Talk:Simultaneous substitution

Miscellaneous topics

Why do they substitute the signal in this way? Under what circumstances? Is it effectively a prohibition on two channels showing the same foreign programming or is it just about adverts? It's not clear to me. Mr. Jones 09:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you still care (your post was months ago) or for anyone paying attention to this page, it is not a prohibition of two channels showing the same foreign programming. If two channels, one Canadian, one American, say, Global and FOX, are airing the same program, say, The Simpsons, cable companies must (if requested by Global) substitute the Global signal for the FOX signal so that Global is seen on both the Global and Fox channels. This forces the viewer to see the Canadian commercials (if they have tuned to the American channel) which benefits the Canadian broadcaster. Not sure if this information would be helpful in the article. -- 20:14, 03 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article already addresses that. In fact, I *wrote* it addressing that. Bearcat 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, BC. Will review this later. Mr. Jones 10:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apologies to Bearcat, but I had to come to this talk page to read the explanation provided here - it really wasn't clear to me (as a non-North American reader with no prior knowledge) what you were trying to convey 128.240.229.3 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is incomprehensible for anyone not familiar with Television in Canada. 23 Jan 2006

Anyone notice that this seems to be defunct? The past few shows I saw, such as "The Simpsons" and "Jay Leno", FOX's original air signal was shown. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, though you may have the same case I do. If you have Rogers here in Fredericton, digital cable viewers don't get them but analog viewers still do. I don't know how they get away with that; and Rogers digital subscribers in Ontario have told me they still get simsubs. Kirjtc2 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this only happened recently. Simsubbing was done full-fledge with my cable provider until about a day ago. All of a sudden it has stopped, completely. Is this law perhaps dissolved?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly it's a technical issue at with your cable/satellite provider and it should be back within a few days. It happens where I live on the rare occasion. Rest assured the CRTC hasn't gotten rid of simsubbing. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw is now starting HD simsubbing in Vancouver, crap. I first noticed it on The View, oh how I longed for the American Signal in HD, and now, if it can be simsubbed, it will be. crap. --Jack Zhang (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Same thing now happening with Global, making most of the US originating signals unwatchable without simsubbing since these are the two of the major simsubbers in Canada. --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main bugaboo for Canadians was that, historically, American stations had fewer commercials so the Canadian station would cut out parts of the program to fit it into the time slot. That would irk us! If the Canadian signal had an unaltered version of the program, then there should be no problem with having to watch it on a Canadian station even when your cable is tuned to the position of an American station.

I noticed in the 1970s that American half-hour programs had 5.5 minutes of ads, and one-hour programs had 10 minutes of ads, at least in prime time. It could be longer in the daytime. Canadian stations did not have the flexibility of having variable amounts of ad time - they were rigidly regulated to 12 minutes per hour, though new broadcasters might be allowed less - Global started off at eight or ten minutes per hour, and only later was its licence amended to allow up to 12.

Not unlike radio in Canada. FM advertising was strictly controlled like TV, but AM advertising was much more free-wheeling - they had a daily limit for ads between 6 am and midnight, but no limit for overnight and no limit for how much in a daytime hour. Whatever the market would bear! Television ads seem to have become more flexible in Canada.GBC (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simulcast on CTV

I live in Quebec city Canada and I can say that there's no simultaneous substitution with CTV's feed. I don't know if there's any sort of infringement made by CTV, but at least here in Quebec city the substitution thing is not an issue. For the first time in a long time people will be able to watch the ads of the superbowl this year without CTV's substitution feed.VincentG (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMSUB SUCKS WORSE THAN THE WNBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.123.5 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this random comment gets a thumbs up! --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather jump off the CN and land on a bicycle without a seat than be forced a prisoner in my own home due to simsubbing when trying to watch NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.220.122 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since FOX is doing the first game today of the divisional playoffs with the Eagles - Giants, and then CBS the second game with the Chargers - Steelers, will CrapTV hijack the first feed until the end and then cut away from any FOX post-game interviews / show, and go to CBS immediately and catch that game in mid-play? How does CTV co-ordinate these hijackings so effectively? Does it employ Osama Bin Laden, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Sheikh Salman al-Ouda to carry them out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.220.122 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make channels 1080i only to be compatible with simsubs?

