CAB wants CRTC to review Star Choices HDTV policy

[Dale_Robertson]

In its submission at http://www.cab-acr.ca/english/research/03/sub3_sep2503.pdf to Star Choice's CRTC license renewal the Canadian Association of Broadcasters says that Star Choice is violating CRTC rules and broadcasters exclusive programming rights in creating Star Choice's HDTV channels.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Star Choice’s HDTV channels

62. From a review of Star Choice’s programming schedules and descriptions, it appears that Star Choice creates as many as five HDTV channels for its subscribers by selecting HDTV programming from various services that it distributes and broadcasting such programming on its own dedicated HDTV channels.

63. In the CAB’s view, Star Choice is effectively operating as a programming undertaking with respect to these HDTV channels in that it is selecting and scheduling programs for broadcast to viewers, and is doing so without Commission
authorization.

64. Furthermore, to the extent that Star Choice is retransmitting HDTV programming that has been taken from licensed Canadian broadcasters, the CAB submits that Star Choice is violating the exclusive rights that the broadcaster has acquired to exhibit that programming.

65. For these reasons, the CAB submits that the Commission should direct Star Choice to discontinue its actions with respect to the creation of dedicated
HDTV channels.



[/ QUOTE ]

[HiDefBob]

"Star Choice is retransmitting HDTV programming that has been taken from licensed Canadian broadcasters, the CAB submits that Star Choice is violating the exclusive rights that the broadcaster has acquired to exhibit that programming."

I bet this refers to the Blue Jay games from Sportsnet HD. Rogers probably had "exclusive rights".

I am wondering what the implications of all this could be? Do they have the rights to re-broadcast HDTV programming from their HD servers?

[hddave]

Notice no mention of EVUs HD channels? The CAB can kiss my rosy red a**! *C subs finally get decent HD programming and they stick their fat noses in. Makes me sick. And by the way, *C doesn't have a problem with hacking even if CAB says so!!! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif Just venting folks. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[HammerJoe]

I think the point is that *c is not showing dedicated HD broadacasters on each channel but selecting what show is displayed on them.

That is my understanding.

[pauldryan]

These are very controversial issues that CAB conveniently raises now that CTV's corporate partner, Bell ExpressVu, no longer does the same thing.

If StarChoice is allowed to pick and choose US network programs and air them as it does with the HD offerings, it wouldn't take too long before astute viewers finally said ...."Who needs Global, CTV, or Craig?" and of course the viewers would be correct!

I'll be surprised if StarChoice is allowed to mix n' match much longer ....those six HD channels will have to be dedicated and there will be enormous pressure to disallow the time-shifting benefits of the HD servers.

Paul

[MCIBUS]

UH Correct me if I'm wrong here, but where does it say Canadian Broadcasters have the "RIGHTS TO HD PROGRAMS"? As far I know presently there are only four Canadian TV stations that are in HD- CITY TV(TORONTO), SportsNET, TSN &amp; Discovery.

So I don't know why the CAB is saying SC is showing HD programing on its own. CTV, CH, GLOBAL, CHUM(the NEWNETS), &amp; CBC are not in HD yet so how can they have the "CANADIAN HD RIGHTS" to the shows they have that are in SD?

TOM /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bigoranget]

Star Choice will have full dedicated East and West feeds once F2 launches. I don't think this should be an issue for the CAB. We are looking at a 6-8 month wait before F2 is opperational.

[dcomp11]

I really don't see what the problem is if the HD program *C is showing is currently being shown on another SD channel.

Regarding the HD Blue Jays, what's to say *C didn't negotiate a deal with Rogers to put those games on there?

[pauldryan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
.... so how can they have the "CANADIAN HD RIGHTS" to the shows they have that are in SD?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tom, I don't think that the Canadian networks need to actually broadcast in HD to hold the rights to the HD programming. That's strictly a commercial licensing deal they establish with the current rights holder.

The big question that next arises....... when CTV finally puts up an HD transmitter anywhere, will BEV, *Choice, Rogers, and Shaw be forced to broadcast the HD version of that Canadian network, even though it will only be duplication of US network programming already chewing up bandwidth in its own right? And then Global puts up its transmitter....kapow!!

