Cheaper, yes? Fair, absolutely not.

I know it sounds I'm crying out too loud and blowing this out of proportion/sounding biased in an OTA forum, but should we as taxpayers of Ontario just take this lying down? We are indeed still a minority yes, but still a taxpaying minority. We didn't shell out our tax dollars so we could watch crown corporations swindle and sell us out for BDUs. It would be understandable if a private network did this, but certainly not TVO.

It's a shame. I don't hate TVO. I enjoy their programming. It is such a pity that they couldn't get their OTA act together.

This in my honest good-willed opinion goes far beyond technical or financial matters. It's a basic matter of principle. I'm tired of them dodgeballing our questions. So far the only thing I have heard over and over is that "we will install in mandatory markets by August 31." That's good, but when exactly? The public needs to know, and this is after all, a public corporation.

And frankly we need to give them some resistance!

But seriously, isn't that a good idea? Since TVO is licenced for 51 pre-transition, and CITY for post-August 2011, wouldn't it make sense to just install now and feed it with TVO, then later sell it off (some source of revenue/return for the trouble) to CITY? Everyone wins. A 51 transmitter will have to be installed sooner or later, so why not do it now so there won't be any problems next year?

Same deal with CTV and SUN for RF40, but I'm getting offtopic if I go there. I guess I shall bring this up with my MPP...I recommend you guys continue to do the same until we see 19.1 on our ATSC recievers (no offense to people in London or Ottawa, etc).

I hear 'ya.

I like the Saturday night movies. In my opinion, they are better than most of the movies WNED (PBS Buffalo) shows. And the lack of commercial breaks is an added bonus.

I suppose the best option we have is to politely remind TVO that we OTA viewers still exist, and that we're anxious for digital HD service.

Like many of the other broadcasters, TVO apparently still cites the results of a 2003 survey indicating roughly 8 to 10% of Canadians received their TV broadcasting only via OTA back then. As has been discussed many, many times at this site there is not only the age problem with that data but there is also the unrealistic notion (especially with today's Internet availability) that only those who use OTA exclusively must be counted. In summary:

the data is too old to be useful
the notion of exclusively using OTA is obsolete since people are obviously mixing their TV sources more than ever
therefore the potential pool of OTA viewers is much, much higher than 10%

If they persist in quoting that 10% figure to you please go ahead and raise the points I've just mentioned. :)
Stampeder, I found this report on the CTRC's website. It was published in September 2006, which you could argue it still dated (hey, even I was still cable-only back then). I am sure the availablity of digital signals has done nothing but increase the OTA numbers as this forum will attest to.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/radio/cmri_rev.pdf

Go to pages 11 and 12 for the pertinent data. It shows Ontario slightly below the national average (9.5 vs 9.7%) for exclusively OTA
and slightly above the national average with (12.8 vs 12.4%) having at least one TV attached to an antenna. Here's an excerpt:

Not everyone with cable TV or, in particular, DTH
has all TV sets in the household hooked up to cable
or satellite. As noted earlier, some 9.7% of
Canadians, according to BBM diary surveys rely
exclusively on OTA reception. In addition, there are
cable/DTH homes that have one or more TV sets that
receive TV signals via an antenna or rabbit ears.
Nielsen confirmed with CMRI that of the 2,400-odd
cable/DTH homes in their national people meter
system, some 84 households currently have 1 or
more sets that receive TV off-air, that is, about 4%.
Adding together those who have nothing but OTA
reception and those cable/DTH subscribers with at
least 1 set that receives signals over-the-air, BBM
puts the percentage of all Canadians receiving TV
over-the-air at 12.4% nationally (spring 2006). This
ranged from a low of 3.8% in Newfoundland to
18.1% in Saskatchewan.

Feel free to toss this at TVO:

The www.digitalhome.ca web site is Canada's premier Internet location for discussion of all things related to TV viewing in Canada. With a membership nearing 100,000 and a readership many times higher than that, the site gives an accurate feel for the pulse of TV viewership across the country. Taking into account that Canada is only a year away from the mandatory August, 2011 DTV cutover, we are seeing more and more readers come to Digital Home's OTA Forum for info on how to set up or improve their antenna reception. On average, the OTA Forum (dedicated to Over The Air TV Reception) has more visitors at any given time than any other single forum at this site, including those for Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and all other BDUs or programming providers. OTA DTV is a consumer favourite, and the widespread popularity of the OTA Forum is compelling evidence of that. While we understand that planning involves reliance on viewership survey numbers, we are quite certain that those that have been cited in recent CRTC and related proceedings are seriously flawed. Please feel welcome to join the membership of the Digital Home OTA Forum, where many broadcasting industry employees across the spectrum of roles and responsibilities, including regulators, are presently registered.

I like OTA to supplement my cable coverage, but there is another way of looking at this. Ontario taxpayers that don't use OTA, which certainly appears to be the majority, will gain no benefit if TVO puts up digital transmitters, but they will be footing the cost. Is it fair for them to be subsidizing those of us who do get OTA?