This can't go on any page because it is deemed "original research", but all signals for our Vancouver Shaw HD service (including ABC and FOX) are now exclusively 1080i. This will cause problems with re-compression from 720p to 1080i but it makes it a lot easier to simsub the channels. (Too bad there's no east coast channels to simsub, so all east coast signals are pure, but still converted to 1080i) I reached this when I saw and said "Why is the raw stream of ABC and FOX 1080i? It's supposed to be 720p..." --Jack Zhang (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a show is broadcast in 1080i on a major US network (CBS and NBC), and a Canadian network is hijacking but is broadcasting only at 720p, the resulting hijacked feed will be only 921,600 pixels, while a 1080i signal is 1,382,400 pixels, a difference of 460, 800 pixels! This is an inferior feed then, and the CRTC cannot view the picture being of equal or better quality, so the simsub shouldn't happen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.237.29.125 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The feed is up-converted to 1080i from 720p, not the opposite, so it's legal, yet still it recompresses the feed. But, the horizontal resolution will decrease from 720 to 540. --Jack Zhang (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that Bell TV converts everything to 720p, and they simsub nationally. That is wrong. And Shaw and Star Choice convert everything into 1080i, you lose horizontal resolution doing that. --Jack Zhang (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a 1080i signal is 1920 x 1080, meaning it has 1920 pixels of horizontal resolution (1920 vertical scan lines), and since each frame is interlaced and drawn 1/60th of a second, it has 540 pixels of vertical resolution (540 horizontal scan lines). Likewise, a 720p signal has 1280 pixels of horizontal resolution (1280 vertical scan lines) and 720 pixels of vertical resolution (720 horizontal scan lines), so if you convert from 720p to 1080i, you actually gain horizontal resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.62.106 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical is the 1920, Horizontal is the 540 (or I meant to say, you lose horizontal scan line resolution). But since some BDUs convert everything to 1080i, it's possibly legal. But what Bell TV does by converting everything to 720p makes their simsubs wrong. --Jack Zhang (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTV is insane...

Shaw viewers in the Vancouver area viewing the 2009 Super Bowl have had all the NBC affiliates, Standard Definition or High Definition, simsubbed by CTV. I mean all of them! Possibly making the Super Bowl Ads unwatchable! I just can't imagine them simsubbing all the NBC affilates on the grid! Same in Toronto? --Jack Zhang (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no hijack of Obama speech tonight? I can help CTV and Global acheive this result. They can choose from NBC, CBS, ABC or FOX. The choice is theirs. Keep me posted. Signed, Osama

Massive Butcherings

How about 4 big time butchered simsubs in the last two days:

February 8 - Global cuts off the end of the NCAA on CBS and shows the Simpsons while the PGA on CBS is delayed until 3:03 by CBS

February 8 - Sun TV hijacks the NBA on ABC and takes the HD feed and slaps it on the SD channel, resulting in black bars on the top and bottom. Then at halftime, Sun TV loses the HD feed and shows the SD feed on the HD channel, and the HD reduced feed on the SD channel as well, resulting in black bars on the top and bottom, and double black bars on the sides - resulting in a picture about 1/2 the total screensize on a widescreen TV when viewing ABC SD. Also, the sound was 2.0 throughout the entire telecast for the first simsubbed game (Celtics - Spurs). The Lakers - Cavs game was unmolested on ABC and everything was fine.

February 8 - The Grammys on CBS had massive audio dropouts as a result of Global hijacking the feed.

February 9 - Global interrupts FOX's 24 and shows commercials in the middle of the show!

