Ref: Laval Channel

There seems no point to this. If this channel is already on cable, why ask for a OTA license which doesn't have enough power to cover all of Laval and requests for cable coverage. Isn't it already on cable?

Also, what is the point of getting on channel 4 with a NTSC license. It's not going to last. If they want to go OTA, then they should be required to come to the table with something more. And that would be a ATSC operated station for OTA. And on a UHF channel that is not used by any near by stations. At present the following near by stations are using channel 4 (Ottawa 4-CBC, Quebec City 4-TVA).

If WFFF-DT is pumping out 47kw, and covers the area it does, imagine the area this station would cover if it pumped out 79kw on ATSC on one of the low end UHF channels? They would cover more area, and bring something new to the Laval / Montreal / and further to area viewers.

This is a total waste, and shows a lack of foresight on both the part of the applicant and the CRTC.

Hell Sorry, I just re-read the thing... they request 79 watts. This should be a straight out refusal on the part of the CRTC for such requsts.

Hell Sorry, I just re-read the thing... they request 79 watts. This should be a straight out refusal on the part of the CRTC for such requsts.

It's not a s far out as you think. That low power chnnel 4 allocation used to be held by a small community station in St Jerome years ago. (CHOY-FM, ISTR). Don't know whatever became of it.

And that would be a ATSC operated station for OTA.

As I said, that won't get them on cable until 2011. No one else wants channel 4, and CBC and TVA will be off channel 4 in 2011 anyway.

Isn't it already on cable?


I don't think so. Check out the videotron website to be sure.

Feel free to make an intervention with the CRTC.

tvlurker have a look at their web site they say on there that they are on cable.

Nous diffusons toujours sur le câble classique.

Here is a link to their site (French)

http://www.tvrl.ca/

I do not see a problem with a community station having a low power station where I see a problem is when it gives them the right to be on basic cable. There is already a channel dedicated for that it is channel 9.

BTW this discussion should be on the QC - Laval OTA thread.

That's okay, this is a station status topic and not reception so its good in this thread. :)

There is already a channel dedicated for that it is channel 9.


I think TVRL's issue with Videotron's Vox channel 9 is that it's province wide, and as such does not concentrate on particular communities. At least, that's their argument, i don't know if this is true.

Perhaps this is a bargaining chip with Videotron, to get more airtime on channel9.
(Carleton University's cable channel once threatened this with Rogers -- if you don't continue to carry us on basic cable, we'll go out and broadcast OTA, and you'll have to carry us then.)

In the end, they're on digital basic.

What bothers me about these low powered NTSC operations is that they clutter the airways by using a broadcast channel, and then use cable to get their signals into peoples homes. This is really why I think this new proposal for a Laval station gets under my skin.

The CRTC should be forcing exiting and future channels to convert to ATSC as soon as possible. Once that gets done, we'll see broadcast channel space free up. How you say?

Well, look at the situation with CFTU-TV 29. What this channel airs could hardly even be qualified as broadcast NTSC quality. This channel will probably never broadcast in HD. If the CRTC were smart, they would allow a co-op license broadcaster that would receive a ATSC channel license, and then run three DT subchannels that would involve several stations. CFTU-TV 29, that new Laval proposal, and perhaps some other channel could all use a co-op license. That way, they get to air and we don't get OTA space jammed with crap on three channels spaces.

Example:

29.1 - Canal Savoir (480i or 480p, currently CFTU-TV 29)
29.2 - That new Laval proposal (480i or 480p)
29.3 - Ethnic Channel (480i or 480p, currently on CJNT-TV 62)

Two of these stations run stuff that I doubt will be HD for a long time. And I'm sure this new proposal for Laval will be in the same situation. At this configuration each channel can get 6 mbits allocated to it.
And since only one transmitter is needed on Mount-Royal to accomplish this, the costs of operating this transmitter can be split between the three parties. Also, instead of running three individual low powered transmitters, they can run one half decent power output (perhaps 40 - 50 kw) and not rely only on cable to get their signals into peoples homes.

