On Television
Definitions:
1
A system for converting visual images (with sound) into electrical
signals, transmitting them by radio or other means, and displaying
them electronically on a screen.
2
A device with a screen for receiving television signals.
Television
(TV), sometimes shortened to tele or telly, is a
telecommunication medium used for transmitting moving images in
monochrome
(black and white), or in color, and in two or three
dimensions and sound. The term can refer to a television
set, a television program ("TV show"), or the medium of
television
transmission. Television is a mass
medium for advertising, entertainment and news.
Source:
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television
That is the classic and
technical definition of television when it was first introduced, the
technology to broadcast video in the way that radio was broadcast and
the receiver (television set) to view the video on.
I was three years old
in Sudbury when television was first available to the city.
CKSO Television History
The station was launched on October 25, 1953 by Sudbury businessmen
George Miller, Jim
Cooper and Bill Plaunt.[1]
It was the first privately owned television station to launch in
Canada, and only the fourth television station overall after CBC
Television's owned and operated stations in Toronto,
Montreal and
Ottawa. Its
original call sign was CKSO-TV. The station was a CBC
affiliate, receiving programs by kinescope
until a microwave
relay system linked the station to Toronto in 1956. The station
originally broadcast only from 7 to 11 p.m., but by the end of its
first year in operation it was on the air from 3:30 p.m. to
midnight.[2]
Source:
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICI-TV
(Redirected from CKSO-TV)
Although it was a few
or several years before TV ownership became widespread enough that we
had one I was old enough to remember first getting television. I
guess one could call it our generation's “screen time” although
we were not nearly as enamoured with it as people seem to be with
“screens” these days. It was something that amused us when we
were finished our homework and it was too dark to go out and play or
early weekend mornings before we went to meet our friends. But
overall we would much rather be out with our friends playing in the
rocks along the creek or rail line near the slag dump, tossing rocks
and watching the quicksand suck them up. Yes play at that time was
not adult organized competitive activities but a time to use our
imagination and learn to be independent.
At that time we had one
channel which carried the CBC
and eventually we got a CTV
station. The next big thing was something called CATV or Community
Antenna Television. This was the first iteration of cable
television or Cable TV. A large antenna picked up the signals of
the American networks that previously only southern Ontario could
receive and they were distributed via coax cable to individual homes.
This was the first version of Cable, no specialized or cable only
channels just broadcast channels, from further distances and often a
clearer signal than broadcast TV depending on where you lived.
At this point we
essentially are still within the original definition of television
which ties together the broadcast technology and the television set.
The next technological
change started to change that. The introduction of the VCR
meant one could watch content on a television set that did not
originate with a TV broadcaster, mainly commercial movies and home
movies shot on videotape. VCRs were later supplanted by DVD
and Blu-ray
players.
The cable companies
that had been re-transmitting over-the-air (OTA)
broadcast TV signals were beginning to receive these signals via
microwave and satellite around the same time as competitors began
transmitting TV packages similar to cable TV via satellite
direct to the home.
This led to the next
innovation and the elimination of the necessary link between TV
broadcasters and television sets. Television sets no longer required
an over-the-air signal to provide content to their owners as
cable/satellite TV only channels started providing programming
without any OTA broadcast facilities, their signals being delivered
by cable/satellite TV providers.
Most TV watchers in
urban centres now received their TV from cable (and in some cases
satellite) TV providers without any outdoor antenna or infamous
rabbit
ears being used. Without the limitations of broadcast frequencies
TV providers could provide unlimited numbers of cable only channels.
These channels started out with higher quality content and without
advertising to distinguish them from the free broadcast channels but
soon they changed to channels full of reruns and cheaply produced
“reality” TV with advertising. “Premium” channels without
advertising and with higher quality content were then introduced at
even higher prices. Of course, with control of the distribution of
channels they could ensure subscribers paid for their channels that
produced profits for them by including them in the packages people
have to buy to get the channels they actually want.
At this point we have
gone from free over-the-air television to fee for cable TV to cable
TV with almost unlimited channels and unlimited price points for
service and it appears unlimited room for customer dissatisfaction
particularly in the United
States and Canada.
The thing about paying
more for a higher tier of cable television is that you are not
actually paying to watch more television, just for more choice, most
of which you are not interested in.
And then came
“streaming”.
Streaming
television (streaming TV or internet television) is the digital
distribution of television
content, such as TV
shows, as streaming
video delivered over the Internet.