It'll only get worse as the Academy Awards this Sunday. Looks like CTV wants to carry all their major events live on both coasts to hijack all signals. All CTVglobemedia stations also say that "Due to federal regulations, we can't show the Super Bowl Ads" (it also applies to all CTV assets that aren't local news showing best of reels). What a load of BS, It's them pressuring those regulators to do it in the first place. That Sun TV thing might be only on Bell TV satellite, they're the worst when it comes to simsubs, all simsubbable programming is simsubbed from the uplink center. --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nightmare is true again, The Acadamy Awards are simsubbed just like the Super Bowl in the OTA transmitter areas. And all programs will be done so like this moving forward. There goes another freedom. *insert explicit language here*. CTV is communism. --Jack Zhang (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping (in progress March 7, 2009)

I am currently in the process of revamping the article. I have already made changes to the intro., which include more specific references to simsubbing as a uniquely Canadian practice. Although the similar practice of syndex occurs in the US, it is separate, and simsubbing is unique to Canada and the CRTC. I am still looking to revamp the body of the article, which has not yet been affected short of the removal of the "United States" section. Please feel free to comment here regarding any comments, suggestions, or otherwise. Thank you. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the introduction should be very, very simple. Something like "Simsubbing is the practice when a Canadian network is put overtop of an American network and the original American commercials are replaced, and parts of the original American broadcast are cut out, missed, and the endings ruined."

Crazy, thanks for the note on my talk page; sorry I haven't been able to reply until now. I'll take a look through the page over the next few days and comment. (Initial thoughts are that it needs more references, as forums and blogs aren't suitable, and that there seems to be too much of a focus on complaints.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is confusing. I don't know what "substituting over something" means. It's not clear that the Canadian network signal replaces the American one, as well as what happens to commercials. The article is also lacking a "Method" section explaining the technical aspects of Simultaneous substitution, as all we have so far are the consequences.

I would do it, but I came across here exactly because I know nothing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.240.189 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on some additions to the introduction to help make it more clear to the average reader as to what simultaneous substitution actually entails. It is difficult to make a good balance of wording it both professionally and casually. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is still confusing. Only after reading the talk pages here did I finally grasp what was going on. I think a slightly more neutral re-wording of Ckatz's example above might be needed128.240.229.3 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Math

Simultaneous substitution is a fairly important topic in logic and syntax. There should be a pointer to this, even if just to a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.115.57 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialist overtones

I actually consider this "simultaneous substitution" practice to be a violation of Canadian national sovereignty, as it gives me the impression that the master control for the Canadian television station is actually in the States. -- Denelson 83 02:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The decision to simsub is made by a Canadian network to ensure maximum viewing of the Canadian ads they get paid to broadcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.9.74 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Simsub Exception repeatedly removed

I have attempted to contribute additional information where Simsub does not apply, i.e., out of local time zone availability. It was reasonable for others to require cleanup for neutral point of view, but the revised material was removed anyway. Perhaps there are employees of Canadian television networks, or Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, that do not want truthful information about how Simsubbing can be avoided to get out. The article mentions examples of errors in Simsub implementation, and illegal Simsub by some companies, i.e., if Bell is simsubbing any programs carried by TSN and another station. It would seem reasonable to allow information about how to lawfully avoid technical problems that affect the shows we pay to watch. 70.71.9.74 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your contribution was both unsourced and was written as a statement of opinion about how to get around stuff rather than as a straight neutral summary of the facts. Wikipedia does not allow unsourced content or opinioneering in our articles. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the feedback; however, a link to Shaw's channel lineup was provided. It would seem reasonable to source the availabilty of the out of time zone channels, and infer one may thus watch them. I edited my earlier entry to provide what I believe is a summary of the facts about how to do something, and removed any reference to whether it is a good or bad thing.

I noticed that entries regarding the practices of Shaw Direct and Bell are unsourced ... but are permitted?

Might be time for some arbitration. 70.71.9.74 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These Pages Need Fixing

Problem one - The main article fails to explain in simple terms what it is about.

Problem two - This talk page is not for anything but helpful comments regarding the main article; not for personal opinions about the practice of simultaneous substitution.

