Tuesday, July 29, 2014


I receive many U.S. TV channels with rabbit ears and a converter box, but there is always interference that breaks my picture (and sound) into jigsaw pieces. Are cable or satellite companies deliberately interfering with free TV reception to FORCE the public to buy their services? If so, isn't that a criminal offence under federal law?

The policy of not protecting the U.S stations being received here is a form of coercion that directly benefits the cable and satellite companies and hurts the consumer. Add to this the fact that there is no advertising of the reality that there are tv signals available freely over the air and that the general public is being deliberately kept in the dark. These actions force people into the clutches of these price goughing conglomerates. I've had both cable and satellite before so I know firsthand how these services force people to buy bundles of mostly useless channels just to have the one or two that you really want. There is no protection and education here for the consumer. Many customers to my store are stunned over the picture quality of the Sony in the store and don't know what an antenna is ! The NAB in the U.S. has stated that there are almost 60 million people relying on over the air antenna for their tv watching. The problem here is that there is suppression of the truth with regards to FREE TV.

Robert Anstee

ABC 22 was originally offered channel 16 by the FCC when the switch to digital was made but they refused it. If they had accepted there would have been no
no issues with reception. Their choice was strictly a monetary one as ABC and FOX have the same owner and their two channels are the weakest on Mount Mansfield. The channel allocations were poorly thought out when the digital switchover came as cross-border reception wasn't taken into consideration. No doubt they receive our signals there as well. As for FOX reception here, it was a surprise to me when the tower shut down that I could receive them so well. I was under the impression that they were directing their signal to the South and West. The July 7th shut-down proved that there is something else at play here.

Robert Anstee

I don't think that companies like Bell or BCE should own tv stations or networks, it's ethically wrong. They have TOO much control now, they decide what goes out free over the air and what goes through their cables. They now control production and distribution. The television networks and broadcasters should be independent oc the cable and satellite companies. Many channels that are on these services could be broadcast freely over the air. As for ABC and FOX here, they operate on a welfare budget. The FOX station in Buffalo New York is operated under different management and puts out 1000kw.

The general public don't know about OTA because newspapers like the Gazette don't print any articles on the subject. Companies like Shaw, Videotron, and Bell advertise in the Gazette and would prefer that people remain ignorant about antennas. They don't want the public to be educated as that would jepordize their monopolies....

Fagstein Post author  To be clear, Industry Canada does protect stations from interference, but only within their authorized contours. So Montreal stations are protected here, but stations from adjacent markets like Burlington/Plattsburgh, Ottawa, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières are not protected in Montreal. Not allowing adjacent channels in adjacent markets might not be practical considering the number of stations and number of available channels.


1 comment:

Kenneth V. Tellis said...

I believe that someone higher up in the government is getting paid by the Cable companies to permit them to stop people receiving U.S. TV stations by causing the problem of interference. It is time to rein in these criminals who post as government.