, increasing its coverage.
CBMT-3 Sherbrooke remains operational, unchanged at 14,000 watts on Channel 50.
Other retransmitters in Quebec (there are about 40 of them from Kuujuaq to Îles de la Madeleine) are not in mandatory markets and will remain running as they were before.

The CRTC's decision is understandable. It was backed into a corner by the CBC. Not allowing the extension would have meant forcing the CBC to shut down these transmitters - many of which are in minority-language markets - and would have meant, some have argued, failing in its mandate.

It's also the latest compromise on the digital transition. Originally the CRTC wanted every TV transmitter in Canada to be converted to digital. Then in 2009 it said only "mandatory markets" - capital cities, those with multiple stations and those with populations above 300,000. Then in March it removed the territorial capitals from the list of mandatory markets. And now CBC and Radio-Canada retransmitters won't have to make the transition.

In 2009, I argued that the digital TV transition is a counterproductive waste of money. Two years later, with the deadline only two weeks away, this seems even more clear. Broadcasters are waiting in some cases until literally the last minute (midnight from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1) to switch their analog transmitters with digital ones, because they know that the analog transmitters reach a larger audience. The fact that the CBC is pushing for a delay and that so few transmitters are being changed outside of mandatory markets is a clear indication that market forces aren't pushing hard in the direction of digital TV.

And why should they? Having high definition is nice, but the vast majority of people rich enough to have purchased high-definition TVs also have cable or satellite service. Most of those on analog TV are either too poor to afford a subscription service or are too disinterested in TV to spend the money.

Digital television is being forced on us for reasons that still elude me. The government wants to auction off TV channels 52-69 for wireless services, but analog transmitters in those frequencies can be reassigned lower channels without converting them to digital (there certainly aren't more than 50 television transmitters operating within range of Quebec City or Moncton).

Analog over-the-air television has existed using roughly the same technology for more than half a century. Forcing broadcasters to spend millions on hundreds of new transmitters and consumers to spend hundreds on millions of new televisions (or digital converters for their existing sets) without a clear need seems ridiculous.

UPDATE (Aug. 17): Actually, Breton isn't happy. He's calling the decision a "false compromise", says the CRTC should have forced the CBC to install a digital transmitter in all mandatory markets, and points out that because most digital converter boxes don't pick up analog signals, people won't be able to easily switch between CBC and other channels in these markets.

Radio: The problem child of the Canadian people

Fagstein — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:45:08 +0000

This National Film Board documentary about the state of Canadian radio (particularly CBC/Radio-Canada) in 1949 has some funny lines. My favourite is this one:

"Radio reads its fan mail and makes its listeners' surveys because radio has learned to trust the judgment of the listener. And in Canada, the listener gets what he asks for."

There's also some talk near the end about setting up a national television network and developing this new "frequency modulation" radio. And a clip of Oscar Peterson tickling the ivories.

TV gets shut down for maintenance

Fagstein — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:12:02 +0000

CBC antenna atop Mount Royal, and the giant crane working on it

A lot of people who rely on old-fashioned antennas to get their television service have noticed this summer that all the TV stations in Montreal disappear after midnight.

The reason is simple: The transmitters are being shut off for maintenance work.

For the past couple of months, workers have been busy replacing antennas and doing other work on the 50-year-old CBC transmission tower atop Mount Royal (just northwest of the Belvedere, at the mountain summit, in case you've never seen it before).

Old antennas laying on the path of Olmstead Rd.

One of the main purposes of the maintenance is to replace antennas as television broadcasters make the switch to digital. An antenna that CFCF-12 has been using since it launched in 1961 has been replaced with a new one that will be used for digital transmission. The station even did a news piece on it (skip to the 8:40 mark). Though the station got approval today to operate a 10,600-Watt digital transmitter, it looks like it won't be put into service until after the transition deadline of Aug. 31, 2011.