Problem three - Please indent properly when responding to a comment. - KitchM (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified explanation for people outside North America

I came to the article for an explanation of what simsubbing is, and having read the article I'm none the wiser. Could somebody rewrite the lead to be comprehensible to people unfamiliar with North American commercial TV? You guys need to realize that this stuff sounds bizarre and insane to everybody else, and even the mechanics and practicalities are difficult to grasp. --Ef80 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I have considered trying to contact Jimmy Wales to arrange an "ignore all rules" page about simsub, so we might be able explore the topic properly. I would love such a page, where we could provide important information currently forbidden. When discussing germs, disinfectants should not be off limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.24.87 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's job is to explore the topic neutrally and sourcedly — you've made past comments on this page clearly indicating what you consider to be "exploring the topic properly", and they involve highly biased commentary about the legitimacy of the practice rather than neutral or properly sourced content about its objective details. WP:IAR is not a license to just do anything you want; the act of ignoring a rule has to improve the encyclopedia to be valid. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected neutrality issues, and attempted to source ways to circumvent simsub in as neutral a way as possible; this was also deemed unacceptable. If a page was created to discuss termites, it seems reasonable one could properly source information about termite damage and extermination techniques, without being shouted down that one is engaging in highly biased commentary about the legitimacy of termites.70.71.6.57 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about your tortured metaphors. If you think that simsub, a practice which certainly some people passionately object to for their own personal reasons but which is in no way objectively damaging or dangerous to anything, is in any way comparable to extermination of termites, a parasitic insect which can cause major damage or total structural collapse if an infestation is not remediated, or to germs, which can cause disease and sometimes even death, then you're betraying an inappropriate and non-neutral point of view. And you can't source stuff to primary sources like Shaw's own website list of its own channel lineup — you would have to reference something like that to reliable source (i.e. newspapers, magazines, etc.) coverage about the topic, not self-published lists. Germs and termites are objectively bad things that can kill people, so information about what to do about them is appropriate and neutral and properly sourceable for reasons of basic human health and safety — simsub is not an objectively bad thing, but merely a thing you don't personally like for reasons that aren't even remotely comparable to "basic human health and safety" and which is legally necessary for programming rights reasons (the only other alternative would be for US channels to be dropped from cable entirely, which I'm sure you don't want), with the result that your additions to the article have been crossing the line into poorly sourced opinion commentary and violations of Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about NOTHOWTO. Dropping US stations is not the only other option; the CRTC could simply ended all Simsub. Better still, impose broadcast licence conditions forbidding purchase of US programming rights. Shows not acquired by Canadian networks are still viewable, and are not blacked out. If a Canadian cable or other provider intercepts unencrypted US broadcast programming over the air, and redistributes it, this does not appear to violate US copyright, as it was licenced to be broadcast wherever it might be received.

The recent CRTC confirmation of no simsub for the Superbowl may just be the beginning, and future Bell court action will likely fail. This is about the Constitutional rights of Canadians,and fifty years of being told what you are allowed to watch. As you can see from the page, I have made no attempts to edit inappropriately. Enjoy the Superbowl, "friends of canadian broadcasting".70.71.6.57 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent edit to correct that simsub is still mandated (not was) and that viewers in Toronto can receive unsimsubbed US stations later from Seattle, where eastern time zone stations would simsub. Vancouver viewers can receive unsimsubbed eastern feeds when the Seattle feed would simsub during local primetime. We western viewers have it better; the eastern feed is three hours early, and live shows are not simsubbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.6.57 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added sourced info about recent court ruling regarding simsub. Ducking and covering, and hoping no rules were violated.70.71.6.57 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem, since it's strictly a factual summary of a thing that really happened. For future reference, however, a citation does need to be to the complete citation details — title, name of newspaper, date of the article — and not just to a bare URL, so I'm going to fix that. But the content itself is not subject to the same problems that have applied to some of your edits in the past, because it's not editorializing. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simultaneous substitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/tvhatton/indepth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested New Section on Future CRTC Policy Post Superbowl LI