The same can even be said about the two Omni stations in Toronto. One channel license. And both channels streams can be run off of that. One can even be HD, and the other a 480i.

I mean, come on.

As tvlurker suggested, you should think about preparing an intervention to the CRTC to discuss your concerns.

Several of us DHCers have intervened in CRTC proceedings in the past.

The same can even be said about the two Omni stations in Toronto. One channel license. And both channels streams can be run off of that. One can even be HD, and the other a 480i.


You make good points about CFTU and the TVRL, but OMNI broadcasts locally produed widescreen news(it may be HD, even - we're not OTA-DT here in Ottawa yet), and NFL football.

Note that Rogers mobile truck in Ottawa is HD ready, so it won't be long before they start doing community TV in HD, too.

Stampeder...

You are right. I should, but I don't even know where to begin. It's not something I have done, or know how. The thing is this example would even solve the problem of replacing NTSC transmitters in the north. One ATSC transmiiter can offer 3 DT channels (SRC, CBC, and something else) at 6mbits per channel. This is certainly far better than 1 very low powered NTSC Channel. And we all know how crappy analogue reception can be when the weather changes. HD would be great for everybody, but when you're in Labrador City, three 480i DT streams can be as good.

TVlurker...

You can do Widescreen on a subchannel. WCAX-DT has it's subchannel on 16:9, 480i.
So the full raster of the screen can be filled up. And because you do widecreen, does not always mean your doing HD. What I'm saying is, the situation of each station should determine what they need to do. And that this new ATSC system is flexable enough to allow even smaller stations and communities to receive Digital Television.

What bothers me about these low powered NTSC operations is that they clutter the airways by using a broadcast channel, and then use cable to get their signals into peoples homes. This is really why I think this new proposal for a Laval station gets under my skin.

The CRTC should be forcing exiting and future channels to convert to ATSC as soon as possible. Once that gets done, we'll see broadcast channel space free up. How you say?

Well, look at the situation with CFTU-TV 29. What this channel airs could hardly even be qualified as broadcast NTSC quality. This channel will probably never broadcast in HD. If the CRTC were smart, they would allow a co-op license broadcaster that would receive a ATSC channel license, and then run three DT subchannels that would involve several stations. CFTU-TV 29, that new Laval proposal, and perhaps some other channel could all use a co-op license. That way, they get to air and we don't get OTA space jammed with crap on three channels spaces.

Example:

29.1 - Canal Savoir (480i or 480p, currently CFTU-TV 29)
29.2 - That new Laval proposal (480i or 480p)
29.3 - Ethnic Channel (480i or 480p, currently on CJNT-TV 62)

Two of these stations run stuff that I doubt will be HD for a long time. And I'm sure this new proposal for Laval will be in the same situation. At this configuration each channel can get 6 mbits allocated to it.
And since only one transmitter is needed on Mount-Royal to accomplish this, the costs of operating this transmitter can be split between the three parties. Also, instead of running three individual low powered transmitters, they can run one half decent power output (perhaps 40 - 50 kw) and not rely only on cable to get their signals into peoples homes.

The same can even be said about the two Omni stations in Toronto. One channel license. And both channels streams can be run off of that. One can even be HD, and the other a 480i.

I mean, come on.
I totaly disagree on Channel 29. This station backed by Mcgill, UdeM and UQAM is in a different league than community, etnics or commercial stations and just to show you how we perceived quality differently I appreciate way more the presentations that CFTU does than CTV, TVA or TQS. I only hope they would improve the technical side of their operation.

You can do Widescreen on a subchannel. WCAX-DT has it's subchannel on 16:9, 480i

I know, but I suspect that OMNI news actually is HD, I just wasn't sure. That only leaves room for one other SD channel.

Canwest, on the other hand, is in financial difficulty, so I don't expect to see local HD originations on CJNT, although the E! shows might be available in HD.

I agree with your basic concept, though. I think we can see more use of statical multiplexing to optimally pack in SD and HD channels together.

