CICA-DT (Toronto) and CICO-DT-24 (Ottawa) just showed up in Industry Canada's database as AP (approved by CRTC). See stampeder's list for details: http://www.user.dccnet.com/jonleblanc/Canada_TV_Stations/DT.html

I get the impression that TVO is holding off because they plan on using much of the same equipment. Although it just might be a budget thing. They don't feel they can afford to run two systems or may not get any funding for the equipment until the official switchover. After all, even on cable they're probably not getting great ratings. I wouldn't be surprised to see them show up as a sub-channel in some areas.

I realize it's subjective, but TVO's programming is great. All-day stuff for kids, and uninterrupted movies on the weekend. A little bit of something for everyone.

And kudos to them if they can manage costs by piggy-backing on a sub-channel somewhere.

I personally think CIVO-TV (Radio-Quebec), CICO-TV (TVO) and CHLF-TV (TFO) should share a transmitter on Ryan Tower, to reduce their costs.

I personally think CIVO-TV (Radio-Quebec), CICO-TV (TVO) and CHLF-TV (TFO) should share a transmitter on Ryan Tower, to reduce their costs.

I don't think the CRTC would let existing stations share a transmitter in a mandatory market, so that rules out CIVO & CICO sharing a transmitter. As for CHLF, I would guess TFO and Télé-Québec have some sort of agreement which has CIVO serve Ottawa/Gatineau (although I gather both are available on analog cable).

Agreed: RE: TVO having great programming.

Unfortunately, since I now use the CM-7000PAL as my primary tuner which doesn't receive analog, I don't even see them when channel surfing anymore.

At some point, stations have to join this century.

I don't think the CRTC would let existing stations share a transmitter in a mandatory market
I doubt the CRTC would have anything to say about this since transmitter technical details are the jurisdiction of Industry Canada. Sharing a channels by using sub-channels would likely be stopped by the CRTC.

At some point, stations have to join this century.
And they will...which they have repeated again and again...by next August. That is the date mandated to them, and that is the date they are adhering to. Sucks, but that's life.

The CRTC has said several times that it would be favourable to sub-channels. In fact, that could be an answer for TVO, if it were able to be a subchannel on someone else's transmitter in places where it doesn't have its own.

Just last week, in the approval of Shaw's purchase of Canwest Global, the CRTC said that multiplexing and the use of subchannels could be one way of ensuring diversity of voices in the system and mitigate the concentration of media ownership.

CBC has a bulletproof transmission system. Why not just drop TVO in as a subchannel?

I doubt the CRTC would have anything to say about this since transmitter technical details are the jurisdiction of Industry Canada. Sharing a channels by using sub-channels would likely be stopped by the CRTC.

I believe the OP was referring to the use of sub-channels and, as you say, that would likely be stopped by the CRTC.

I agree that sharing an antenna would be beyond the jurisdiction of the CRTC and they wouldn't really care one way or the other. However, I don't think Télé-Québec would want to use CICO's antenna since it is directional to the south. I am not sure about CIVO's antenna (also shared by CFGS and CHOT), but it may be directional to the north, which, if true, would make it undesirable for TVO.

The best option for antenna sharing on Ryan Tower would be to wait for CBOT to replace their channel 4 antenna with a UHF antenna (assuming they eventually do that) and have everyone on UHF use it, as it would have much better elevation than any of the other antennas. It would be non-directional, but directionality could be achieved by only using some of he panels.

The CRTC has said several times that it would be favourable to sub-channels.
The CRTC statement says they are open to new and innovative services on subchannels. The CRTC has also stated that they are against putting existing OTA services on subchannels. FWIW, I am against that as well since TV subchannels are typically 4:3 SD, at most 16:9 SD/widescreen. Future ATSC broadcasting standards may provide 2 or more HD subchannels on one frequency but that is years away.

The CRTC has said several times that it would be favourable to sub-channels.

Just last week, in the approval of Shaw's purchase of Canwest Global, the CRTC said that multiplexing and the use of subchannels could be one way of ensuring diversity of voices in the system and mitigate the concentration of media ownership.

This is in non-mandatory markets. In mandatory markets they basically have a one station, one transmitter policy for existing stations (though they have left a little bit of room to use sub-channels for new and innovative services).

In fact, that could be an answer for TVO, if it were able to be a subchannel on someone else's transmitter in places where it doesn't have its own.

TVO has a very extensive network of transmitters throughout Ontario. I am not sure if there are many markets where they don't have a transmitter and could use someone else's. They could actually become the source of multiplexed services throughout Ontario though.

TFO on the other hand has very limited distribution OTA and could benefit greatly from multiplexed services. I am just not sure if that would be approved in Ottawa.

If TFO were ever to argue that it wants to *expand* its availability OTA through the use of a TVO subchannel, it would be folly for the CRTC to refuse.

It's not the CRTC that would refuse. I believe that TFO's purchase of certain program rights precludes its availability OTA in Quebec markets, where TeleQuebec probably owns the rights.

I don't quite understand how it's OK to watch TFO in Grenville, QC (across the river from Hawkesbury), but not in Gatineau. Perhaps the size of the urban centre matters.

Maybe TFO could be a subchannel on CTS in Herberts Corners, which probably has the worst coverage of Gatineau.

I was speaking more generally — to use a subchannel of CICA so that TFO would be available OTA in Toronto, for example.

I was speaking more generally — to use a subchannel of CICA so that TFO would be available OTA in Toronto, for example.
And, to use the current conventional wisdom the other way, TFO/TVO could say to their programming supplier that, since "only 10% of Canadians rely on OTA", the impact of TFO OTA in Gatineau would be minimal! :-)

And, to use the current conventional wisdom the other way, TFO/TVO could say to their programming supplier that, since "only 10% of Canadians rely on OTA", the impact of TFO OTA in Gatineau would be minimal! :-)

The problem is the "conventional wisdom" says that number almost doubles in Quebec.

In response to this post: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1177301&postcount=1539

Any idea how many digtal transmitters TVO plans to install?...and when?

Any idea how many digtal transmitters TVO plans to install?...and when?
Not exactly sure, TVO did not have any concrete plans when I left. I can guarantee you will not see anything until the mandated NTSC shutdown.
Sparx