Can you grasp the bandwidth implications if all Canadian network programming must now be duplicated in high definition? Never mind east and west time shifting benefits, there just isn't enough commercially viable bandwidth available to keep repeating the same dreck over and and over and over in both SD and HD.

Paul

[Bent]

If it is a mere matter of assigning channels to specific stations, Starchoice could very easilly re-map a virtual channel for each network, and then continue to shift their existing 5-1/2 HD channels amongst 7 (or more) virtual channels, this would eat up no more bandwidth than they presently use, No?

[pauldryan]

I suspect that they could create dedicated HD US network channels for the majors, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. That would make a lot of us happier in the short term. But I don't think that their license allows them to use the HD servers to time shift the western feed while stopping distribution of the ongoing eastern feed. These guys just don't have programming rights in Canada.

Then there's the issue of all that extra HD stuff that's available on a limited basis from Movie Central, HD PPView, Sportsnet, TSN, CityHD, DiscoveryCa, CBC, HDNet,etc. When Global and CTV start to broadcast in HD, those HD channels will have to be carried in full (and probably east/west versions).

My point is that we have become familiar, and comfortable with the satellite companies acting as de facto programmers when there was very little product and HD programming was an exotic niche business. Now as it becomes mainstream, we will see the conventional Canadian networks cracking down on this potential vulnerability to the very core of their business monoploy.

Paul

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
monoploy

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very funny (and true!) typo..

[Dede]

Paul touches a few of the issues I have with the statements made by the CAB.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The big question that next arises....... when CTV finally puts up an HD transmitter anywhere, will BEV, *Choice, Rogers, and Shaw be forced to broadcast the HD version of that Canadian network, even though it will only be duplication of US network programming already chewing up bandwidth in its own right? And then Global puts up its transmitter....kapow!!

[/ QUOTE ]

1-The CRTC has clearly stated that signal substitution should not happen with a signal of "inferior quality". We've all interpreted that rule as no "SD over HD". I believe that is the correct interpretation. It was also seen as a message to Canadian broadcasters to get moving with the transition to HD. I don't think bandwidth limitation is an issue since a CDN HD signal will be replacing a US HD signal, not duplicating it. Nevertheless, I think simsubbing of HD signals will soon be a reality.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Tom, I don't think that the Canadian networks need to actually broadcast in HD to hold the rights to the HD programming. That's strictly a commercial licensing deal they establish with the current rights holder.

[/ QUOTE ]

2-The CAB is assuming that the SD rights holder automatically gets the rights to the HD version of the same programming. That’s not necessarily the case! Look at what’s happening with movie rights in the U.S. The Studios are forking over the rights to the HD versions of their movies to the networks that are doing the conversion from film to HDTV. I’m not sure that this scenario also applies here but I would certainly question the CAB’s thinking about this.

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
We are looking at a 6-8 month wait before F2 is opperational.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an optimist /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif. I think another 12 months would be more realistic.

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think the point is that *c is not showing dedicated HD broadacasters on each channel but selecting what show is displayed on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your interpretation of the intent of the CAB's intervention is correct. By picking the programming it wants to air (and by moving the programming around on it's HD channel) *C becomes a "de facto" broadcaster. That is quite different than simply acting as a "conduit" for the programming.

I don't have a problem with *C's action as it allows them to distribute their limited bandwidth in an intelligent fashion (if they do it correctly!! -bitting my tongue /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) but for some obscure reason the CAB obviously feels that *C shouldn't be allowed to do this. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[bigoranget]

If BCE fails to provide F2 by Mid 2004, I think Shaw/Starchoice should file a lawsuit against them. There is no way Star Choice can go another year without adding anything. They are now missing way to many channels compared to Bell. Most customers wont care that its not
really Star Choice's fault. All they see is that Bell has more.

Back on topic...I wonder how star choice will offer the Canadian HD Feeds. I dont think its possible for them to provide a 24/7 feed of each Canadian HD Channels.

[Dale_Robertson]

Another possible outcome of this complaint about Star Choice's HDTV practices is that the CRTC could step in to ensure that Star Choice is provided sufficient bandwidth to provide the dedicated channels.

If Star Choice's lack of bandwidth is real and is caused by Anik F2's late deployment and Telesat Canada's actions, The CRTC could step in and order Telesat Canada to reallocate the remaining bandwidth on Anik E2R to Star Choice. Now I don't know who is using the extra bandwidth now but unless it is critical to Canada's Communications infastructure, The CRTC has the power to void any commercial contracts Telesat Canada has for the bandwidth Telesat Canada is currently providing to other users.