Another novel idea is to have stations stop upconverting their SD material to HD, and let the TV set do it instead. That way. they could schedule subchannels that are 'active' only when the main channel is broadcasting SD material. At other times, the sub-channel could be still present, but use very little bandwidth by just broadcasting a schedule screen or ID.

I also agree that 3 or 4 SD channels in the boonies is better than no HD at all.

RonXYZ....

What I'm proposing is simply an example. This example is mainly based on getting stations to make the transition to DTV faster, and easier. The big channels will go HD. But, these smaller channels can make it work as well by using the flexablity of the ATSC system.

How many people currently can get CFTU-TV 29, and CJNT-TV 62 over the air with a pair of rabbit ear antennas? How many even have an outdoor antenna, and the signals from these stations are usually crap. I know this is the case for me. CJNT-TV 62 is just watchable, but my reception of CFTU-TV 29 is not.

They both can move to a ATSC transmitter either together or with other partners. My example was to have three equally sized organisation doing the co-op rather than having a big network station pushing the smaller partner around. And though my example of CJNT-TV would involve Canwest, I simply threw it in for the purposes of the example to show how currently low power stations in Montreal can make the transition to DTV. That's all.

In all practicality, it would make more sense to have the two Canwest owned stations in Montreal together.

46.1 - CKMI-HD (Global)
46.2 - CKMI-DT (this would be the current CJNT-TV 62)

Again, only examples.

Blackburst

I just reread your post 685 and I realize that you were questionning the technical quality not the content so I have to aggree with you they could even join with Télé-Québec for a province wide coverage. Talking about the technical possibility I have always wonder why CBC/SRC do not use the SAP channel or now with atsc subchannel audio for sport events or others instead of having the same video broadcast on two seperate channel all across Canada. I think down south broadcasters use this for English and Spanish communities.

RonXYZ

Absolutely, CFTU-TV using a CIVM-DT subchannel when it goes on air. Great example.

And I agree with the SAP not being used by SRC & CBC. Why can't the CBC have a second audio feed when Hockey Night in Canada games are on. Their rating in the entire province of Quebec would spike up. In the US it various per market. Some run Spanish, some offer decriptive audio. About a decade ago WCFE-TV 57 had a NPR radio station license as well, and they pumped that on their SAP channel.

I am always amazed by what PBS stations manage to do in the US, But up here, you almost have to threaten shutting the CBC & SRC down before you get any of these people to do something other than working in their little bubble world.

I have read several times that the CRTC is not going to allow the use of sub channels.They state that DTV is for HD resolution only.

Anyone know when the digital transmissions in Montreal, QC will be from on top of mount royal instead of from downtown?

I have read several times that the CRTC is not going to allow the use of sub channels.They state that DTV is for HD resolution only.

That is not the CRTC's intent, but it is the practical result in the short term. There is also a related issue of potentialy requiring a separate broadcasting license for each sub-channel.

I have read several times that the CRTC is not going to allow the use of sub channels.They state that DTV is for HD resolution only.

That is what I thought until Sun TV started using a sub channel for their 4:3 broadcast in Ottawa. Further reading showed that the CRTC prefers using the full bandwidth for HD, but will consider the use of sub-channels on a case by case basis and there is no guarantee that the sub-channels will get broadcast benefits such as priority placement on cable and simultaneous substitution.

Hi,

Did anyone noticed yesterday a black screen on WGMU-TV with a message:


Alarm system : ON

Something like that.

Strange and low budget.



Intravino

I don't get WGMU-CA 39 directly, but I do get their re-transmitter in St-Alban's W52CD-LP 52. And I have seen this warning appear on the screen before. Yes, low budget indeed.

I wonder how this will all turn out for their digital transition plans. I think WGMU-CA 39 has received a digital license to appear as WGMU-LD 49.

LD is suppose to stand for Lower Power Digital. But if you look at the contour map on the TV Query FCC site, the footprint of WGMU-LD 49 will cover a larger area than. But, not up to the border.

Also, any news from WFFF-DT 43. I have lost my reception. Very low signal strength. WCAX, WPTZ, WETK, WCFE all coming in strong.