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

I don't see the 7.5% number there. They do estimate that 635,133 of 7,872,385 households in mandatory markets have a TV and don't subscribe to a BDU (and are thus OTA). Doing the math, I get 8%. Still as others say, this is misleading as it doesn't count those who use both OTA and a BDU one way or another. It also doesn't count the projected growth (based on the American experience) of OTA due to DTV and as a complement to streaming video.

Also there not counting all the business places that have a TV using OTA.Like our lunchroom tv at work.The restaurant near me or the barbershop.If they did a survey i bet the poorest people using OTA would not take survey or fill it out.

Even if OTA use is 7% or 8% as they say - it wouldn't surprise me. Quite frankly, analog sucks compared to even basic satellite or cable. I can hardly stand to watch Global on Ch. 11 at my cottage, especially since we have all the US networks in HD. Because of poor reception and horrible picture quality, we almost went for satellite - but the US transitioned just in time.

Also, with many baby boomers retiring and therefore not having as much cash to spend (as well as the fact that most of them would have grown up with rabbit ears), I suspect the adoption rate of OTA may go up once they see that the antenna stuff actually looks good, and is not full of lines, shifting images, ghosting, snow or green skies and purple faces.

The CBC is a public service and public services are universal by government policy in Canada. Shutting down CBC OTA because only 7% of the population uses it is like the government saying they will no longer pay for heart surgeries because only 7% of the population dies from heart disease. Saying there will be new technologies to fix the problem in 5 or 10 years doesn't make the grade either. The analogy is a little more drastic in outcome but the principle is the same.

I have submitted an intervention to the CRTC regarding CBC Television, focusing on English DTV. In the intervention I questioned what types of primary research and consultation they have done with their viewers in all different regions directly related to OTA DTV (which I doubt they have done). I also refer to analog OTA as a dying technology, while digital OTA being a growing one that has been seeing increasing popularity in the United States.

I find it hard to know what is going to happen in some areas of the country. My own interest is in the area served right now by the transmitter in Barry's Bay. We have a cottage property, and don't watch enough television to make the purchase of a dish worthwhile. It's nice to be able to watch the news or a hockey game, though.

As much as I would love to receive digital OTA, I'd be satisfied if I could keep receiving analog; but I can't figure out from CBC's website whether it will continue or not, and it bugs me that my taxes support the CBC, if I can't continue to receive their broadcasts.

Channel 19 Barry's Bay will continue in analog. If you click on the "view coverage map" for the Ottawa DTV transition page on the CBC website (http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/dtv/Ottawa_CBC.shtml), you'll see that Barry's Bay analog service will continue.

For another 2.5 years anyway. CBC's analog distribution system is slated for end-of-life in late 2013. Once we get to September 2011, I imagine this issue will get more attention.

BTW, CBC told me they have 604 analog transmitters in channels 2 to 51 outside of mandatory markets (that is, out of scope for August 31, 2011 but in scope for late 2013)

Thanks tvlurker. I got looking at the transmission map for Channel 19, though, and I think we are actually getting our feed from Channel 14 in Foymount; I hope it will stay on the air for a while too.

About that 7% of the population: they do realize that's over 2 million people, right? That's a lot of people to ignore.

Yes. And its not just the people too. They're ignoring elected representatives at both the federal and municiple levels!

https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=O&PA=B&PT=PT1&PST=A&Lang=eng

Oh my, this is going to be contentious. CBC wants to service Saint John (a DTV Mandatory Market) in analog and use the the SRC DTV allocation (which won't be used) to service Fredericton.

Interventions accepted until Monday July 18, 8pm Ottawa time
Heads up if you were thinking on intervening. The deadline has been moved 1 week earlier (July 11th).

I was just reading the Globe & Mail online and this article about CBC and the switch to digital is in today's edition.

Here is a link to the article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbcs-switch-to-digital-tv-transmission-will-leave-some-viewers-without-access/article2092806/

The article has already generated close to 300 comments. It's the usual mix of people who have no idea what they are talking about and didn't even read the article, and people who are highly knowledgeable about OTA.

I'm pleased at the tone of her article (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1282701&postcount=692) - it is sympathetic to the Canadians in New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatoon, and London, Ontario who will be getting chumped by the CBC, and the writer was careful to listen to those of us who have been rebutting Hubert Lacroix's ill-conceived analysis that OTA is a dying technology with few viewers.

Good job, Kate Taylor. :)

too bad the CRTC provided incorrect information. Obviously, the CBC HAD applied for analog coverage in a major market (Channel 4 analog in Saint John.) Not sure why the CRTC spokesman would say otherwise, unless he was contacted weeks before publication.

Ya I think that was just a timing issue.

One of the things I tried to get across when she interviewed me was that OTA is not just a "poor man's cable" solution: many consumers run OTA antennas for the highest picture quality while still keeping cable or satellite subscriptions, hence my thoughts that Lacroix's numbers are based on flawed viewer number data. I see that Ms. Taylor went with the emphasis on the "low-cost TV" side of OTA with a focus on seniors, pensioners, students, etc. regardless of my comments. C'est la vie. :)

Well, its hard to argue against it being lost cost ;)

Yep, nothing beats it for that!

Keeping on the topic of the CBC, it is woeful to see/hear the misguided guesses at audience numbers for DTV from their executives. I only wish the article had expounded more on how the CBC's numbers seem to deliberately ignore viewers who aren't intending to go 100% OTA. As I've been saying here for over six years, OTA is an option for everyone regardless of whether a cable or satellite subscription is also kept. Factoring in those consumers with mixed programming sources would reveal much, much higher numbers than Hubert Lacroix and his fellow CBC executives are implying.

Another thing the CBC is not properly accounting for is that many of its ardent fans are OTAers. Which makes sense since it is one out of a handful of stations many Canadian OTAers get.

While millions of Satellite/Cable subscribers receive CBC, they are very often tuned to something OTHER than CBC. (except when hockey's on :D )

When researching a similar topic for TVO a couple of years ago, I found a study that said that at average, 25% of TVO's viewership is OTA, meaning that the average OTAer is much more likely to watch TVO than the average Satellite/Cable subscriber.

Good point - it seems ridiculous that not only are the CBC execs advocating that their network be blended into the "500-channel universe" of the BDUs but that Canadians be forced to support the outdated 1960s business models of those cable and satellite companies as if we somehow owe them a living in order to be able to watch our national broadcaster. It is folly.