For safety reasons (we're talking about transmission power in the hundreds of thousands of watts), all the transmitters have to be shut down while the maintenance takes place. To minimize disruption, this work is taking place overnight, when Mount Royal Park is closed and when TV viewing is at its lowest.

But the TV viewing isn't zero. Just after midnight is when CFCF airs The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And many of its fans are annoyed that they can't watch the show over the air (or even more annoyed that they can watch the show but get cut off midsentence, as you can see in the clip below).

There is a workaround if your antenna is strong enough and you're on the north or west sides of the mountain - tune your TV to channel 8 and try to pick up the Cornwall retransmitter of CJOH Ottawa, which also airs the Daily Show at 12:05 and Colbert Report at 12:35. Or, if you don't mind waiting a day, you can watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report online.

The CBC tower stands next to a building at the end of a driveway at the summit of the mountain.

CFCF isn't the only affected station. Just about every television and FM radio transmitter in Montreal is located on this tower:

CBFT-2 (Radio-Canada)
CBMT-6 (CBC)
CFTM-10 (TVA)
CFCF-12 (CTV)
CIVM-17 (Télé-Québec)
CFJP-35 (V)
CKMI-46 (Global)
CJNT-62*
CBME-FM 88.5 (CBC Radio One)
CISM-FM 89.3 (Université de Montréal)
CKUT-FM 90.3 (Radio McGill)
CIRA-FM 91.3 (Radio Ville-Marie)
CFQR-FM 92.5 (the Q)
CBM-FM 93.5 (CBC Radio Two)
CKMF-FM 94.3 (NRJ)
CJFM-FM 95.9 (Virgin Radio)
CHOM-FM 97.7
CHMP-FM 98.5
CJPX-FM 99.5 (Radio Classique)
CBFX-FM 100.7 (Espace musique)
CFGL-FM 105.7 (Rythme FM)
CITE-FM 107.3 (Rock Détente)

*CJNT's transmitter seems to be unaffected by the maintenance. It continues to transmit during the blackouts.

In fact, it's easier to make a list of those FM and TV stations not transmitting from atop Mount Royal: CKOI 96.9FM (CIBC tower), CIBL 101.5FM (Olympic Stadium), CINQ 102.3FM (Rosemont and St-Denis) and Canal Savoir CFTU-29 (Université de Montréal), as well as community stations around the city like CKRK in Kahnawake CJVD in Vaudreuil.

Because AM transmitters require much larger antennas and height isn't as much of an issue, they aren't located on top of the mountain.

TV and radio transmission antennas atop the CBC tower, including new antenna for CFCF-12 and CFTM-10 at centre

With each transmitter putting out transmissions in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of watts, I can only imagine what the power bill must be like.

There is so much RF coming out of the antennas that the top of Mount Royal is actually a cellphone dead spot. It's not because the transmissions can't reach the cell towers, it's because there's so much radio noise there that your tiny cellphone can't make heads or tails out of it.

A sign for passers-by explains what's going on

Knowing that people would be curious about all the equipment in the middle of the park, the CBC put up signs around the work site explaining what's going on, and has a website with an FAQ.

The individual broadcasters have also been letting people know about the service interruptions. CTV's website has a little animated graphic, while Global's has a very short story. CFCF has also mentioned the work repeatedly in its newscasts, as you see in the above video.

That hasn't stopped casual TV watchers (as you would imagine most people without cable would be) from wondering what's going on, going on to online forums, or just emailing me.

The work is supposed to be complete by the end of August, at which point the disruptions will stop.

But that will only last a year. The CRTC is still set on an Aug. 31, 2011 deadline for a transition to digital. Those people with analog sets have already lost the American channels (I'd forgotten that the other day when I tried to tune them in to test my antenna), and they're now a year away from losing the Canadian ones as well.

One giant crane to move giant antennas around

Pascal Robidas: Caught in the headlights

Fagstein — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:07:12 +0000

UPDATE: After videos were pulled off YouTube twice, I've posted a version that censors both the NSFW element and the World Cup B-roll. Hopefully this one sticks.