Streaming TV stands in contrast to dedicated terrestrial
television delivered by over-the-air
aerial systems, cable
television, and/or satellite
television systems.
Source:
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_television
With the Internet,
companies and individuals could provide content to anyone with
Internet access without having to build their own distribution
network. You no longer needed to be a huge corporation with
mega-millions of dollars of infrastructure to be in the TV business.
Even individuals could distribute content via websites
and later via YouTube
and other similar online
video platforms, and then came Netflix
followed by a series of other streaming services and everything
started to change
But first let's step
away from talking about television distribution technology and look
at the other half of the technology equation, what we used to call
“television
sets” now more often just called screens.
The first TV I
personally owned was a 17” black and white portable TV I brought
with me to Ottawa when I started working for the Library of
Parliament. I spent more time listening to CBC radio than I did
watching TV at that time. I believe about 50% of what I learned about
the world in those days I learned from CBC Radio.
In the early days a 20
inch TV was a large screen TV. The largest conventional analog
cathode-ray
tube (CRT) TV we owned before making the big jump to a flat
screen liquid-crystal
display/LED-backlit
LCD TV was a 36 inch huge and heavy television set.
Nowadays such TVs have
gone the way of the dinosaurs. There are only two acceptable ways to
watch TV, either on a 60 inch plus wide screen TV or on a two to
three inch smartphone
screen.
Your big screen TV is
no longer just a television set but part of a home
theatre system often with surround sound and of course comfy
chairs.
We do have to admit we
noticed a huge difference in picture quality when moving from analog
TV on a CRT to high-definition
digital TV
on an LED/LCD TV. However we do not notice a large difference between
different levels of HD, and when downloading content we often
download the lower HD file because of size and time considerations.
We also notice a large improvement in picture quality on old SD
content compared to our old CRT screen TV. I personally do not
understand the need for ultra-high-definition
television, except to get people to upgrade to new 4K (or 8K)
sets.
This all comes as part
of a trend of people spending much more of their time at home for
entertainment rather than going to concerts, theatre or movies, often
called cocooning.
And part of this, of
course, is the dominance of television as it has become in the
“million channel universe”. So we return to our discussion of how
television programs as we know them are distributed.
The problem with the
proliferation of choice from the conventional providers' multiple tiers of cable
television with increasing prices per tier, coupled with the addition
of multiple streaming sources all with their own price points, is
that you are not actually paying to watch more television, just for
more choice, most of which you are not interested in.
Indeed we found
ourselves in that situation. After upgrading to a higher tier to get
a channel we wanted that was only available in that tier we decided
we were paying for too many channels we did not watch. We cut back to
the lowest tier available and to CRTC-mandated
Skinny Basic Cable TV as soon as it was available. We later
supplemented that with some carefully chosen theme packs that
included they types of programming we wanted, primarily scripted
drama as well as history and science programming. While many
people criticized the CRTC's skinny basic cable requirement it
certainly improved the value for money we were able to get from our
cable TV provider.
We also had Netflix
and we later added Crave/HBO
Canada to our Cable package. We supplement that with free sources
of programming available online. We are paying a total of about $100
for television programming, a considerable increase from the $00 for
free over-the-air TV when it was first introduced.
However some people are
going a different route, using traditional torrents
to get programming at no cost or unauthorized free streaming sites
often along with the use of VPNs.
People do this often in
reaction to what they consider to be a broken system where watching
everything they want requires subscribing to multiple channels or
services just to get the shows they want while paying for access to
shows they do not want to watch. But of course this alternative is
unsustainable for everyone as nobody would be paying for the
production of content.
Free
TV' Android boxes finding their way into many Canadian households,
study says
The devices come pre-loaded with software that makes it easy to pirate movies and shows, says expert
Forget
illegal downloading; many Canadians are getting hooked on
unauthorized streaming, according to a new study. This emerging type
of piracy often involves a simple box running an Android operating
system that's loaded with special software.
Connect
it to your TV, and you can easily stream a vast selection of
pirated movies and TV shows —even live television, including
sports.
Dealers
sell the boxes for a one-time fee, typically around $100, with the
promise of "free TV."
Where do we go from
here. We have to acknowledge the system is broken to a large degree
because the major players in content production and distribution have
huge investments in what is now essentially obsolete technology –
the broadcast and cable distribution system, at least as far as most
of what people want to watch.
