The CBC post-transition applications for amendment were posted today on the CRTC website.

Good find. For those who are interested, it can be found in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-739 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-739.htm#2).


In 2012, there are plans to increase oprating parameters. Whether this just means upping the power to 480 kW, or moving the antenna higher on the tower, we don't know.


I would assume they plan to remove their channel 4 antenna, replace it with an non-directional UHF antenna and adjust the ERP to replicate their analog contours as best they can/are permitted. We likely won't know this for sure until 2012 though.

Obviously, the French service is already on the air, but perhaps this means that CBOFT will indeed revert from channel 22 to channel 9.

That would be my interpretation as well. We should find out for sure soon enough though.

It's interesting that CBC's application for CBXT Edmonton is avoiding VHF-High in order to be able to support ATSC-MH:
but that SRC is not avoiding VHF-High, as CBVT Quebec will be staying on channel 12 with only a kW or two. I suspect Trois Rivieres and Sherbrooke will also stay on VHF-High (13 and 9, respectively.)

Of course, in the Edmonton case, the CBC had to switch from VHF-Low, so once they're switching, it probably makes sense to go with UHF.

Some other reasons for this discrepancy include:

CBC and SRC are quite independent and have different strategies,
French Canadians are more likely to use OTA so maintaining compatibility with existing antennas is important,

Here are a boatload of CBC applications for DTV undertakings:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-739.htm
• CBVT-DT Quebec (with current technical parameters in post-transition)
• CBOT-DT Ottawa (with current technical parameters in post-transition)
• CBHT-DT Halifax (Ch. 39, 157 kW directional ERP @ 266 metres)
• CBWT-DT Winnipeg (Ch. 27, 22 kW non-directional ERP @ 139 metres)
• CBWFT-DT Winnipeg (Ch. 51, 7.6 kW non-directional ERP @ 139 metres)
• CBXT-DT Edmonton (Ch. 42, 131 kW directional ERP @ 233 metres)

Good find. For those who are interested, it can be found in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-739 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-739.htm#2).


I would assume they plan to remove their channel 4 antenna, replace it with an omnidirectional UHF antenna and adjust the ERP to replicate their analog contours as best they can/are permitted. We likely won't know this for sure until 2012 though.



That would be my interpretation as well. We should find out for sure soon enough though.



Some other reasons for this discrepancy include:

CBC and SRC are quite independent and have different strategies,
French Canadians are more likely to use OTA so maintaining compatibility with existing antennas is important,

plus SRC has only one VHF-Low O&O station in Quebec, so by reusing all the antenna hardware in place, they can get by with just replacing the transmitters. Also note that SRC is committed to converting the Jonquiere, 3Rivers, and Sherbrooke transmitters to digital as part of the benefits package they promised to the CRTC when they bought the stations from TQS.

Of note: CBWT-DT and CBWFT-DT will put their DTV transmitters on the Richardson Building in downtown Winnipeg to improve urban coverage.

I see the CBC finally put in an application to amend the broadcasting licence to add digital transmitters to serve Winnipeg.

CBC to be on channel 27 and CBC French on channel 51 so no change there.

What's interesting is they want to put the new transmitters downtown on the Richardson building. Current towers are somewhere south-west outside of the city.

so what does this mean? Did they find the money after all? or are they still planning for 2012. :-|

Of this latest batch, only the CBXT Edmonton application specifically states their DTV undertaking will be implemented before the transition deadline.

What's interesting is they want to put the new transmitters downtown on the Richardson building. Current towers are somewhere south-west outside of the city.

According to CKND's application (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-375.htm#2), the CBC tower is currently loaded to capacity, prohibiting the addition of another antenna. This could be another reason CBC is moving their antennas downtown (though you would think the removal of all those VHF antennas could make it easy to install a UHF antenna that could be shared by all three).

FYI CKND will be moving to Canwest Place, which is currently the tallest building in Winnipeg. To bad the CBC won't share the same antenna to make things easier for viewers.

FYI CKND will be moving to Canwest Place, which is currently the tallest building in Winnipeg. To bad the CBC won't share the same antenna to make things easier for viewers.

Actually the Richardson building is only about 13 feet shorter than Canwest place at about 407 feet vs 420 and the buildings are basically across the street from each other other so this should not make much of a difference.

According to CKND's application (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-375.htm#2), the CBC tower is currently loaded to capacity, prohibiting the addition of another antenna. This could be another reason CBC is moving their antennas downtown (though you would think the removal of all those VHF antennas could make it easy to install a UHF antenna that could be shared by all three).

You can't flash cut if you have to remove the VHF antennas before you can even install the UHF antennas.;)

Actually the Richardson building is only about 13 feet shorter than Canwest place at about 407 feet vs 420 and the buildings are basically across the street from each other other so this should not make much of a difference.
Point taken, but still, why not share? IC is wanting to limit the number of towers.