One of my spies within the CBC sent along this clip of an interview Pascal Robidas conducted live on air with an Italian soccer fan after Italy was humiliatingly bounced from the World Cup this morning.

~~There's no audio with it, but as you'll see that's not important.~~ Thanks to Clique du Plateau, which managed to locate a version with audio that RDI itself uploaded (WMV). I've added blur as appropriate to make it more safe for work.

Nancy Wood moves to investigative reporting

Fagstein — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:45:30 +0000

Nancy Wood

From CBC's Facebook page:

News about Nancy

We know that there is some curiosity about Nancy Wood's next assignment at CBC and we have some news that we're happy to share. Nancy will start work representing English services within Radio-Canada's investigative journalism unit. They are as delighted to be working with one of the CBC's top journalists as she is to join this prestigious team. She will produce regular reports for CBC radio, CBC television and cbc.ca. Nancy will be working alongside the excellent reporters and producers from Radio-Canada doing the groundbreaking investigative work the unit is famous for. You can expect to see her on television and hear her on radio starting in September.

If you have any brown envelopes full of scandal, you can send them to her at: Local A-18, Société Radio-Canada, 1400, René-Lévesque Est, Montréal Quebec, H2L 2M2

Or if it's a virtual envelope you're slipping her, her email remains nancy.wood@cbc.ca

We all wish her the best in her new assignment,

Pia Marquard
Managing Director
CBC Québec

Those of you who watch CBC News Montreal at 5/5:30/6 know that the station routinely piggybacks on Enquête investigations (branding them "CBC-Radio-Canada investigations"). We'll see how Wood's presence on this team changes that.

UPDATE: From Wood herself: "I am looking forward to it. The journalism there is fantastic, the people are great. It's a great opportunity."

Let's hope she enjoys and does well at her new job, and her performance there is judged on something more important than ratings.

Tou.tv: Menace to society?

Fagstein — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 04:03:53 +0000

Pierre-Karl Péladeau, the big cheese behind Quebecor, caused a bit of a stink this week when he wrote an op-ed (published in French in Le Devoir and in English in the Financial Post) attacking the CBC over the fee-for-carriage debate, even though the CRTC has already decided that the CBC shouldn't be able to charge cable and satellite providers for permission to rebroadcast its signals.

The CBC (or, more accurately, Radio-Canada) has been a bug up Péladeau's butt for quite a while now. He's angry that the government-funded broadcaster competes with his privately-run TVA network, and similarly how its all-news network RDI competes with TVA's all-news network LCN.

It's not that he doesn't think there should be a public broadcaster. He just doesn't want there to be one that competes with the private networks, offering popular programming and in particular taking U.S. programs and re-airing them for profit. The Radio-Canada envisioned by Péladeau is more like CPAC, contributing to the public dialogue but not with anything that people actually want to watch. Certainly nothing anyone would want to pay to advertise on.

In a way, I can see where he's coming from. Imagine if you ran a business, and next door there's a competing business that gets heavily subsidized by the government. I'm sure the CBC bosses and supporters have a ready-made retort to attack that comparison (CBC boss Hubert Lacroix touched on some of them in the National Post), but even if it's not perfect, it still makes a strong point.

If only someone who's not Pierre-Karl Péladeau (or from some government-hating conservative think-tank) would make it, it might carry more weight.

This week, though, Péladeau added another aspect to his anti-CBC rant:

Furthermore, the CBC has launched the Tou.tv website without consulting the industry, a move that jeopardizes Canada’s broadcasting system by providing free, heavily subsidized television content on the Internet without concern for the revenue losses that may result, not only for the CBC but also for other stakeholders, including writers and directors.

By "without consulting the industry", he means, well, him. Tou.tv has programming from Télé-Québec, TV5, TFO and others. V and RDS aren't included, but they have their own websites that provide video on demand.

TVA, meanwhile, doesn't offer shows on demand online, even those shows that you'd think would get a pretty high audience there. Instead, it offers them on Videotron's Illico on demand (Videotron, by wacky coincidence, is also owned by Quebecor).

