Gah -- those forums are terrible and trolled by haters (and me from time to time). Consider an intervention on their license renewal.

That's true Micah, but it is a formal consultation. One hopes that the trolls will be filtered out by the professionals conducting the consultation.

For certain, making a reasonable/logical opinion whichever way will have more impact than some gutteral response.

Yeah, you would hope so, but the SNR is really high ;)

I read this today:

http://cbc-radiocanada.ca/licence-renewal-2011/crtc-application.html

Prominent access to all distribution platforms that Canadians are using

CBC/Radio-Canada is now Canada's only national broadcaster not owned by a cable or satellite company. Our broadcasting competitors are the same companies we rely on to distribute our content. We need a supportive environment for our services. We cannot be left to the mercy of vertically integrated distributors, some of whom make no secret of their antipathy for public broadcasting.

We're asking the CRTC to ensure that Canadians have access to our services by requiring mandatory and prominent distribution of those services on all the platforms that Canadians are using, on a reasonable basis. In particular, our specialty television services must have the opportunity to support our distinctive public broadcasting mandate and programming agenda. This can only happen when our specialty services gain better prominence on cable and satellite providers' line-ups.

Doesn't even acknowledge that ANY Canadians receive CBC OTA. :mad:

Doesn't even acknowledge that ANY Canadians receive CBC OTA.

One thing I've noticed after reading and participating in this forum for over a year is the absence of television engineers participating. Several of the US forums (such as AVS and DTV Forum USA) have chief engineers and other broadcast technicians posting regularly. And they're all strong advocates of OTA, some of whom have even volunteered to visit posters' home to assist with reception difficulties.

Have I overlooked participation (perhaps in other thread topics) from CBC engineers or those from CTV and other broadcasters?

We have several broadcast engineering staff here from different Canadian networks/stations/broadcasters as members (and some from the U.S. too) and over the years I have safeguarded their requested anonymity because the digital transition has tended to make their jobs difficult or even tenuous. I'm not speaking for anyone in particular; I'm just saying that there has been a noticeable churn of jobs in the industry and several have contacted me after having been forced to move on or find different opportunities. The Canadian transition to DTV was a golden opportunity to learn from the U.S. experience, but instead the Canadian industry and regulators seemed to fumble along all the way. The transition has been hard on a lot of good people in the broadcast engineering business. When those folks have said "Don't quote me on this!!!" I have honoured that, knowing that their bosses (the execs) were skating along on black ice at midnight trying to figure out what they were supposed to be doing.

Prominent access to all distribution platforms that Canadians are using


3. Stable funding under programs like the Local Programming Improvement Fund

How many other broadcasters get to dip into taxpayers money like the CBC does?

From the CRTC's website (https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=O&PA=B&PT=PT1&PST=A&Lang=eng) …

Appended is an application by CBC/Radio-Canada to amend the licence of television programming undertaking CBLT Toronto in order to change the technical parameters of its transmitter CBLN-TV-3 at Chatham, Ontario.
It is proposed to change the transmitting channel from 64 to 55 and decrease the average effective radiated power from 2,000 watts to 277 watts (maximum effective radiated power from 10,520 watts to 1,100 watts). The EHAAT of 190.8 metres remains unchanged.
(…)
• Low power operation provides coverage to approximately 56,448 people, which corresponds to 76% of the total population currently served by the station at full power.
• Unlike channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, channel 55 is not officially reassigned to another application or entity. Considering the time required for the channel reassignment and to complete the deployment of new systems, the station CBLN-TV-3 could continue operating on this channel during this period without affecting other systems.
• We were incapable to identify a clear channel for a regular class station in Chatham below channel 52.
(…)

Under this proposal, Chatham will sit just beyond the Grade A contour:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/picture.php?albumid=505&pictureid=4221

LEGEND:
• Blue dash — current Grade A
• Green dash — proposed Grade A
• Blue solid — current Grade B
• Green dash — proposed Grade B

^^^^
CBLN-TV-3 could continue operating on this channel during this period without affecting other systems.

Chatham is close enough to the U.S. to cause problems, even with low power. Is that channel also clear in the U.S.

CBC going to spend money on this conversion but not have a station in London.Surely the Windsor signal could be made to reach Chatham.Use the money for a London digital repeater.

Member BernP over on the French forums has reported CBC/Radio-Canada is thinking of extending analog CBC service to Quebec City for two years with low-power transmissions from Mont Bélair on channel 11 (currently used by CBVT analog).
Apparently the same sort of strategy is being looked at for other CBC/Radio-Canada stations that would otherwise go off the air in September.
All subject to change, of course.
Has anyone else heard of this?

I also heard, that the CBLN, tower is also conflicting, with the CKCO TV, so when I told Don M (A Channel) president that CBC was going to 42, he said that CBC techs, were having problems....but did not communicate, with CKCO at all. I had to tell them. I am thinking that is why they are putting it on a low repeater. BTW, the contours of CBC Windsor, go beyound the contours of CBLN, they should just shut off Chatham. All the money they are spending on this, could pay for the London Transmitter. CBLN LN stands for London anyway.

Member BernP over on the French forums has reported CBC/Radio-Canada is thinking of extending analog CBC service to Quebec City for two years with low-power transmissions from Mont Bélair on channel 11 (currently used by CBVT analog).
Apparently the same sort of strategy is being looked at for other CBC/Radio-Canada stations that would otherwise go off the air in September.
All subject to change, of course.
Has anyone else heard of this?
CBC seems to think "Low Power" as being a loophole in the mandatory markets/52-69 CRTC order. Not sure CRTC intended this but I don't think they intended to cause a massive shutdown either.

I just reviewed 2010-719 and I can't seem to find any reference to "full power" except in the context of 52-69.

In order to vacate channels 52 to 69, the Commission does not intend to renew authorizations for full-power analog transmitters on those channels outside the mandatory markets beyond 31 August 2011.

I don't believe any low power stations in mandatory markets exist right now.

CBC president Hubert Lacroix speaks with local radio in Quebec City. They talk about loss of OTA about the 7 minute mark:
http://www.cbc.ca/quebecam/2011/06/30/cbc-president-answers-the-tough-questions/
In it, he says CBC believes OTA is a dying technology and that the public broadcaster would better serve Canadians by spending money on creating content rather than wasting money on distribution.
He repeats the usual lie about only 7% of Canadians using antennas.

Currently with all of their low power analogue repeaters, I would agree that there is some waste and overlap in the distribution system. But still, you have to at least try to cover the majority of the population.

He [CBC president Hubert Lacroix] repeats the usual lie about only 7% of Canadians using antennas.

What exactly is the source for that 7% figure? Are there regional/market breakdowns for OTA viewership?

See http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/pwc09.htm. It claims that 7.5% mandatory markets rely on OTA and 13% elsewhere.

That's exclusive OTA too. Doesn't account for bdu subscribers with a 2nd TV - that's more difficult to measure.

The statistics are kind of misleading anyway.
People were abandoning antenna TV because of the picture quality on NTSC.
CBC is assuming consumers will reject ATSC the way they rejected NTSC. Probably not a fair assumption to make …

@downbeat that is really the heart of the issue for me. Not only is that a bad assumption but in places like London you stifle adoption when you cannot get a full complement of channels.