DTV Subchannels in Canada's Future? - Page 5 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #61 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 04:08 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 4,934
We're moving off topic. But quickly note that the US still utilizes VHF as well.

DMX 68' tower, HyGain HAM 5 rotator, Antennas Direct DB8e & C5, Channel Master 7777 preamp, Siemens surge protection
Jase88 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 04:51 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa (Stittsville), ON, OTA (DB4e & VHF-HI folded dipole, AP-2870 pre-amp in Attic), MythTV HTPC
Posts: 6,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obed View Post
Thanks for the info (do you have the source please for us rookies?), but I think that is my point.
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-31 says:

Quote:
The Commission's predisposition will be to license new and innovative multicast services, in preference to those that duplicate existing over-the-air services, pay or specialty services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obed View Post
The CRTC should NOT be in the business of restricting free-to-air transmissions beyond the technical limitations of the medium and preventing co-channel interference.
The CRTC's mandate is to regulate content and not technical parameters. Technical matters like the ones you listed are the responsibility of Industry Canada.
roger1818 is online now  
post #63 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 05:03 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa (Stittsville), ON, OTA (DB4e & VHF-HI folded dipole, AP-2870 pre-amp in Attic), MythTV HTPC
Posts: 6,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by USA CBC fan View Post
I still like the idea I suggested a few years ago - minority language SD subchannels, e.g., SRC in SD with CBC in HD in Anglophone markets, CBC in SD with SRC in HD where French is dominant, saving the expense of building out two whole transmitters.
Not sure how much you actually save doing this. You still need to distribute and MPEG encode the signal. With separate transmitters you can often share an antenna (which they may already have anyway) so about all you are saving is the amplifier. Granted these aren't cheap, but in the scheme of things, it isn't a big deal.
roger1818 is online now  
 
post #64 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 05:08 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
The CRTC should NOT be in the business of restricting free-to-air transmissions beyond the technical limitations of the medium and preventing co-channel interference.
The CRTC has nothing to do with technical limitations or interference. That's what Industry Canada does. CRTC's role is to punish us for being Canadian by telling us what we're allowed to watch etc.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
JamesK is online now  
post #65 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 05:20 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
The CRTC's mandate is to regulate content
It'd be nice if they'd loosen up a bit. The main broadcast networks all have BDU only shows that might be nice to add to broadcast. For example, CTV could add Newsnet and the CP24 channel and the CBC might broadcast CBC Documentary & News Network. Does Global have anything worth broadcasting? ;-)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
JamesK is online now  
post #66 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 05:44 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 688
Now that I`m on the right thread, my thanks to all for the education on the rules and regulations and for bearing with this rookie.
Sure seems like a missed opportunity for sub-channels.

But perhaps we will get a plethora of new and innovative channels as a result of the wisdom of the CRTC ... waiting with bated breath....
Obed is online now  
post #67 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 06:40 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto/Etobicoke - Bloor/Royal York/Queensway/Islington
Posts: 1,574
Angry

I'm not sure why we are still discussing this topic. The CRTC has clearly indicated that ideas DHC members have proposed won't be permitted (even though many of the ideas are good! ) and the broadcasters have shown no interest in multicasting that the CRTC will allow (multiple existing OTA channels from single transmitter). My guess on the latter is that the suits that run the broadcast empires and could make this happen have no clue of the opportunities DTV provides, like subchannels.

A-D DB4e & CS5, CM 4221 & 7778, TiVo Premiere & Roamio
El Gran Chico is offline  
post #68 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 06:59 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,131
The CRTC has stated that they will only be interested in new, innovative services on subchannels. For example, if SunTV had applied to air a new, all news service as a sub-channel for SunTV (prior to the CAT2 application), it would be looked upon favorably. OTOH, if the CBC wants to combine their existing English and French analog services on a single digital channel, that would not.