Péladeau argues about "heavily subsidized television content", which is hardly new to Tou.tv. Somehow, I suspect he might be a bit more angry at the fact that Tou.tv has become popular, and might even become a Québécois Hulu, leaving TVA in the dark.

Mind you, Hulu isn't making money either.

CBC dumps Nancy Wood from Daybreak

Fagstein — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:26:28 +0000

Nancy Wood ponders future job as hot dog salesperson (from Fagstein files)

I first got a tip about this a few days ago, but was awaiting confirmation and more details. With a story in The Gazette, the news is out there: CBC is removing Nancy Wood from her position as host of Daybreak, as of June.

The corporation had wanted to keep the news quiet until Wood made the announcement on air, but after staff were informed earlier this week, it was just a matter of time until it came out. (To their credit, some of my usual CBC leaks kept their mouths shut.)

Wood tells The Gazette that it wasn't her decision to leave, which matches what I've been told: the decision came from management, and the reasons aren't clear.

The news also comes the same week the CBC announces a new regional manager for Quebec: Pia Marquard, who starts on Monday. Though one CBC employee told me they were told Marquard had nothing to do with the decision to axe Wood. Marquard replaces Rob Renaud, who was filling in. One angry employee found it ridiculous that such an important decision would be made while essentially nobody's in charge.

Needless to say, the mood at CBC Montreal plummeted with the news this week. Another employee described the work environment there as "toxic". Wood herself stepped back from the host mic after the decision was announced, only returning on Friday (Shawn Apel filled in).

Wood was hired as the permanent host of Daybreak only last August. She replaced Mike Finnerty, who left last summer for London's Guardian website.

Has CBC gone mad?

Nancy Wood, CBC Daybreak

To call the decision bizarre would be an understatement. Wood has an incredible amount of experience, both in journalism in general and specifically at CBC. Before taking the Daybreak post, she was a reporter for CBC television out of Montreal, and before that she was the host of the province-wide Radio Noon. As I wrote in August, Wood was a shoo-in for the Daybreak job, which makes it even more ridiculous that she would be yanked from that post.

During her brief tenure, she continued Finnerty's tech-friendly improvements to the show, which included using Twitter and Facebook, accepting emails and text messages during the show, and producing a daily podcast. As a regular listener to that podcast, I can attest to the fact that Wood is professional yet personable, and certainly has no flaws that would warrant such a decision.

It's not clear what will happen to Wood, though she hasn't been fired from CBC. She may return to her previous job as a TV reporter.

Why?

So why is Nancy Wood being pulled out of the Daybreak chair? CBC isn't talking, and the person in a position to answer these kinds of questions doesn't start her new job until Monday.

If this were a commercial station, the first place I would look is ratings. I don't have access to detailed numbers, so until someone leaks them to me, I won't be able to tell you much. One former CBC radio host told me ratings are probably a major factor in a case like this.

But even if the answer is ratings, so what? Wood hasn't had a chance to build an audience in the morning, and this decision is more likely to alienate listeners than attract them. This is CBC, not CHOM. Supposedly the one place outside of community and campus radio where there's a consideration more important than ratings.

The candidates

CBC hasn't announced who it plans to replace Wood with (they haven't announced she's leaving either, technically), and the staff doesn't know yet.

I'll copy and paste some suggestions from my post after Finnerty left, linking to Daybreak podcasts (all MP3) from fill-in hosts last summer. Not to look down on them, but I honestly don't see any of them improving upon Wood:

Shawn Apel (currently Daybreak's municipal affairs correspondent and resident philosopher): April 30, May 1
Susan Campbell (currently the host of Quebec AM): May 18, May 19, May 20
Brendan Kelly (currently an entertainment columnist for The Gazette and Daybreak): June 4, June 5
Stephen Puddicombe: May 21, May 22

To that list I'd add Steve Rukavina, who has filled in for departed hosts, and Sonali Karnick, currently the Daybreak sports reporter and one of the hardest working people in that office. Both are professionals and would make good hosts, but would also suffer from a comparison to Wood.

