....and Calgary's French service CBRFT-DT here! - ref downbeat! :)

they would not spend it on OTA transmitters but a new technologies, such as an IPTV project instead. Toronto was also mentioned as a location for a new project.

What would be wrong with starting a pilot project for new technologies in London - since it is not planned to replace their high powered 1.6 Mw E.R.P. analog, English service, channel 40 transmitter. Though, that may represent a slight movement in their political centre of gravity.

"If funds did become available"... I wonder how much money they'd stand to make selling off the land they own where all their repeater sites sit on.

No money for that in London - that tower is owned by TVO.

CBC should be *making* money renting space on their towers. There must be other users on some/all of them? Why can't some of that money be directed to OTA DTV transition?

The CBC has already stated that if funds did become available, they would not spend it on OTA transmitters but on new technologies, such as an IPTV project instead. Toronto was also mentioned as a location for a new project. I guess the CBC doesn't serve all Canadians any more, just big cities, Quebec and political capitals.

These funds are technically not new CBC money budgeted to convert CBC analog transmitters to digital.... the funds were already allocated to convert CBC's Whitehorse, Yellowknife, and Iqaluit analog transmitters to digital.

As a Londoner, I'm expecting/hoping/calling on the CBC to redirect the funds to convert London, Moncton, Saint John, Saskatoon, ... and Lethbridge analog transmitters to digital.

I hope to see an updated CBC DTV TRANSITION PLAN published on http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/newsreleases/20100806.shtml soon.

London C cannot B bare C costs
I would not hold your breath on this one BCF. More and more these days I feel it is falling on deaf ears. In all fairness there is no local flavour anyways with this Toronto repeater.

More and more these days I feel it is falling on deaf ears. In all fairness there is no local flavour anyways with this Toronto repeater.

Yeah, but some of us wanted to watch HNIC in proper HD :(

Yeah, but some of us wanted to watch HNIC in proper HD

Some of us want to watch HNIC for free via our public broadcaster, which we the citizens of London, Ontario, Canada pay for.

Heck, some of us would like a public broadcaster which doesn't almost completely void the City of London in all it's programing, radio or tv.

Some of us want to watch HNIC for free via our public broadcaster, which we the citizens of London, Ontario, Canada pay for.

Heck, some of us would like a public broadcaster which doesn't almost completely void the City of London in all it's programing, radio or tv.
Also true!

A few weeks ago I complained to the CRTC about the CBC cutting me off in London. This is by no means news, but this was what I got back from the CBC:


Thank you for your email to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission concerning the move to digital television transmission. As you know, the CRTC has asked the CBC to respond to you directly.

You wrote concerning a decision by the CBC to not erect a digital transmission tower in London, Ontario. You wrote that as a present over-the-air user of CBC Television, you feel you should be able to continue tuning in to CBC Television in this way.

As you know, CRTC regulation requires us to shut down our analogue signal in London on August 31, 2011. Your city has been identified by the CRTC as a "mandatory market" - a place where broadcasters need to convert to digital in order to continue broadcasting over-the-air.

CBC/Radio-Canada is putting up digital transmitters everywhere we have a television station. We will also continue broadcasting in analogue everywhere we're permitted to. But we don't have a television station in London and are not allowed to continue broadcasting in analogue there. The unfortunate result for antenna users in London is that they will need a cable or satellite service to continue watching our programming beginning September 1, 2011.

Putting up digital transmitters is very expensive. We must weigh our financial constraints against the fact that over-the-air use has been in steep decline in Canada for years - only 7 per cent of Canadians use an antenna to watch TV today and more people across Canada access our content online than they do by over-the-air television. The way we invest our limited technological resources needs to reflect these realities.

CBC/Radio-Canada acknowledged very early that the transition to digital was going to be a challenge. The evolution of our industry has moved us towards the difficult balancing act of allocating scarce resources across a wide range of platforms and priorities.

Our new five-year strategic plan places the regions as a top priority for the public broadcaster. But our investment in the regions will consist of enhancing our local programming offer and finding ways of providing local programming on radio and on the web to the 7 million Canadians who don't currently have local service. The Broadcasting Act mandates CBC/Radio-Canada to "be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose." Given the trends of our industry, over-the-air television can no longer be considered an appropriate and efficient means of connecting Canadians to our content.

This is the situation as it stands today. CBC Transmission has targeted where it plans to place new transmitters based on the regulations as they exist, the funds available and the needs of different markets across the country. Should there be changes in any of these, CBC will alter its plans accordingly. We appreciate the time you have taken to write and have ensured that a copy of your correspondence and this reply has been included in this department's weekly report which circulates audience inquiries and concerns throughout the Corporation to all senior executives, producers and programmers at CBC, including the President and CEO.

Sincerely, ....


Of course, I replied that this was unacceptable -- should clear things right up ;)

micah,
The more I think about this topic, the more get mad. Something has gone wrong with the CRTC. There is no excuse for CBC. They have known this to be coming down the pipe for a while now.
Yes it is expensive, to convert to digital. I know this.
Honestly, the gap between Windsor and Toronto is pretty big and to not have a CBC digital would be, well sad.
I continue to lose respect for CBC despite "Hockey Night in Canada, and Rick Mercer".

While I'd prefer to watch CBC OTA, FreeHD may be an option for those left without an OTA signal.

I'm really looking forward to that service if they do it right (dvbs2 in clear for locals)

micah, yes PQ is a concern. The other is whether the carrier will spam you to death to subscribe to other services. Either way, still an option for those who don't want a BDU subscription, and enjoy basic services.