Now I am not saying this will happen or even if it is likely. I am just pointing out that in the past the CRTC has said it has the power to allocate scarce satellite capacity in whatever manner the CRTC feels is most benificial to Canada's Broadcast and Communication system.

Now this is also assuming the lack of bandwidth is not Star Choice's decision and rather caused by the actions of Telesat Canada and other players in the industry. If the lack of bandwidth is because of decisions made by Star Choice the CRTC may decide not to step in and help them.

The above is just a couple of thoughts rambling through my head

[I_Want_My_HDTV]

It appears to me that what CAB wants the CRTC to do is tell *C to assign their HD channels to Canadian broadcasters on a full time basis. If that means that no US HD programming is carried then "too bad." I do not think this is a good idea and do not want to see it done. I also think that it would be an abuse of the CRTC's mandate to force assignment of a full time HD channels to a service such as CITYHD, DISHD or TSNHD when they carry such little HD programming. Mandating preference of Canadian HD over US HD I would agree with.

[Arthur]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Now this is also assuming the lack of bandwidth is not Star Choice's decision and rather caused by the actions of Telesat Canada and other players in the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always thought *C's lack of bandwidth sits quite well with them. When F1 was launched E2 went from running everything to next to nothing, when they should have been establishing themselves as the leader in PQ and the most video channels they were busy adding radio. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If they had a contract for the bandwidth I would think they would do something about it. They are likely getting all they have ask for.

[Ranger_Gord]

also caused by the inaction of Industry Canada in ensuring that the licences that they gave to Telesat for F2 and F3 were/are being fulfilled.

Too much buddy - buddy in this whole Canadian broadcast/telecom industry

[HiDefBob]

" Furthermore, to the extent that Star Choice is retransmitting HDTV programming that has been taken from licensed Canadian broadcasters, the CAB submits that Star Choice is violating the exclusive rights that the broadcaster has acquired to exhibit that programming."

I am thinking they may be referring to the Blue Jay games from Sportnet HD. If Sportsnet had an exclusive contract with Rogers then this would be a serious violation. These sports contracts are worth very large amounts of money and must be honored. I have no problem with that unless such contracts limit the audience that can view those telecasts. Living in the west it would be impossible for me to subscribe to Rogers Cable, thus denying me access to the Blue Jay HD telecasts. That is wrong!

[Arthur]

Well we continue to hear opinions on this forum that *C's bandwidth problems are anyones but their fault.
If they have a case they should do something about it, if they are happy with the service they now provide they should keep doing what they are doing, nothing.

Why would BCE go out of their way to make *C a better service, if they are already a happy customer that is willing to keep paying and care little about being competition for Xvu, this is good for BCE.

I will be surprised if you see F2 by Mid 2004, (end of June) but Iwould fall on the floor if *C did anything about it.
Lets remember F2 will replace a failing F1 which will then take over for E2R.

What is the total # of TPs that have been rented by *C at the E2R slot? 8?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

From What I see, only some of the channels seems to change around programming. The remainder seems dedicated to the same network.
Besides, would the same not be true for other providers who switch their dedicated feed from the East to the West version of that network sometime in the night? I'm somewhat sure Bell does this. Not sure about Rogers though.

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Lets remember F2 will replace a failing F1 which will then take over for E2R.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometime in 2004 Anik F2 will replace Anik E2R (née Panamsat Galaxy IIIR). Then the failing Anik F1 will be replaced by Astrium Anik F1R in 2005.

F1 will not take over from E2R. Whether Telesat keeps leasing E2R beyond 2005 is anybody's guess.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What is the total # of TPs that have been rented by *C at the E2R slot? 8?

[/ QUOTE ]

*C has only 16 transponders leased on F2 at 111.1°W. (E2R's slot). That will be a marginal improvement over their current bandwidth allotment at 111.1°W.

[Arthur]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
F1 will not take over from E2R.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
That will be a marginal improvement over their current bandwidth allotment at 111.1°W.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, if anyone is counting, ExpressVu still has 10 unused transponder on N2 (2-6-8-10-14-18-20-26-30-32). So plenty of room for them.