At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary
ScaryBob is offline  
post #69 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 08:25 PM
Premium Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,741
Anti-CRTC rants do not belong here.
There's an existing thread for that:
The Official I Hate The CRTC Thread
downbeat is offline  
post #70 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 08:49 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
With separate transmitters you can often share an antenna (which they may already have anyway) so about all you are saving is the amplifier. Granted these aren't cheap, but in the scheme of things, it isn't a big deal.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if I am, but:

1. The CBC seems to be trying to move to UHF in advance of a roll out of Mobile DTV.

2. I'm under the impression that single-channel antennas are cheaper than broadband antennas.

3. I've been led to believe that combining gear is a pain compared to having a single transmitter hooked to a single antenna.

4. Transmitting only one signal instead of two reduces the power bill, in addition to only requiring one transmitter.

To me, it seems like there could certainly be savings in providing SRC by subchannel in places where the Francophone population is small. The down side in my mind is that it eliminates redundancy; in Toronto, for instance, if the gear for CBLT fails, the CBC could theoretically put the programming on CBLFT 25-2 while it's down.

- Trip
Trip is offline  
post #71 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-14, 11:40 PM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,879
Obed, just to make sure you are aware of the technical issues that cause many OTAers to dislike sub-channels, please be sure to read Post #15 in the OTA FAQ, which explains that as sub-channels are added, the picture quality of the main channel and any other sub-channels on it are compromised. While you may see good reasons for sub-channels, many of us despise them.
stampeder is offline  
post #72 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-15, 01:09 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 688
Thanks Stampeder, good to know. Awesome forum btw!

By the look of things HD picture quality should be superb for the Canadian stations for a long time to come and far superior to many of the US feeds leaking over the border. Should keep a few folks happy!
Obed is online now  
post #73 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-15, 10:02 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa (Stittsville), ON, OTA (DB4e & VHF-HI folded dipole, AP-2870 pre-amp in Attic), MythTV HTPC
Posts: 6,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK View Post
For example, CTV could add Newsnet and the CP24 channel and the CBC might broadcast CBC Documentary & News Network.
As discussed previously in other threads, even if the CRTC permitted it, not only is there little incentive for the networks to do it, there is actually a large disincentive. As cable only channels the broadcasters currently receive money from subscribers for them (even the ones on basic service). Put them on a sub-channel and the broadcaster would likely loose this funding.
roger1818 is online now  
post #74 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-15, 10:27 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa (Stittsville), ON, OTA (DB4e & VHF-HI folded dipole, AP-2870 pre-amp in Attic), MythTV HTPC
Posts: 6,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip View Post
1. The CBC seems to be trying to move to UHF in advance of a roll out of Mobile DTV.
The CBC is, but in many cases the SRC isn't, so they will continue to use their VHF-HI antenna.

Quote:
2. I'm under the impression that single-channel antennas are cheaper than broadband antennas.

3. I've been led to believe that combining gear is a pain compared to having a single transmitter hooked to a single antenna.
While true, in many if not most markets in question, the CBC will be sharing a UHF antenna with other stations so they will need to do these anyway.

Quote:
4. Transmitting only one signal instead of two reduces the power bill, in addition to only requiring one transmitter.
True.

The other factor that prevents the CBC from doing this is hockey. For most programming, you can get away with reducing the bandwidth and not see a huge difference in PQ. The exception is scenes with fast motion and since hockey is a big revenue generator for the CBC and it is one of the fastest moving sports they need all the bandwidth they can get.
roger1818 is online now  
post #75 of 81 (permalink) Old 2011-02-16, 08:35 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 257
Quote:
The Commission shares the concerns of Pelmorex and others in this regard, and will therefore be predisposed to license new and innovative services, in preference to those that would merely duplicate the services of existing off-air, specialty or pay television undertakings.
Would be predisposed..... But I don't believe anyone has ever applied for a sub-channel licence. It could be easily argued that there is no conflict. That for over-the-air viewers, no service would be duplicated,(I don't believe there is presently any Canadian music, weather, retro or sports over-the-air channels). And for cable and sat subscribers, these subchannels would not appear on their dial. They would be none the wiser, not having an antenna. Really this bit appears to be nothing more than a sop to the objections of Pelmorex.
johnnysmoke is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome