The big problem with continuing an analog broadcast for a single channel in an area where all other stations are digital (Windsor-Detroit) is that the end user would have to go through so much trouble just to watch it. Many DTV converter boxes are digital-only. They need to be switched off and the TV's input has to be changed just to tune to the analog channel.

But for those who don't have the equipment to watch digital, CBC would have 100% of the market's viewership.

I am really getting tired of people bringing up the sub-channel option. It's not an option. The CRTC will not approve it and it doesn't fulfill the mandatory digital conversion requirement.

Your statement is factually incorrect. Let's end this urban myth here and now. Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-69 states " The Commission will also consider applications to share a digital transmitter between the services of one or multiple broadcasters (i.e. multicasting or multiplexing). " The key is that a subchannel has to be licensed for OTA transmission.

I agree that a 480i subchannel is suboptimal, but it's better than analog and better than nothing at all.

Have to confer with FoxFan , between having 2 switch from digital to analog and rotating my aerial it is rare that I watch any Canadian channels anymore.

" The Commission will also consider applications to share a digital transmitter between the services of one or multiple broadcasters (i.e. multicasting or multiplexing). "
Taken totally out of context, that statement appears to allow any and all multiplexing. The CRTC has qualified that statement by saying it will only consider such multiplexing under special circumstances. It has also stated that it will not allow multiplexing of current analog stations in most markets and that it will only consider subchannels that offer new and unique services. Unless the CBC can come up with a compelling argument it must place each currently available CBC service on a separate transmitter in most markets.

The CRTC has qualified that statement by saying it will only consider such multiplexing under special circumstances. It has also stated that it will not allow multiplexing of current analog stations in most markets and that it will only consider subchannels that offer new and unique services.

Can you provide a link or CRTC reference number so we can all read exactly what was said?

CBC/SRC is a special circumstance by definition. No other network has the obligation to operate in English and French across the country. They are also the only national network with a mix of commercial and public funding, and exceptional obligations to provide Canadian programming. I think they should be able to make a case for transmitting both networks using a single transmitter in most markets as it is in the public interest. CBC/SRC can provide more service to more Canadians with the same capital investment by multiplexing the two networks. CBC/SRC should have adopted this strategy from the beginning and obtained permission from the Commission years ago before they began to rollout DTV.

None of this is an excuse for their failure to comply with the CRTC mandatory markets regulation. CBC/SRC should apply for permission now to multiplex and the CRTC should give it to them. Better late than never.

Save cost and my money by multiplexing CBC and Radio Canada.Agreed CBC should have applied for this years ago.But CBC is not run like a business so they did not bother to even try.

- SRC/CBC public funding is more than 1000 M$
- They get public funding for local programming improvement.
- They get revenues from publicity, and it should be high, since they have an important market share (at least for SRC, with 16 % market share).

Compare it to Télé-Québec.
- Public funding of only 50 M$
- Market share of less than 4 %
- No public funding for local programming since they did not run local stations.
And they convert all their 17 transmitters.

If CBC/SRC use the same proportion of their TV operations revenues for the conversion, they can probably convert 170 transmitters.... not only 27.

The Toronto Star article has some eye opening numbers on the cost of installing each DTV transmitter:
TVO: ~$500,000 per
CTV: ~$ 1M per
CBC: $ 2M per!!

See the article here: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1292327&postcount=28

I might add that Télé-Québec has in my opinion the best technical parameters. They are really cranking out the power at all of their transmitters. Other than taking CIVM off Mt Royal, it looks like they are doing it right. The CBC is doing a good job too in most cases, which I suppose is part of the problem. Their technical standards are so high, that each conversion is costing them more than global/ctv/city.

The CBC is inflating their conversion cost figures by adding operating costs over the life of the transmitter to the initial startup costs. I doubt their technical standards are much higher, the CBC has just decided they don't want to perform digital conversions and are cooking the books to reinforce their position. There has been no word from the federal government or the CBC about the situation so it appears they don't care how many Canadians lose the CBC.

TVO: The real cost of converting most repeaters.
CTV: Inflated to get concessions from the CRTC, such as delayed conversion in smaller markets.
CBC: Grossly inflated to cover up CBC management's incompetence and hidden agendas.

Ouch! Truth hurts...

TVO: The real cost of converting most repeaters.
CTV: Inflated to get concessions from the CRTC, such as delayed conversion in smaller markets.
CBC: Grossly inflated to cover up CBC management's incompetence and hidden agendas.

Sounds about right to me.

I read an article way back that some small LP translator stations in the U.S. were able to convert for as little as $100K. Since the CBC gets over $1B/year why can't they just spread out the costs for conversion over a number of years.

These are apples and oranges figures. The CBC inflated their figures by including the operating costs over the unstated total life of the transmitter, without mentioning what the cost of running the analog transmitter would have been over the same period.

They can use the same towers, same antenna in many cases, plus electricity costs would be lower due to lower ERP's. There is some savings here. I would think CBLN would be one of the cheaper transmitters to operate. I agree the CBC inflated their costs beyond reason.

The Toronto Star article kindly referenced by PokerFace is both confusing and alarmist. The article is full of conflicting numbers about loss of service from the Friends of Public Broadcasting (CBC booster club), CBC itself and the CRTC. 'Friends' thinks that as many as 2 million viewers could loose CBC service as a result of the DTV conversion, but that number seems to be based on the assumption that many analog CBC viewers don't have the cash or capability to get a digital converter or HDTV set.

Apparently a large number of low income people watch CBC, as many as 400,000 in the GTA. According to the Ontario Ministry of Finance, 6.2 million people live in the GTA. If we assume 10% of the population uses OTA exclusively, the area has a total of 620 thousand OTA viewers, and 2/3 (400,000/620,000) of them have such a low income that they can't afford a digital converter. If you use the often quoted figure of 93% BDU penetration, then only 7% of the population uses OTA exclusively, so there are only 434 thousand OTA viewers and just 34 thousand have enough money to get a digital converter or HDTV set. No wonder the commercial networks don't care about the OTA audience, the're all broke. Don't take this seriously, I'm just messing with numbers. I don't believe the 400 thousand number quoted by 'Friends'.

More interesting, the article quotes CBC as saying it is spending just over $2 million per transmitter for 27 DTV transmitters while is CTV is spending just over $1 million per transmitter (23 transmitters for more than $24 million). CTV seems to be able to upgrade for half the price of CBC. The very frugal TVO claims $500,000 per transmitter (9 transmitters) while retaining the same footprint they currently serve. Kind of makes you wonder what CBC is doing? Perhaps they should have hired CTV or TVO to do their digital conversion.

There is also a serious sounding statment that I find amusing: "The English-language signal in Thunder Bay, Ont., went digital Aug. 1 on privately owned CBC affiliate CKPR-TV but will be available only via cable, satellite, digital converter or digital TV." In other words, the station is freely available off-air to anyone with an HDTV or a digital converter box but that doesn't sound very ominous, does it?

At some of the analog ERPs that CBC has proposed PT, they would cost next to nothing to operate. Analog coverage will be next to nothing as well. At least a digital signal would cover slightly more area without the snow and other problems of analog.