To understand non-simultaneous substitution, one must be aware of what simultaneous substitution (simsub) is. Basically, it is what occurs when a Canadian and American channel show a program at the same time. The cable and satellite providers are required to delete the US version and substitute the Canadian feed, hence the reason why Canadians see CTV and Global commercials on US networks like NBC and ABC.
Taking Simultaneous Substitution a Step Further
While the practice does help to protect Canadian broadcasters, it is far from perfect as it is not always possible for a Canadian network to simulcast the US program, due to scheduling conflicts. Because of this, Canadian Broadcasters feel that it may be time to look again at the idea of non-simultaneous substitution, meaning that a prerecorded version of a Canadian feed could be used when a simulcast is not possible.
Not only would broadcasters no longer be required to simulcast the US program, but the gap between the Canadian and US broadcast could be a much as seven days. An opinion piece in The Toronto Star, written by Douglas Barrett and Stephen Stohn, even goes so far as to suggest that Canada's broadcasters would settle for a smaller fee-for-carriage if this policy were put into place.
But before we open a bottle of champagne to celebrate the end of Canada's TV war, there are still a number of complications which must be dealt with. The concept of non-simsubs is not new. It was first raised a decade ago but it has never been implemented because of too many complications.
Viewer Confusion and Other Obstacles
Non-simsubs could create a lot of confusion. Regular simsubs are already perplexing as a viewer often sees promos on NBC or ABC announcing that a show, like CSI, is coming up next on CTV, not realizing that CSI will actually be on a different channel. Under the news rules, it'll get even more confusing as even viewers who are smart enough change the channel, may discover that they've missed CSI altogether, as late as seven days ago.
Then there are all the logistics. Under the new rules of non-simsubbing, someone will now have to go through the hassle of recording a local TV signal so that substitutions could be made at later point in time. Even the CRTC's own documentation states that while this may be feasible, it can't be implemented without some cost.
Also the opinion piece assumes that the Canadian channel will be the one airing a program first. The reality is that when a simulcast isn't possible, it's often the US network that will air the program first. So unless Barrett and Stohn have also recently invented a time machine, the practice of simply recording a local channel won't do.
The Technology Exists, But is it Worth It?
To get around this problem, the CRTC report, which has done a much better job at looking at all the obstacles, suggests that a local version of a program could be available ahead of time but not without some major adjustments. For an example, additional space would have to made available on the satellite TV infrastructure, a scenario which is difficult to imagine considering that some local stations still aren't available on DTH Satellite.
To be fair, with the digital technology that exists today, the possibility of non-simsubbing is actually more realistic than it ever has been before, hence why the issue has resurfaced. What some viewers may not know is that a lot of local TV spots today are already being inserted in far away centralized network locations like Toronto and Vancouver, and in some cases the work is already occurring ahead of time because of time differences.
However even regular simsubbing today doesn’t always occur when it should, so it’s difficult to imagine that non-simsubbing would be problem-free. In the end, if all of this gets to complicated, cable and satellite providers could decide that it's simpler to just to blackout a non-local channel. And yes the b-word has also been raised.
Could This Backfire with Canada Spending More Money on US TV?
The biggest drawback is that this could cause the ironic unwanted side-effect of Canadian networks spending even more money on US programming. Because of the wording of CTV and Global's contracts with US TV producers, Hollywood could interpret this additional substitutions as repeat broadcasts and therefore ask for more royalties.
Plus, there would be a new loophole created whereby there would be no real limit to how many US shows a Canadian station could buy. Even if the entire prime-time schedule is filled to the 50% Non-Canadian limit, no problem. Purchase more US network shows and schedule them at 3 AM, if need be. A normally worthless time-slot is suddenly worth gold as cable and satellite TV will be forced to rerun those 3 AM commercials during prime time.
Finally, even if the broadcasters get their non-simsubs, they still want to right to negotiate for a fee-for-carriage in addition to that. And if they don’t get the fee that they want, they want to have the right to yank their programming and impose blackouts on US networks, according to another opinion piece printed in the Calgary Herald.
The CRTC Will Decide
Interestingly, when the non-simsub issue first appeared a decade ago, it wasn't so much the US signals but rather the then new Canadian timeshifting signals that were the evil culprit du jour. Yet Barrett and Stohn completely avoided that aspect. It's almost as if they're trying deliberately to hide just how complex this could get.
As the CRTC hearings regarding the state of local television continue, the broadcasters may be forced choose a middle-ground. Viewers could end up seeing more local ads in some cases and a compromise of more Canadian non-local ads in other cases. But if they want a substitution of every possible signal that exists, well then they shouldn’t hold their breath.
Steve Hatton - Steve Hatton is a Montreal-based freelance writer and journalist who covers the television industry, including TV show reviews and media ...
Join the Conversation