"Boneheads, boneheads, boneheads!"

A Facebook group has been started to keep Nancy Wood on Daybreak. It has ~~17 80~~ 369 members right now (including myself, though that's more to keep tabs on it than to participate in any campaign). There's also some commentary on the show's Facebook page.

Radio watcher Sheldon Harvey has some comments as well on the news, which he calls "extremely disappointing."

UPDATE (Feb. 21): The Gazette quotes Wood's personal Facebook page saying she and the CBC are "in talks" but "nothing inspiring." The International Radio Report on CKUT (hosted this week by Harvey) also quotes from Wood's Facebook (MP3) and the brief, cryptic messages that appear there, including that it was not a "they" but a "she" (Marquard?) that made the decision to remove her, and that no, this is not a joke, she's been "canned."

UPDATE (Feb. 22): Rukavina filled in for Wood on this morning's show and apparently will for the remainder of the week. No mention of this story at all during the first Daybreak show since The Gazette broke it Friday evening.

UPDATE (Feb. 24): Gazette pop culture columnist Basem Boshra on Wood's dismissal:

Hey, guys, nice work finally getting rid of that Nancy Wood from Daybreak. I'm getting so sick already of hearing her warm, intelligent, engaging voice in the mornings. Can't wait until she's gone in June - it feels like she's been on the air for, like, months! Definitely time for a change. And, hey, I don't want to tell you how to run your business, but if you're looking for smarter, more entertaining voices to anchor your flagship show, I hear Ted Bird and the equally hilarious Tasso are still looking for work. Think of all the wacky impressions!

UPDATE (Feb. 25): Mike Boone and Doug Camilli also weigh in, along with a bunch of letters to the editor.

Those who want to complain are being sent to Communications Manager Hugh Brodie, hugh.brodie@cbc.ca or 514-597-5813.

PJ Stock too cool for Montreal

Fagstein — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:39:30 +0000

PJ Stock

P.J. Stock, a former journeyman NHL player turned hockey analyst, has come to the realization over the past few months that he was stretching himself a little too thin. His main gig at Hockey Night in Canada involved a lot of travelling between Toronto and Montreal on weekends.

Though he contributed regularly for CBMT's evening newscast, he cut that weeks ago (CBC says it's looking for a replacement). Last week, he said goodbye to an afternoon radio show on the Team 990. He'll be replaced there by Randy Tieman of CFCF.

Stock says he wants to spend more time with his family. And admiring himself in the mirror.

A Mary Christmas

Fagstein — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:25:17 +0000

Speaking of people being fired before Christmas, hundreds of CBC employees and friends are rallying around Mary McGuire, a cafeteria employee at the Maison Radio-Canada, who was just told that her services won't be needed by the catering service the CBC subcontracts to.

They've started up a Facebook group, whose members include Michel C. Auger and anglo CBCers Kristy Snell, Kristy Rich, and even some not named Kristy. They say after 36 years of serving them coffee, McGuire deserves to stick around.

UPDATE (Dec. 24):

A Christmas miracle! A day later, Mary has been un-fired.

The CBC-Post monster is getting bigger

Fagstein — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:20:46 +0000

Hey, remember when the CBC and National Post signed that content-sharing agreement and everyone was like "dude, WTF?"

Well, it looks like they're extending it to include coverage of the Vancouver Olympics (press release, press release on NP site), producing a "co-branded" website for coverage.

The CBC used to be king for Olympics coverage, but then it lost the rights to CTV, so it will for the first time since 1994 be covering an Olympics it doesn't have rights to. And considering how television rights crippled CTV so much it had to show still images instead of video, expect CBC to face similar obstacles in February.

Similarly, the Post's competitor the Globe and Mail is the official national newspaper of the Games. That won't mean exclusive rights and it's not clear if there are any editorial implications of this designation, but it puts the Post one step behind, at least psychologically.

