I've moved posts on that topic to the HTPC forum:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=103276

From http://www.user.dccnet.com/jonleblanc/Canada_TV_Stations/BC.html I found post-transition channel allotments and ERPs for our local stations here. Don't junk your VHF antennas yet, as CHAN will revert to channel 8 (at 650W) come September 2011. The stations, channels, and ERP are below. Can anyone tell me where to find the projected signal contours? Are these numbers targets or what the stations will actually use and get approved by the CRTC?

Cheers,
LH

Vancouver:
CBCF - 26, 106kW
CBCE - 43, 120kW
CHAN - 8, 650W
CHNM - 20, 53kW
CIVI - 17, 50kW
CIVT - 32, 33kW
CKVU - 10, 1100W

Victoria:
CHEK - 49, 105kW
CHNM - 29, 1800W
CHNU - 21, 1700W
CIVI - 40, 1MW

I've noticed today that CTV changed their callsign from CIVT-DT to CIVT-HD. Nothing else seems to have changed.

CHAN will revert to channel 8 (at 650W)
Does this low power output concern anyone else? Is it going to be possible to receive global after 2011?

Does this low power output concern anyone else? Is it going to be possible to receive global after 2011?
I was going to ask the same question. CIVT-DT is currently at 900W and it is extremely difficult to get a decent reception.

Several of us here at digitalhome.ca have intervened in CRTC processes over the years. My advice to anyone who is as outraged as I am about the idea of a major city's digital station operating at only 650 watts can intervene in the following CRTC process:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-113.htm

When Global's license comes up for review I hope that many of you will have used the feedback procedures of the CRTC to lodge interventions demanding realistically higher ERP levels. Just be polite and clear about what you are trying to say, and take the time to edit your submission so that it is not in any way personal, nasty, or difficult to understand. Give solid, logical reasons for your intervention.

Warning: it is essential that you send a copy not only to the CRTC but also to Global. If you don't send Global a copy they can tell the CRTC that they didn't receive a copy so therefore they cannot respond to it, and so under that technicality the CRTC will not be able to act on it! :mad:

Do your best, and you will be heard!

Just before everyone goes all crazy, this is channel 8 - doesn't mid VHF require a LOT less power to get equivalent coverage? Granted, 650W does seem really low, over 1kW would be nice, but I'd like to see the coverage contour before getting too up in arms. Does IC or the CRTC have coverage maps available, like the FCC does?

According to the CRTC documents on the previous page, CKVU-DT and CHNM-DT will not be online until 2010. Just giving a quick glance over the submissions, Canwest doesn't have much faith at all in OTA broadcasting, whereas Rogers is significantly more optimistic. Canwest is opposed to matching the sort of contour that the analogue signals had and no dates are given (not even year-wise, beyond the August 2011 cut-off) for switching stations like CHEK-TV over.

And then CTV says this regarding the transition:

"At this point, it is unlikely we will proceed with the conversion of the “A” licences (Victoria, Pembroke, Ottawa and Barrie), unless conditions
improve radically."

It sounds like they'd rather let the licenses lapse and the stations shut down than switch to digital.

Just before everyone goes all crazy, this is channel 8 - doesn't mid VHF require a LOT less power to get equivalent coverage?I do not expect anyone will be going "all crazy".

650 watts is ridiculous regardless of the band. The sensible thing for people to do is intervene in the CRTC process. There is nothing "crazy" about that, and I thank you for being respectfui of those who take the time to do such things.

Does IC or the CRTC have coverage maps available, like the FCC does?

Coverage maps are generally included within CRTC applications, but in this case, CTV submitted their applications before Industry Canada released the post-transtion plan, so CTV claimed they could not provide that information.

How does one go about submitting feedback to the CRTC?

Stampeder and all:

My apologies for a poor choice of words in my earlier statement. I intended no disrespect towards those planning to intervene on the issue of channel 8's low ERP, and am planning to intervene myself. I merely intended to pre-empt emotional reactions by pointing out that 650W at VHF likely gives better coverage than 900W of UHF. Not that this is by any means adequate for long-range reception, but will probably penetrate the immediate area well enough.