P.S. Transponders 29-31-12-22-24-28 have been turned off due to the south solar panel failure.

[bigoranget]

Star Choice will most likely lease more transponders at a later period, however right now they use 11 or 12 on E2R. When F2 launches i'm assuming they will use all 16. There really isnt any point of them leasing all 32 transponders as they will not need them right away.

[MCIBUS]

Transponder 32 is being used on N2. Odessy 1 &amp; 2 are on it, not sure if there is anything else, but I persume there probally is.

TOM

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Star Choice will most likely lease more transponders at a later period...snip... There really isnt any point of them leasing all 32 transponders as they will not need them right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also assuming that Telesat hasn't already leased the remaining 16 transponders.

[bigoranget]

But who would they lease them too? Unless they are leasing them to US companies, they will probably be unused.

[bigoranget]

The other thing I wanted to mention is that a starchoice CSR said that they were going to use 3 satellites once F2 launches. Im pretty sure that this information is wrong. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this inforamtion.

[Dale_Robertson]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
*C has only 16 transponders leased on F2 at 111.1°W. (E2R's slot). That will be a marginal improvement over their current bandwidth allotment at 111.1°W.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not say that this is definite number. Star Choice did originally purchase 16 transponders on Anik F2. Then when Star Choice supported Telesat Canada's application for Anik F3 and the use of the 118.7 degree orbital position there was some sort of agreement that would give Star Choice options on an additional 10 transponders that could be transfered to the 111.1 degree slot on Anik F2.

Now I have seen no public documents stating that Star Choice still does not have these options available and since Telesat Canada has been using the 118.7 degree slot I would think they would have to honour these options even though Telesat Canada still have not actually began to build Anik F3.

I also see that Telesat Canada has recieved an extension of the timeframe required to build Anik F3 at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwGeneratedInterE/sf08077e.html. I get the feeling that this significant length of extension indicates that Telesat Canada will continue to lease Anik E2R after Anik F2 is launched and will use Anik E2R at 118.7 degrees to keep a Canadian Satelllite at this position as I believe there were some requirement for Canada to actually be using this orbital position by a date before the new Anik F3 launch date. This is to ensure the ITU would not re-allocate the 118.7 degree slot to another country as Canada's ITU authorization for 118.7 degrees expires before the new launch date. If Telesat Canada continues to use a satellite at 118.7 degrees I would think Star Choices deal for an additional 10 transponders transferable to Anik F2 would still apply.

So I still think it is very likely that if Star Choices wants to use up to 26 transponders on Anik F2 they will be available to Star Choice.

[snoman]

OK now here's something everybody seems to be forgetting.

BEV has 2 dedicated DBS satellites used for tv and one way internet only, that's it nothing more.

SC has to share 2 FSS satellites with everyone else using those 2 birds. You know those little white rectangular dishes with the funky LNBs on the end sitting on banks, dealerships, businesses and department stores? You know those news trucks with little dishes with the funky LNBs on them as well you see around town from time to time? How do you think all that data and on location news spots gets uplinked? Nimiq? Not bloody likely. The Anik fleet does that and that takes transponder space my friends. That's why SC doesn't have the luxury of scooping up every transponder on every Anik bird.

[bigoranget]

Many of those vans are not using satellite, they are using microwave relays. Also Bell only has a max of 26 transponders on Nimiq 2 and Nimiq 1 has 32.

Star Choice has 29 transponders on F1 and 16 (possibly 26) on F2. So Bell only has a 3 transponder advantage.

[Dale_Robertson]

I guess I should post Star Choices reply to the HDTV questions raised in the interventions.

I see the CRTC web site does not seem to allow direct linking to the Document but if you go to the CRTC web page for the Oct. 20th hearings at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/process/2003/oct20.htm and go to the interventions and find Star Choice's reply in the list(On the second page I believe) you can read the entire document.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
HDTV

72. In its intervention, the CAB expresses the view that Star Choice is operating a programming undertaking without Commission authorization by exhibiting HDTV programming on dedicated HDTV channels. CAB also alleges that retransmission by Star Choice of HDTV programming "that has been taken from licensed Canadian broadcasters" is a violation of the "exclusive rights that the broadcaster has acquired to exhibit the programming.