What still dominates
the television system (perhaps not for long) is scheduled programming
on set channels pushed at the consumers rather than programming
consumers watch when they want to. And because for some reason these
channels must broadcast 24 hours a day the majority of programming is
repeats or multiple variations on shows about flipping houses,
visiting pawn shops, how to do home projects you are not working on
at the moment, housewives of every city on the planet, etc. etc.. Of
course every channel has a few worthwhile programs and even some very
good ones, but never enough for 24 hours a week, 7 days a week and
certainly not possible to have the programs on when it is convenient
for everyone that wants to watch them to do so.
Television providers
try to get around this failing of push technology by providing
DVRs/PVRs
or On Demand services but that is just a work around for a failed
concept.
Consumers have the
Internet . When
they are looking for information they are used to going to the
Internet and finding what they want when they want it. They are now
expecting to be able to access their entertainment as easily and
simply as they access information.
But let us take a step
sideways and consider whether there is still a role for traditional
scheduled TV that you have to watch when the distributor makes it
available, and the answer is yes.
Originally TV was
broadcast live
and some things are still best when watched live. I am thinking of
sports and breaking news in particular but live broadcasts of
cultural events such as concerts and theatre would fall in that
category as well. Nobody wants to watch old news so there will always
be a place for cable
news channels (although the might be broadcast via the Internet)
and most people prefer to watch sporting events as they happen since
knowing the result beforehand compromises (to put it lightly) the
experience.
But for scripted drama
programs, movies and documentaries people prefer to be able to watch
when they have time. Even reality
TV, for those fans of pawn shops, real estate flipping, watching
other people cook or yell at aspiring restaurateurs, and overly
dramatized dating shows, is more conveniently watched at the viewers
choice of time.
For television series,
in the old days of only network broadcast TV, you watched them when
they were on. If you heard about a show from someone you had to start
watching it mid season. Today's viewers want to watch series from the
beginning of the series and even Cable TV On Demand services rarely
allow for that, having only the current season available at most.
Streaming services are
best suited to provide television to viewers in the manner they wish
to consume it. But consumers, who are leaving traditional TV because
they have to subscribe to TV packages and channels that include
mostly programming they do not want to watch to get what they want,
are faced with the same dilemma with streaming services, having to
subscribe to multiple services to get all the programs they want and
pay for access to programs they do not want.
So is there a solution.
We have the technology. Having the will to make it happen is the
issue.
The first thing I would
like to see happen, in the Internet age of international access to
information, is getting rid of regional distribution rights, in fact
get rid of exclusive distribution rights altogether.
We have the technology
for streaming services to know how many times an individual has
streamed a particular episode or film, in effect how many products
they have sold to each customer. Just like manufacturers do not
restrict the sale of their products to exclusive retailers (perhaps
with some exceptions) neither should content producers.
All streaming services
should be able to provide all content to all customers with
regulations in place to prevent price gouging of both the streaming
service by the content producer and the viewing customer by the
streaming service.
Streaming services
would then compete by their interface, how customer friendly it is,
and their pricing structure. Customers should be able to just
purchase individual movies or TV series at a reasonable price and
have access to whatever type of packages the streaming companies wish
to offer in competition with each other.
The answer is simple
but realistically, without a complete rejection of the system with
everyone abandoning paid TV service for piracy, the powers to be are
likely to settle for small incremental changes with eventually
multiple streaming services replacing Cable TV as the dominant source
of programming.
As incremental changes
go, one thing I would like to see happen is a co-operative
established among public
broadcasters to share their productions internationally.
The role of public
broadcasters is to tell their peoples' stories as well as to inform
their people about the world. But it is not only their own people
they should want to reach but the rest of the world as well. One way
they can do that is by making content freely available on the
Internet and the other is by making it available, as part of o
co-operative effort with other public broadcasters to share
programming with their viewers. That one effort by itself would make
large amounts of high quality content available freely to viewers.
And what does The
Fifth Column watch.
We are certainly not
part of the cult of folks who seem to hate everything Canadian,
particularly Canadian music, movies and television. It seems to be a
matter of pride for them to hate all things Canadian. Many of these
are the people Trump would welcome into his country with open arms
and since they seem to worship the USA I am uncertain why they are
still here.
Probably about half of
what we watch is Canadian, primarily CBC,
followed by British, particularly BBC,
and other foreign shows, including some very good Americana cable
network shows. We find most American broadcast network shows to be
formulaic and uninteresting, but there are some notable exceptions.