You can't flash cut if you have to remove the VHF antennas before you can even install the UHF antennas.;)
They could setup a temporary transmitter while they do the antenna work. Having said this, it is probably better having the UHF antenna downtown. In a perfect world, all stations would broadcast downtown in UHF and a multicast service repeater could be set up somewhere arround Portage la Prairie or Brandon on VHF-HI to serve South-Western Manatoba.

Point taken, but still, why not share? IC is wanting to limit the number of towers.
I think the short tower on the Canwest building limits the amount of RF that can be emitted. If you look at Canwest's application, you'll see they use this as the excuse for not broadcasting with sufficient power to replicate the analog coverage.

Trying to run a second transmitter from the same location would jsut make things worse.

Now, if both transmitters are in service early, it would be a good candiadte for a place to do early transition, which would give the CBC a chance to rework the Steinbach tower for UHF and/or VHF hi, once the channels 3 and 6 antennas are taken down.

According to Stampeder's mirror of the Industry Canada database (http://www.user.dccnet.com/jonleblanc/Canada_TV_Stations/DT.html), CBXFT Edmonton's DTV operations are listed as having been approved by the CRTC.

Edmonton; Ch. 47; CBXFT-DT; 533053 lat; 1131711 long; 166.5 metres; 15,180 watts

Now, a question: If CBXT-DT is to use Channel 42 with 132 kW @ 233 metres, why couldn't CBC/Radio-Canada install one antenna for both of them at superior technical parameters instead of using one antenna for each, some 70 metres apart in height? Is there a cost consideration I'm not thinking of?
The Channel 47 allocation for Edmonton exists in the IC database; it was intended for CFRN and allows for the highest power/height available for a full-power DTV station.
Channel 47 is currently occupied by CITV-DT (Global Edmonton).

Now, a question: If CBXT-DT is to use Channel 42 with 132 kW @ 233 metres, why couldn't CBC/Radio-Canada install one antenna for both of them at superior technical parameters instead of using one antenna for each, some 70 metres apart in height? Is there a cost consideration I'm not thinking of?
The Channel 47 allocation for Edmonton exists in the IC database; it was intended for CFRN and allows for the highest power/height available for a full-power DTV station.
Channel 47 is currently occupied by CITV-DT (Global Edmonton).
Good question. At first I had thought that there may have been short-spacing protection requirements for channel 47, but I see that in the Post-Transition plan channel 47 was originally assigned to CFRN-PT with 1MW at 286.5m, so that can't be the reason.

Originally Posted by downbeat
Now, a question: If CBXT-DT is to use Channel 42 with 132 kW @ 233 metres, why couldn't CBC/Radio-Canada install one antenna for both of them at superior technical parameters instead of using one antenna for each, some 70 metres apart in height? Is there a cost consideration I'm not thinking of?
The Channel 47 allocation for Edmonton exists in the IC database; it was intended for CFRN and allows for the highest power/height available for a full-power DTV station.
Channel 47 is currently occupied by CITV-DT (Global Edmonton).

Yes - It may well be that they will share the same antenna with superior technical parameters in due course. CBC/SRC seem to be doing things with their bugdet in close focus. It may well be that they already have an antenna for channel 47 somewhere in their system that can immediately be deployed but no suitable combiner, for example (these involve time and expense to engineer) or that the main antenna wasn't supplied with both English and French services in mind (bandwidth/frequency or power limitations). According to MikeFM's earlier posts - the CBXFT-DT French service was originally thought to be occupying Channel 11 as does the present CBXFT analog service.

Another example of this effect is the relativley low power (23,500 Kwatts ERP) of the proposed CBRT-DT service for Calgary which they have already implied (see the CRTC application) will use upgraded technical parameters at a later date.

Recently, Emerald_Boar mentioned in another thread that:

all the DTV proposals need to given by Dec 31 of this year.

which will coincide when the CBC will finalize their DTV rollout plan. Hopefully London (and other cities) will have their CBC transmitters upgraded to DTV, if they're not currently planned to do so. Again, it seems totally ridiculous that a city and surrounding area of nearly 500,000 people, only the CBC would not upgrade their OTA transmitter.... meanwhile, CITS, TVO, OMNI1, OMNI2, CITYtv, CHCH, A, etc will make the switch to DTV.

A reporter at the London Free Press contacted me today for information on the CBC's current planmicah,
has the London Free Press newspaper published an article on information on the CBC's current plan? I haven't seen it, since your post August 31, and I'm sure it would have been mentioned in these forums if the article had already been published. Hopefully the author of the article has been monitoring these forums, and will reference discussions taking place at digitalhome.ca

Hopefully the CBC will reconsider their current plan, and upgrade London's OTA transmitter to DTV.

Nothing yet :(

On October 20, CBC had their Annual General Meeting. A video archive can be found here:

One of the questions asked of the CBC speakers was about over the air transmitters being eliminated. Go to 36:29 of the video for the response to this question (or more accurately, lack thereof) from Timothy W. Casgrain - Chair of the Board of Directors:

http://events.snwebcastcenter.com/custom/cbc-apm/en/index-archive.php