Is it fair for them to be subsidizing those of us who do get OTA?
You could argue that TVO is broadcaster. The distribution via BDU is an extra benefit for cable and satellite subscribers.

As long as TVO is a broadcaster they are not fulfiling their mandate if they do not broadcast ota. If they wish to change their mandate to be a cable only channel, then that is a different matter. I don't belive that they have done so at this point in time.

I believe TVO is fulfilling their responsibility. So they haven't transitioned yet, are they required to do so?

Despite the fact that the extra antenna, mounts, hardware, etc would have to be purchased and then resold after the switch, they also have the monthly costs of running the extra transmitter(s) between now and the mandated switchover period.

The main reason OTA is transitioning isn't about better PQ, the government is mainly concerned with freeing up available spectrum so that it can be resold. Doing so while improving picture quality and reliability is a side benefit.

Now, if TVO fails in their obligation to transition the mandatory markets over by the cutoff date, then they should be held accountable by us. Demanding that they provide us with an ATSC transmission prior to the mandatory date is not within our rights. Had we wanted an ATSC transmission by now, we should have lobbied the CRTC to make the transition date August, 2010.

Like many of the other broadcasters, TVO apparently still cites the results of a 2003 survey indicating roughly 8 to 10% of Canadians received their TV broadcasting only via OTA back then.

Do you have a problem with the methods the CRTC used in their transition document?

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/pwc09.htm#tac

10% seems to be optimistic. Hmm, Montreal, Toronto and Windsor are very high. I guess the fact that there are little or few broadcasters in the area gives a hint as to why some areas are so low. Build it and they will come. Probably the major metro area stats would apply to other areas if they had the same amount of available channels. It might also increase with more ATSC feeds. So, a survey of current use is probably a lower limit.

Edit1: Hmm, I had seen Windsor at 26% or more, but I don't think it is in this document.
Edit2: I see the census data is 2006, which is still fairly outdated.

You could argue that TVO is broadcaster. The distribution via BDU is an extra benefit for cable and satellite subscribers.

As long as TVO is a broadcaster they are not fulfiling their mandate if they do not broadcast ota. If they wish to change their mandate to be a cable only channel, then that is a different matter. I don't belive that they have done so at this point in time.Their mission statement doesn't mention the word broadcaster, it calls them a "media organization". While that is debatable, this isn't - it costs lots of money to build digital transmission facilities throughout the province whereas it costs nothing (or almost nothing) to provide a digital feed to BDUs. If the majority of Ontario taxpayers are not using OTA then they are paying for something that they are not using.

And while it is a bit of semantics I would say that TVO is more of a narrow-caster than a broadcaster as they are attempting to fill a niche which isn't, or at least wasn't, covered by other TV channels.

I believe TVO is fulfilling their responsibility. So they haven't transitioned yet, are they required to do so?

Not yet, but the lack of information of a plan suggests that they'd rather not do it at all.

Now, if TVO fails in their obligation to transition the mandatory markets over by the cutoff date, then they should be held accountable by us. Demanding that they provide us with an ATSC transmission prior to the mandatory date is not within our rights.
Perhaps, but if TVO really felt that OTA was important, wouldn't they have spoken more positively about it?

To paraphrase another poster, does TVO view OTA viewers as a lunatic fringe that just isn't that important?

I've gone OTA, not because I can't afford cable or satellite, but because I just no longer feel it is good value. BDU is poorer quality at a cost. I'd rather donate money directly to TVO than give it to the cableco. But if TVO doesn't value me as a viewer, then no donation from me.

Their mission statement doesn't mention the word broadcaster, it calls them a "media organization".

I'm less concerned about their mission statement than their regulatory status.

If TVO wants to be a cable only "media organization", fine, let them state that. Then their funding can be adjusted accordingly. But currently they are funded, by the Ontario taxpayer as a broadcaster.

Do you have a problem with the methods the CRTC used in their transition document?My views on the CRTC's proceedings regarding the DTV transition go back years at this site. As I've said before (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1136309&postcount=138), it is not realistic or helpful to cite estimates of viewers who receive only OTA. Back to TVO discussion.

Stampeder, I found this report on the CTRC's website.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/radio/cmri_rev.pdf



A more relevant page is 16. TVO's OTA viewership is higher than average.


The percentage of TVO's audience watching off-air has always been higher than average. In 2000-01 it was 35.9% and while declining, it was still some 25% in 2005-06. Clearly many viewers would be denied access to TVO if it did not have over-the-air transmitters.


At first, I was in agreement that for 10% of viewer ship this was a high cost. However, providing a digital feed to a for profit cable company is subsidizing Rogers revenue. Is Rogers paying for this digital feed? Also, I can't understand why OTA is being quoted as such a high cost. Is a digital transmission different than analog? You can't feed the digital signal to a up-mixer to be transmitted. If they have digital production, what is the problem with broadcasting it. Is it the recurring electric bill?