As for interventions, start here: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/rapidscin/default.aspx?lang=en - if this doesn't work, or if you want to be more general, go to http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/G8.HTM - I hope that helps, and again I'm sorry for giving a bad impression.

LH

Thanks, I get touchy about this whole business of putting a pea shooter transmitter up in one of Canada's major cities.

For info on how to intervene in this particular process just go to that site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-113.htm and scroll down to the secion called "Public Participation", which gives detailed instructions on what needs to be done. As I mentioned before, make sure what you submit is proof-read and clear, so my advice is to compose it in a word processor beforehand and then copy-and-paste it when ready to send it.

cheers

I downloaded Application No. 2009-0094-5 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2009/2009-0094-5.zip) for Canwest in Vancouver, BC from the Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-113 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-113.htm) page. On page 90 of document 1031422, it was stated that "[o]ver 92% of Canadian viewers voluntarily obtain television delivery service from a Broadcasting Distribution Undertaking (BDU). [...] [T]he availability of television services on digital OTA transmitters will only directly impact 8% of the population." Later on in the document, OTA viewers were referred to as the "8% problem."

From this, we can see that Canwest believes that the economic case for OTA transmission is diminishing. Matching the current analog contours, according to Canwest, is "an unreasonably costly proposition." This might explain the unusually low power levels specified for the post-transition license.

Is 650W a sufficient level to serve OTA viewers in the Greater Vancouver population center? Our concerns need to be heard by Canwest, as they ultimately design the coverage contour. As far as I know, the CRTC does not tell broadcasters how strong their signals should be.

That "8% problem" is a fallacy based on outdated data, as has been discussed in the OTA Forum over the years. Further, since OTA is gaining in popularity and especially in this time of economic crisis it is simply an untenable argument for Global to make.

BTW the cost of broadcasting digitally (in regards to onging electricity usage and equipment maintenance) is much lower than for the older analogue equipment, so their complaints about the "high costs" are out of proportion.

I find reading through those Global documents quite distasteful.

You know if it was mandated to inclued a quality indoor zz type antenna with each tv sold people would try and find OTA because it was part of the new experiance.

TVfool has coverage maps for CHAN-DT in 2011. Apparently, only the Vancouver market stations were done with the post transition data.
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/8883/clipboard01f.png (http://img60.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard01f.png)

650 W would be enough all the way to Aldergrove and Blaine. Not enough to make it to Bellingham.

A warning: TVFool's data concerning Canada is only from the FCC database and not Industry Canada's, so please be aware that it must not be considered completely accurate or up to date.

650 watts is a pitiful amount by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the reasons for my having set up individual threads for certain geographic areas of the Lower Mainland is because reception is quite variable by location. A look through the Vancouver-area threads will show you that reception is never as uniform as such a map might seem to show.

I received a response from IC about this issue:

"According to our predictions, both CHAN-TV and CKVU-TV should have more than adequate signal to serve Vancouver and the surrounding areas with the parameters that are in the plan. Although the power figures appear to be somewhat small compared to the analog TV values, these should still allow the stations to provide digital service where analog service currently exists in and around Vancouver. Of course, we are still learning about DTV performance and will be monitoring DTV implementation and service with great interest. I believe that we will have instances or conditions that would require an increase in power to overcome any potential shortfall in coverage. Our technical rules allow the powers to increase beyond the limits that are indicated in the plan to meet any need that may arise in the future."

Is anyone aware of any existing very low power digital transmitter (650W & 1100W in this case) that adequately covers an area the size of metro Vancouver? The effective heights of 603 & 711 metres will compensate somewhat for the low power but I believe many areas will receive a poor, unwatchable signal i.e. fluctuating digital lock. The statement that they are "still learning about DTV performance" is disappointing. Isn't the poor performance of CIVT's current DTV transmitter enough of a learning experience for IC?

Their use of the word "adequate" is quite troubling. Adequate for whom, and under what conditions? Agreed that the bit about their learning curve with DTV is also discomforting.