73. Star Choice does exhibit HDTV programming on dedicated HDTV channels. There are two sources of this programming.

74. The first source is the pay and specialty programming undertakings whose signals are distributed by Star Choice in the traditional format. These undertakings sometimes supply Star Choice with HDTV versions of the traditional programming and authorize Star Choice to exhibit the HDTV programming on dedicated HDTV channels. It is Star Choice's suppliers, and not Star Choice, that are operating the programming undertakings. Star Choice is not in any way violating the rights of the suppliers, since they expressly authorize Star Choice to effect the exhibition of the HDTV programming.

75. The second source is over-the-air transmission of HDTV versions of programming that is identical to analog programming of over-the-air broadcasters whose analog signals are being retransmitted by Star Choice. Foreign broadcasters are the primary source of this HDTV programming, although Star Choice expects to be retransmitting HDTV programming transmitted by CITY-TV pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Commission in Decision CRTC 2003-8.

76. Star Choice believes it distributes HDTV programming in substantially the same way as other broadcasting distribution undertakings in Canada. It also notes that the Commission has clearly stated its objective of ensuring the broadest possible distribution of HDTV programming.

77. In Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-31 – A licensing policy to oversee the transition from analog to digital, over-the-air television broadcasting – the Commission noted that "it considers that the policy for the transition from analog to digital television should favour the broadcast of HDTV programming [as opposed to a multiple of program and data streams], and of Canadian programming in particular". The Commission accordingly proposed to require that all unduplicated programming broadcast by a transitional digital television station be in HDTV format.

78. The Commission coupled this determination with complementary proposals for
broadcasting distribution undertakings in Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-32 – Call for comments on a proposed policy framework for the distribution of digital television services. The Commission noted that "the interests of Canadian broadcasters and Canadian program producers would be well served by any measure that speeds the introduction of DTV technology to the home". The Commission accordingly proposed that BDUs would be permitted to add the digital version of authorized Canadian and non-Canadian services without further authorization. In the Public Notice, the Commission repeats its preference for the use of DTV technology to deliver the superior picture quality of HDTV programming rather than low-definition digital multicasting of existing analog services.

79. The foregoing policy preferences of the Commission in Broadcasting Public Notices CRTC 2002-31 and 32 have already been implemented in a least one CRTC decision. In Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-8 – CITY-TV Toronto – transitional digital television licence – the Commission has required that all unduplicated programming transmitted by CITY-TV's digital undertaking be broadcast in HDTV format and that all simulcast programming during the evening broadcast period be broadcast in HDTV format to the extent that such programming is available to CITY-TV.

80. Finally, the Commission has provided a specific endorsement of the distribution of HDTV programming by DTH distribution undertakings. In Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2003-37 – Direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting distribution undertakings – simultaneous and non-simultaneous program deletion and the carriage of local television stations in smaller markets – the Commission declined to require Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu to distribute the signals of all licensed Canadian television stations since this would, among other things, reduce the capacity of the DTH undertakings to distribute emerging services such as HDTV.

81. Given the current limited availability of HDTV programming and the fact that HDTV programming cannot technically be distributed on the same channels as are used for other programming, it is feasible to distribute HDTV programming only via dedicated channels which contain either (i) HDTV programming supplied by a pay or specialty programming undertaking, or (ii) HDTV programming received off-air that is exhibited simultaneously with the exhibition of the traditional version of such programming on other channels.

82.If the Commission is concerned that Star Choice does not have the requisite regulatory authority to exhibit HDTV programming in the foregoing manner, then Star Choice would respectfully request that such authority be granted by way of a condition of licence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pauldryan]

Dale,

I can see tha CRTC being pressured to temporarily allow the Rogers, Starchoice, BEV, etc the right to 'program' an HDTV specialty channel or channels. CTV, Global , and Craig would be nuts to allow this sort of transgression into their bread and butter activities without a fight.

This issue will bring enormous pressure on the Canadian networks to get at least an east and west OTA HD broadcast in place quickly. Let's face it though, if the CRTC allowed the cable and DTH companies to mix and match US network programming into their own specialty channels, who would ever watch the Canadian networks again? That's all they do.

The new HD universe is shaping up to require no less than dedicated east and west feed for US networks and the Canadian networks HD feed as soon as they add HD broadcasts. Right now, early adopters are ecstatic to get a single feed of E.R. in HD, soon the DTH companies will have to provide four versions of that HD feed, plus the conventional SD feeds they have been providing already. At a minimum, this will quadruple StarChoice's HD bandwidth obligations with no new revenue stream to offset the transponder leasing, except higher user fees.