Now I am clearly with Stampeder. 10% is clearly underestimating OTA viewership for TVO. That is existing viewership. Having more digital OTA transmitters is also going to increase viewers. I wonder if there is an 'inflection' in the stats since 2006 when ATSC was first more common in metro areas. Ie, has OTA viewers picked up since then to reverse the downward trend. OTA has changed from a technology that was inferior to cable to one that is sometimes superior.

I believe TVO is fulfilling their responsibility. So they haven't transitioned yet, are they required to do so? The ideal way to determine whether they are fulfilling their responsibility is to examine their broadcast license(s) from the CRTC. Regarding responsibility to the Ontario Legislature or Provincial Cabinet, the official documentation describing their terms of operation would be most revealing.

they'd rather not do it at allThat has been a common sentiment amongst Canada's smaller broadcasters all along. BC's Knowledge Network is behaving exactly the same as TVO - they seem to wish it would all just go away.

Considering that TVO (and most other Canadian OTA broadcasters) are "top heavy" with OTA repeaters, I don't doubt that it seems like a burden. TVO has repeaters in Kitchener, London and many other centers where cable/satellite penetration is very high. The irony is that TVO, et al, could afford to string repeaters throughout the country up to 10 years ago and are now balking at doing an upgrade, claiming poverty. IMHO, it's mostly a lot of whining about nothing or a result of their own over-expansion. For many of these broadcasters, TVO included, the transmitter operation savings after the transition will pay for the upgrade cost in a few years. Maybe the spectrum sale that will occur after the transition could help defray the upgrade costs for public broadcasters like TVO.

TVO has alot of useless/pointless repeaters up north.

Just take for example I went up to Pancake Bay on Lake Superior. Just for kicks I strung a FM dipole and a UHF loop made out of coax. I got good 2 (CTV) and 5 (CBC) from the Sault.

I expected to take my TVO from nearby Batchawana Bay on RF17 only about 3km away. Instead I got a watcahble 20 from the Sault! Absolutely NOTHING on 17. (and the Sault TVO was only like 6-7 NM on TVFool a good 80km away) I also believe there was ANOTHER TVO transmitter for Goulais Bay not too far down 17 closer to the Sault.

Why does TVO even bother running these transmitters? They can mothball tons of useless repeaters and maybe that can save them some $$$ for upgrading some of their more important ones to digital.

Heck, mothball all the TVO transmitters within 50-60km of those bigger northern hubs and you could probably save some decent dough.

TVO has alot of useless/pointless repeaters up north.

I'm starting to think that maybe they mis-judged the OTA aspect of their distribution. At this point you'd think that they'd be able to make a statement about when they expect to start testing their digital broadcast.

It's now just over a year before analogue shutdown and they can't even say what progress they've made? I'm totally not impressed and I'm tired of the "we don't have the money" argument. This is mandated, they have a budget. So if they don't have the money for OTA conversion then can we assume that they have mis-spent their budget? I think, as a taxpayer, I do have the right to know.

A more relevant page is 16. TVO's OTA viewership is higher than average.



At first, I was in agreement that for 10% of viewer ship this was a high cost. However, providing a digital feed to a for profit cable company is subsidizing Rogers revenue. Is Rogers paying for this digital feed? Also, I can't understand why OTA is being quoted as such a high cost. Is a digital transmission different than analog? You can't feed the digital signal to a up-mixer to be transmitted. If they have digital production, what is the problem with broadcasting it. Is it the recurring electric bill?

Now I am clearly with Stampeder. 10% is clearly underestimating OTA viewership for TVO. That is existing viewership. Having more digital OTA transmitters is also going to increase viewers. I wonder if there is an 'inflection' in the stats since 2006 when ATSC was first more common in metro areas. Ie, has OTA viewers picked up since then to reverse the downward trend. OTA has changed from a technology that was inferior to cable to one that is sometimes superior.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did a search for "TVO" in the pdf and it had no hits - I must have typed it in wrong?!? Exactly what I was looking for!!

they'd rather not do it at all

Just to repeat, the CEO of TVO is from a specialty channel background, so I don't think any sort of OTA culture would thrive in this environment.

My personal opinion is TVO has fluffed off OTA as not really that important to them. That's fine by me, if they want to become a cable only station.

However, what bugs me is when Canadian broadcasters want to be protected from non Canadian broadcasters. If Canadian broadcasters are not going to take broadcasting OTA seriously then we should invite broadcasters from outside of Canada that would take broadcasting seriously.

The airwaves belong to Canadian public. If a PBS affiliate wants to set up shop to broadcast here in South Western Ontario to serve the London/Kitchener market then I don't see why not. If they do a great job I don't have any problem with some Ontario tax dollars diverted from TVO to the PBS venture.

Same goes for any other US broadcast affiliate. If a Fox or ABC affiliate wants to set up shop here in Canada to cover areas their transmitters can't reach from within the US border then I say let them!

Canadian networks have to decide if they want to be broadcasters here in Canada or cable specialty channels. The airwaves belong to us and I want the best OTA broadcasters to use this resource to the consumers advantage and I don't care if they are Canadian or not.

A CRTC mandate to update their equipment should not be the driving force for them, if they are true broadcasters they would do it on their own because they are broadcasters!