Some points that come to mind to respond....

It is hard to huddle the family around the computer to watch the latest episode of (whatever show Dragon's Den or Rick Mercer Report)

Some people migrated to a BDU for quality of signal, once that ATSC will be up and running, many may choose to go back to OTA. We have seen this trend in the United States.

BDUs lock you in to proprietary digital recording equipment if you want to use your own equipment the best feed available is Digital ATSC OTA.

Digital ATSC OTA is a very good complementarity service to on-line offerings considering both makes a more complete package for your audience.

Re: "It is hard to huddle the family around the computer to watch the latest episode of ... "

Bad argument. Many of us here have computers connected to our TVs over HDMI. A computer just looks like another device like a BluRay player or PVR. The bigger issue is if UBB comes into effect - that would make this a very expensive replacement for OTA.

Re: "...once that ATSC will be up and running, many may choose to go back to OTA"

Good Argument! As far as I know, the number of people who were analog OTA and prefer cable to ATSC is very small. Digital OTA "cord-cutters" outnumber them if my area is any indicaton.

As for CBC in London, has anyone reached out to any of the areas outside of London that are inside the CBLN contour? St. Thomas, Port Stanley, Strathroy, Exeter, Woodstock, etc. From driving around a lot in the area last summer, it seemed to me much higher than 7% OTA usage in those areas, especially along some country roads - way closer to 70%! :eek: These people could be key to gaining critical mass to get CBC to reconsider. Remember the CC said "the phones aren't ringing" (yet).

I just watched a CBC show on their internet service. Picture and sound quality were significantly worse that ATSC or even a good NTSC signal. Then there is the bandwidth issue. The government wants to be sure that internet data caps are eliminated before allowing the CBC to eliminate OTA.

Re: Re: "It is hard to huddle the family around the computer to watch the latest episode of ... "

I guess i was more meaning for people who wouldn't typically visit a place like this board. Like at grandma's house where she is using OTA for her TV. She wouldn't dream of hooking her laptop up to the TV. I even offered it to her once and said I would make it easy for her but she wasn't interested. She loves the new digital OTA ATSC picture on her 46" plasma however!

As other have pointed out web PQ sucks! AQ as well but most ppl can hear past the AQ side of things if PQ is ok.

Thanks Micah for posting CBC's response for London. Just like Panamark, I'm also mad (and disappointed) that the CBC won't be converting the London CBLN transmitter to digital... this is very sad, as ALL other conventional broadcasters WILL be converting to OTA digital in the London area.

As far as statistics go, everyone knows that 90% of all statistics are inaccurate. :rolleyes:

This is the first time I have ever seen "7%" of the population that use an OTA antenna to receive TV mentioned... I usually see the "10%" stat referenced. The problem is that the "7%" or "10%" statistic is for the TOTAL Canadian population who receive their tv signal OTA, which MIGHT be true. BUT, if the CBC had a CLUE, London is immediately surrounded by rural areas, and just as El Gran Chico mentioned, smaller cities and towns in the London area (including the Middlesex, Elgin, Oxford, Lambton counties), there are LOTS of homes who have antennas installed to receive a TV signal. All you have do is drive by on the roads to see the antennas.

St.Thomas, Port Stanley, Strathroy, Exeter, Woodstock, and all other towns and rural homes in the London and surrounding area will be impacted by CBC's decision to not convert the CBLN transmitter. Therefore, I have to agree with El Gran Chico, that for the CBLN London viewing area, OTA usage is MUCH HIGHER than "7%"..... London & area population is around 500000 people.

IMHO, the CBC "official" explanation for dropping London from converting to digital is very poor.

Interest for receiving OTA dtv will grow over time, as the ATSC digital signal is superior in PQ and AQ over analog NTSC, digital cable, and satellite.

As far as cost to convert.... since Whitehorse, Yellowknife, and Iqaluit are no longer mandatory markets, as defined by the CRTC, then, as a Londoner, I'm expecting and calling on the CBC to redirect part of the funds to convert the London CBLN analog transmitter to digital. The money would have already been budgeted by the CBC to convert the Whitehorse, Yellowknife, and Iqaluit transmitters to digital anyways. If the CBC won't be converting the Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, nor London transmitters, then where is the budgeted CBC DIGITAL CONVERSION funds going to??

Now, how can the taxpayers of London, St.Thomas, Port Stanley, Strathroy, Exeter, Woodstock, and all other towns and rural homes in the surrounding area drop their TAX DOLLARS from going to the CBC??

The latest response from CBC management to one of our members (micah) contains the ongoing claim about supposedly declining OTA viewer counts. To me this is symptomatic of a mandated PR group-think in that corporation - there is no way that individual spokespersons and executives of that network would all arrive at that same specious conclusion independently. To me it says that there is an intentional effort to "stay on message", as they say in the PR world, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I'll make sure to add a paragraph to every communication I make with the CBC that includes a refutation of such claims, whether that happens to be the topic of my missive or not. I think it's time that we stay on message and help them to stop patronizing us with such nonsense. ;)

There's a natural tendency in this thread to discuss alternatives to OTA DTV for London CBC viewers but please stay focused purely on the OTA aspects of the CBC's transition plans nationwide in this thread. The Pros and Cons thread has a lot of great background on the various alternatives to OTA.

Also regarding petitions, PR, etc., please keep in mind this rule of the forum: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=797552&postcount=12