But ... the CBC and National Post hate each other.

Or, at least, that's what they want us to think.

Anyone else think this is like the second season of a bad sitcom where the two main characters' anger toward each other boils over and they explode in a torrent of rage that's suddenly interrupted when they spontaneously get aroused and start passionately sucking face, leading to a long night of hot sex?

Are the CBC and National Post ... getting it on? Is this Olympics website their illegitimate love child?

If so, when's the hangover and walk of shame?

I can’t hear!

Fagstein — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:01:21 +0000

Journalists have short tempers when they're under pressure. Fortunately those of us in print don't have microphones capturing our frustrations. We also don't have to worry about not realizing we're live.

Via The Tea Makers.

RadCan pulls plug on online RDI streaming

Fagstein — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:08:37 +0000

It happened on Oct. 29, but it seems few people either noticed or cared. The first news story came out two weeks later that Radio-Canada has stopped livestreaming of its RDI all-news network online.

The reason? "Faciliter les discussions avec les câblodistributeurs".

Some reaction online (including the video above) was negative, suggesting that Radio-Canada doesn't get it, that we own the corporation and that the cable companies have nothing to fear from online streaming.

Here's what gets me though: RDI is a must-carry network for cable and satellite. There's no choice in the matter. The CBC even forced StarChoice to include it as part of its "English essentials" basic package last year. Because of this, the wholesale rate is set by the CRTC: $1 for RDI in francophone markets and $0.10 in anglophone markets.

So, what kind of discussions are we talking about here? There's nothing to negotiate.

Besides, RDI isn't the only one doing this. CPAC, the political affairs channel funded by the cable and satellite companies, also streams for free online. In fact, it annoyingly starts playing automatically when you go to the CPAC website.

I understand the worry from cable and satellite companies: if broadcasters stream all their stuff for free, then consumers might realize they're being gouged and start cancelling their television services.

But for the public broadcaster to pull its feed, to intentionally deny access to its services from Canadians, solely to please the cable and satellite industry, that's outrageous.

I sent an email to Alain Saulnier, who was quoted in the Cyberpresse piece, asking for clarification, but there was no response.

Battle of the MS Paint

Fagstein — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:43:42 +0000

According to La Presse, Radio-Canada is considering a French version of Battle of the Blades. That's interesting news.

But I'm not sure about the picture they used to illustrate it.

I realize cutouts like this are used often in printed newspapers without an indication that the photo has been manipulated, but it's clearly called for here, no?

I mean, some people notice these things.

UPDATE (Nov. 13): After being alerted to the error, Cyberpresse has fixed the image. Apparently an online editor took the cutout (used for a section front) and didn't think to replace it with the original photo.

CBC fee-for-carriage solution isn’t really one

Fagstein — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:42:43 +0000

The fee-for-carriage/local TV debate is over. The CBC has solved it. In was a stroke of absolute brilliance, the Mother Corp. has come up with a system that makes local broadcasters happy, reduces cable costs for consumers, and provides a fair system that doesn't threaten cable companies' profits.

Oh, and they solved the digital TV transition problem too.

Haha, just kidding. Their proposal does nothing of the sort.

On Tuesday, the CBC heralded a submission it made to the CRTC that "offers a solution to the issue of the affordability should a compensation regime for the value of local television signals be implemented."

I asked the CBC for a copy of this submission, and they kindly forwarded it to me. I've uploaded it here for you to read (PDF).

Here is the key part of the CBC's proposal (emphasis mine):

The CRTC should require cable and satellite companies to offer consumers a small, all Canadian basic package which would include all local television stations plus a few other licensed services. The rate for this small basic package would not exceed a maximum rate established by the CRTC. This would ensure the affordability of television service for all Canadians.

Consumers would be free to purchase – but would not be required to purchase – any additional services they may want that are not included in the small basic package. The cable and satellite companies would negotiate with broadcasters to determine the compensation payable for the services they distribute – including the local television services in the basic package. The CRTC would act as arbitrator in any situations where the parties could not agree.