There was something different about the Fox Network feed of the Superbowl, here in Canada. It might have been the brighter picture, sharper colors, .... It might improve this article to add new material regarding future limitations on Simsub, by the CRTC, for live events like the Academy Awards. As Martin Luther King, Jr., would have said: “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.”70.71.6.57 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simsub = oppression now? Brighter picture and sharper colors, when CTV's feed of the event was always coming from the Fox cameras to begin with and thus never had any possibility of ever being of even slightly different quality in the first place, meaning any difference you discerned in 2017 was actually a Fox-to-Fox comparison? Get a grip, as we used to say back in the day when people were acting loopy. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit a wee bit of mischief in quoting MLK. I can't speak for the GTO or Montreal, but there has always been a difference here in Vancouver, although high definition tv has reduced the effect. My best guess is the originating US feed (via microwave) is split to a second feed, where the CDN ads are digitally queued. That feed, somehow, is lacking. The skepticism is understandable; many others questioned this, until I showed them the CBS Detroit feed of Survivor, right next to another tv, airing the same episode on Global Toronto (both at 1700 PST).

Anyways, I accept this is a silly thing to obsess over, but I want Canadian tv to stop being a junkie for US programming, and make its own.70.71.245.2 (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, so do I — well, okay, partly for the selfish reason that I want there to be more television production companies in Canada so that it's easier for me to get a job with one — but simsubbing isn't the reason there's a problem with that. It's a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it per se.

The problem is that Canada is a small country, without enough population to support even a fraction as many television series being made here as there are in the United States — apart from a few exceptional cases like massive megahit series and Tragically Hip concerts, the best any show (Canadian or American) can ever actually hope for in Canada is an audience of between one and two million viewers. But you know where an audience that size would get an American show? Cancelled in three weeks as a flop, because it's not a large enough audience to actually cover a show's production costs. The CBC can do all-Canadian, because its government funding means it can afford to take a loss on Canadian production — but in reality, it's almost impossible for a Canadian show to actually be profitable, because the size of audience needed to get there simply doesn't exist. And furthermore, Canada does still have an internalized inferiority complex that leads a lot of people to dismiss Canadian programming as automatically inferior to anything American — Corner Gas notwithstanding, even legitimately great Canadian shows typically do about as well in the ratings as middling American crap that isn't actually anywhere near as good, because some people just automatically refuse on principle to watch anything Canadian at all.

We simply don't have either the population, or the money, needed to produce enough original Canadian programming to fill the schedules of four terrestrial television networks — not to mention that if the networks went that route, the viewing audience would be divided even further because the competition from the American networks would still be there.

So you know what would happen if the CRTC ended simsubbing? Not "the Golden Age of Canadian television production", but "the complete and total collapse of every Canadian television network but the CBC". Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simultaneous substitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of programming lost

This section does not make sense. If the American network is running the show past the end of the time slot, then that will be lost if the Canadian station is dropped in right on the hour, or the beginning minute or two of the next program is lost if the sim-sub commences only when the American station starts the program that the Canadian station is already running.

Scenario 1 - Sim-sub starts with the Canadian broadcast time

  8:00 to 9:00 - Program Alpha runs.  US network runs two minutes over.
  9:00 to 9:02 - US network finishes Alpha, while Beta is yet to start.  Canadian network is running program Beta.
  At 9:00, the end of Alpha disappears as Beta begins with the sim-sub from Canada
  At 10:00, the Canadian network ends broadcast of Beta, but Beta continues for two more minutes on American network.

Scenario 2 - Sim-sub starts with the American broadcast start

  8:00 to 9:00 - Program Alpha runs.  US network runs two minutes over.
  9:00 to 9:02 - US network finishes Alpha, while Beta is yet to start; Canadian network now running Beta.  Cable viewer still seeing US signal.
  9:02 to 10:00 - US network running Beta now.  Canadian network signal cut into American signal, causing a jump that starts program already in progress, so cable viewer misses the part already shown on the Canadian network.

Neither is particularly agreeable - the first scenario is favourable to the viewer of Beta, but unfavourable to the viewer of Alpha.

GBC (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The terms 'simsub' and 'simsubs' are used throughout this article without having been defined. 220.240.114.114 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]