This will have a dramatic impact on already limited bandwidth by all providers.

Paul

[bigoranget]

I believe that Sat companies in the beginning will simply "remap" the SD channel on the HD channel when no HD programs are available. This will save an enormous amount of bandwidth. Right now it is simply not feasible for star choice to have 4 sets of HD nets. Bell could probably do it, but definately not star choice.

[Arthur]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I believe that Sat companies in the beginning will simply "remap" the SD channel on the HD channel when no HD programs are available.

[/ QUOTE ]

And where will the bandwidth come from when all the nets are showing HD?
It is not allowed to simsub with a signal of less quality, SD upconvert looks a lot better than SD locals so I don't think remaping will solve the problem.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Star Choice has 29 transponders on F1 and 16 (possibly 26) on F2. So Bell only has a 3 transponder advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or a 13 transponder advantage, never count your chickens before they hatch, I made that mistake when *C went dual sat.

[Dede]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But who would they lease them too? Unless they are leasing them to US companies, they will probably be unused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! As I've said before, the FCC granted the status of "permitted space station" to Anik F2 back in December 2002. Any company in the U.S. can use F2 to offer services other than DTH to it's customers. An excerpt from the first paragraph of the order:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In this Order, we add a Canadian satellite, Anik F2, located at 111.1° W.L., to the Commission’s Permitted Space Station List ("Permitted List"), with certain conditions. As a result of this action, U.S. earth stations with "routine" technical parameters will be able to communicate with Anik F2 immediately, in the conventional C- and Ku-band frequencies,1 without license modifications. This should stimulate competition in the United States, provide consumers another alternative in choosing communications providers and services, reduce prices, and facilitate technological innovation. In this Order, we also grant Telesat’s request to use the Ka-band capacity2 of Anik F2 to provide two-way broadband communications services in the United States. This should also stimulate competition in the United States, and expand provision of broadband service in rural areas."

[/ QUOTE ]

We are provide with some insights as to the possible use of the KU transponders further down in the document.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Telesat requests authorization to provide analog television, point-to-point and point-to-multipoint wideband and narrowband digital services, including voice and data, as well as Internet services, in the conventional C-band. Telesat also requests to provide the same services as requested in the C-band, plus VSAT services, in the conventional Ku-band. It seeks permission to provide all of these C- and Kuband services to, from, and within the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if the remaining 16 KU transponders would be "unused". In fact, looking at the amount of money already coming in for the pre-purchase of F2 transponders, there must be quite a few anxious customers waiting to see this bird get off the ground.

So as Arthur has said, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

I will add that personnallly, StarChoice's bleak bandwidth outlook was a determining factor in my decision to discontinue my service with *C and switch to Bell last month. I really can't see how they'll be able to keep up with Bev's offering....

[pauldryan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I believe that Sat companies in the beginning will simply "remap" the SD channel on the HD channel

[/ QUOTE ]
If this were really technically practical, why isn't it already happening with five different flavours of let's say E.R. currently showing in SD on a few Global channels and maybe CHEX or one of those independents or the new locals?

Let's face it, in the 300 channel universe, there is inevitably a slew of repetitious programming at any given moment. How many channels do you think are carrying the Yankees/Red Sox game at this very moment?

[bigoranget]

It will be interesting to see what happens. If Star Choice doesnt figure out how to get more bandwidth than the 16 transponders currently allocated to F2, they definately will have some problems.

The thing I want to know is how is either Bell or Star Choice going to offer Canadian HDTV channels when they start going on the air. The way things are its not feasible to offer HDTV channels from every city. They could probably only offer Toronto and Vancouver at best. What about when more specialty channels go HD.

[pauldryan]

That's the issue I've been pushing in this thread. I don't believe for a moment that this problem is isolated to StarChoice, even though they will feel its effects first. What cable company will have the necessary bandwidth to satisfy duplicating all Canadian networks (by timezone) in high definition? Even if ExpressVu had transponders available, is this a sensible use of valuable resources?

I believe that the overall industry must rethink conventional expectations to address the huge impact of duplicating everyone's SD programming in high definition.

Paul