The CBC explains how this would work in its "straightforward" three-step process:

First, the Commission would need to determine the services to be included in the streamlined basic package.

Second, the cable and satellite BDUs would have to negotiate wholesale rates with the programming services included in the new basic package – including the local television stations. Commission arbitration would be available if the parties could not reach an agreement.

Third, the Commission would approve the proposed rate to be charged for this basic package.

Wait, hold on a second. Wasn't the entire point of "negotiation for value" that consumers would have the choice of what local television stations they would carry on cable? The CBC's proposal does away with that (what a surprise) and goes back to forcing the cable companies to carry their stations. It mentions that they would "negotiate wholesale rates", but what kind of negotiation can you have when the only response the cable and satellite companies can give is "yes"?

So this would go to "arbitration" in front of the CRTC. Which means the CRTC would simply set the rate for carrying local stations.

In other words, this is fee for carriage.

In fact, it goes beyond fee for carriage. Now the CRTC would set the price for basic cable as well, and say what channels can and can't be carried on it:

Cable and satellite BDUs would not be permitted to include any additional services in the basic package beyond those required by the Commission.

Surely they could throw in some freebies (like advertising channels) and nobody would get hurt.

The CBC's argument includes a lot of charts and data showing that cable and satellite companies are rolling in cash while broadcasters face certain doom. These things, of course, we knew already. It also brings up all the "save local TV" talking points, like how taxes aren't taxes:

It has become all too common in the Canadian communications environment for cable and satellite companies to disguise items on their consumers’ bills as government imposed retail taxes when they are not (e.g., “system access fee”, “government regulatory recovery fee”, “LPIF tax”, “CRTC LPIF Fee”).

While fee-for-carriage is still up in the air, the LPIF fee is a tax as much as the GST is. It's a mandatory percentage fee added to the total price of a service that's taken by the government. The fact that the CRTC says the cable companies should pay it instead of consumers is semantics at best.

It's not that I oppose the LPIF, or even fee-for-carriage, but don't get all bent out of shape because we call a tax a tax.

Cheap cable solves digital TV?

The submission also pretends to offer a solution to the digital TV transition. In addition to requiring many people across the country to modify or replace television sets that are up to half a century old, the transition will mean many Canadians in remote regions won't have access to free, over-the-air TV, because the broadcasters are too poor/cheap to replace the analog transmitters with digital ones.

I've already argued that this digital transition is completely unnecessary, and that goes double for remote areas with few television stations. But the CRTC is going ahead with it anyway, and in August 2011 will create a problem where none existed.

So what is the CBC proposing? Well, their argument is that cheap cable can replace free television:

While not everyone would choose to subscribe to such a service, those who did not would not be deciding on the basis of affordability.

If this sounds a bit familiar, it's because Bell thought up the same thing with cheap satellite. Both seem to ignore the fact that cheap is not free. Though it's unclear how much basic cable would cost under CBC's plan (I'm willing to guess it won't be much cheaper than it is now), it will still be infinitely larger than zero.

There's also another problem with this idea: The CRTC setting the rate for basic cable tips the economic scales, and reduces the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the cable market, especially in remote areas where the economies of scale don't work out as well in their favour.

Perhaps the CRTC would set a different rate for big-market and small-market cable, but then it starts to get more complicated.

What is basic?

The CBC's submission is based on the premise that basic packages contain a bunch of channels that Canadians don't want and are being forced to pay for. It doesn't list them, nor does it list the channels it would want to keep.

To get some context, I looked at the channels that are included in my basic (digital) service through Videotron:

10 broadcast stations:
- CBFT (2, Radio-Canada)
- CBMT (6, CBC)
- CJOH (8, CTV Ottawa's retransmitter in Cornwall)
- CFTM (10, TVA)
- CFCF (12, CTV Montreal)
- CIVM (17, Télé-Québec)
- CFTU (29, Canal Savoir)
- CFJP (35, V, ex-TQS)
- CKMI (46 Global)
- CJNT (62)
Three parliamentary channels:
- Assemblée Nationale
- CPAC (French)
- CPAC (English)
Eight must-carry specialty networks
- CBC News Network
- RDI
- The Accessible Channel
- Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network
- The Weather Network
- MétéoMédia
- Avis de recherche
- TV5
Télé Achats (an advertising network that would be silly to demand subscriber fees)
VOX, Videotron's public access channel
Cable barkers, including the Canal Info Videotron (Channel 1), the video on demand barker channel and the Viewer's Choice / Canal Indigo barkers
GameTV
Local radio stations, Galaxie and other audio-only services

With the exception of GameTV and the advertising channels (which we're not charged for), these are all part of the basic service because the CRTC requires it to carry them.

So which of these channels would the CBC make discretionary? Surely not the parliamentary channels, nor the cable access channel, nor its own all-news channel.

Maybe I'm on the wrong track. For one thing, Videotron forces its customers to choose a package (either a theme package or an a-la-carte channel package) in addition to the basic service. This would stop under the CBC proposal.

On the satellite side, there's Bell TV, whose digital basic package includes, besides broadcast television stations and must-carry networks, the following:

Treehouse
W Network
CTV News Channel
Vision TV
Teletoon Retro
MTV Canada
The Shopping Channel

These would also be pulled from the basic package under the CRTC proposal.

There is also, of course, analog cable, in which everyone gets the same service. That includes more channels, including:

Vision TV
YTV
MuchMusic
TSN
CMT
VRAK.TV
MusiquePlus
RDS
Showcase
Bravo
Discovery Channel
W Network
Canal Vie
MusiMax
Canal D

But analog cable doesn't provide for discretionary channels, at least not on the level of digital.

Despite my criticisms, there's some merit to some of the CBC's proposal, specifically the creation of a basic package, whether on satellite, digital cable or analog cable. The practice of forcing people using digital services to add packages to basic lineups needs to stop.

But what the CBC is proposing is fee for carriage, and that's a tax. And it would do nothing to stop the cable and satellite oligopolies from further solidifying their hold on the market.

CBC Radio’s new news chime

Fagstein — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:32:15 +0000

CBC Radio news chime: before (MP3)

CBC Radio news chime: after (MP3)

Better? Or worse?

Fagstein » CBC

Should the CBC dump TV?

What should the CBC get out of?

Related Posts

Caption CBC president Hubert Lacroix

Related Posts

Yearning for local television

Related Posts

The CBC/Quebecor misinformation war

Billion-dollar leg-up

The "CBC sucks" Network

The gloves come off

So who's right?

The Quebecor war machine

Related Posts

Even more details about Montreal’s digital TV transition

The digital transition in Montreal

CBMT

CFCF

CKMI-1

CJNT

CBFT

CFTM

CFJP

CIVM

CFTU

Stores: What DTV transition?

Digital subchannels: no thanks

Is this even necessary?

No coupon program

Antennas: Rabbit ears aren't dead

Thoughts from viewers

No conspiracies

Further reading

Related Posts

CBC gets to keep some analog TV running

Related Posts

Radio: The problem child of the Canadian people

Related Posts

TV gets shut down for maintenance

Related Posts

Pascal Robidas: Caught in the headlights

Related Posts

Nancy Wood moves to investigative reporting

Related Posts

Tou.tv: Menace to society?

Related Posts

CBC dumps Nancy Wood from Daybreak

Has CBC gone mad?

Why?

The candidates

"Boneheads, boneheads, boneheads!"

Related Posts

PJ Stock too cool for Montreal

Related Posts

A Mary Christmas

Related Posts

The CBC-Post monster is getting bigger

Related Posts

I can’t hear!

Related Posts

RadCan pulls plug on online RDI streaming

Related Posts

Battle of the MS Paint

Related Posts

CBC fee-for-carriage solution isn’t really one

Cheap cable solves digital TV?

What is basic?

Related Posts

CBC Radio’s new news chime

Related Posts