I think it depends on how you define mobile / portable use.

For a system built into a car then I would agree that channel 6 would be better since the FM antanna can be reused without modificaution. But it would only be better for this DTV channnel. Chances are that a new UHF optimized antennas would be added to cars as part of their moblie video package as this where the mojority of DTV channels are located.

For a handheld device like a cell phone a 1 metres 1/4 wavelenght VHF antanna would be impractical. In addtion, these devised already have a form of UHF antanna for 850Mhz cellular band.

For a handheld device like a cell phone a 1 metres 1/4 wavelenght VHF antanna would be impractical.

Most hand-held devices use the headphone wire as an FM antenna. Not helpful if you are using a blue-tooth headphone though. Whether devices will use the FM antenna for VHF reception is another story however.

Just because you can inductively couple to an earphone cord to receive FM broadcasts (which are often using 100kW horizontal, and perhaps even 100kW vertical as well), doesn't mean you're going to want to transmit though that same antenna. How do you control the SWR to a randomly arranged wire, anyway?

Just because you can inductively couple to an earphone cord to receive FM broadcasts (which are often using 100kW horizontal, and perhaps even 100kW vertical as well), doesn't mean you're going to want to transmit though that same antenna.

Transmit? I am not suggesting TV networks use hand-held devices to broadcast their signals. I am suggesting consumer devices could receive VHF-LO broadcasts using the FM antenna, which is sometimes the headphone cord.

As for polarization, I read in a document PBS published in 2008, that TV broadcasters may want to add a vertical component to their polarization post transition in preparation for mobile DTV.

Maybe I'm getting mixed up with white space devices, but at some point I suspect that the same hardware will be used for both, even if ATSC-MH is just providing multicast packets, with no return path on the same frequency. However, there may be a return path on a white space frequency for the upload path.

CITS (Crossroads Television System) has applied for digital transmitters in London and Ottawa, as well as a post-transitional transmitter in Hamilton:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-785.htm

Not surprisingly, they're flash cutting at the end of August in London and Ottawa. They're also planning on increasing their signal coverage in both cities.

It's great to see a Broadcaster like Crossroads stepping up here and providing DTV in London and Ottawa, not throwing in the towel... (err CBC).

Crossroads "..is federally chartered in both Canada and the United States as a charitable, non-profit organization. As such, it is funded wholly through free-will offerings." (from their website at www.crossroads.ca )

Even though CBC is federally-funded, they don't have the tax and other financial incentives that a charitable not-for-profit organization has. Crossroads also relies heavily on volunteers to run their operations.

From the CRTC today:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-797.htm

Application by CHAU-TV Communications ltée to amend the broadcasting licence for the French-language conventional television programming undertaking CHAU-TV Carleton-sur-Mer in order to add post-transitional digital transmitters at Carleton-sur-Mer, Sainte-Marguerite-Marie, Port-Daniel, Chandler, Percé, Gaspé, Rivière-au-Renard, Cloridorme and Anse-au-Valleau, Quebec; and St-Quentin, Tracadie-Sheila and Kedgwick, New Brunswick.

Please see the link for all the technical parameters.
CHAU is a locally-owned station affiliated with TVA.

Further to my last message, I encourage you to go read their cover letter if you are fluent in French, as there are very interesting talking points raised in it.
• The station did not want to switch to a UHF channel because of the region's extremely mountainous terrain, over which a VHF signal would give better coverage.
• The allocated channel and ERP for CHAU Carleton in post-transition were deemed insufficient by the station. Instead of operating on Channel 5 with 600 watts max ERP @ 483 metres, the station wants to use 9.85 kW max ERP instead. It says the higher power level is necessary to maintain their coverage AND to feed their large network of repeater stations, which all receive their signals over-the-air themselves.
• There is an unresolved conflict with CTV in relation to this use of high power on Channel 5 in Carleton — namely potential interference to a CTV analog repeater on Channel 5 in P.E.I.

Interesting that CHAU, which has one of the largest private rebroadcast transmitter networks in Canada (aside from BCTV), plans to convert everything to digital.

Can't say the same about the big broadcasters.

Interesting that CHAU, which has one of the largest private rebroadcast transmitter networks in Canada (aside from BCTV), plans to convert everything to digital.

Can't say the same about the big broadcasters.

It is likely because a much larger percentage of Francophones in Canada use OTA than Anglophones, making OTA more important to French language stations than the English equivalents.

Further to my last message, I encourage you to go read their cover letter if you are fluent in French, as there are very interesting talking points raised in it.
• The station did not want to switch to a UHF channel because of the region's extremely mountainous terrain, over which a VHF signal would give better coverage.
• The allocated channel and ERP for CHAU Carleton in post-transition were deemed insufficient by the station. Instead of operating on Channel 5 with 600 watts max ERP @ 483 metres, the station wants to use 9.85 kW max ERP instead. It says the higher power level is necessary to maintain their coverage AND to feed their large network of repeater stations, which all receive their signals over-the-air themselves.
• There is an unresolved conflict with CTV in relation to this use of high power on Channel 5 in Carleton — namely potential interference to a CTV analog repeater on Channel 5 in P.E.I.
I think you'll find the conflict with the CTV repeater is for the Digital version of that station. AFAIK, NTSC stations operating post-transition are not entitled to ANY protection, so the arguments presented are only about interfering with the allotted DTV on channel 5, not the existing NTSC on channel 5.

Also note that the consultant stated in the ENgineering brief that the power necessary to replicate the analog contours was 17kW, and that 9 kW is already a compromise.

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/307/2/9/cits2_by_emeraldboar-d323i82.png

This was captured, cropped, colours reduced down to 256 then saved into loseless .png format.

Read ya l8r,
Al

PS. I should I post all Coverage maps that i have?

Wow! Now that is what we are talking about. Their Ottawa transmitter will also have a significant (though not so dramatic) increase in coverage area. It is refreshing to see a broadcaster use the transition to their advantage like this (though I guess OMNI.2 in London is doing this).

Reading their application, there rational is:
The goal is to improve reception within the primary rebroadcast transmitter coverage area, rather than reach new markets.

PS. I should I post all Coverage maps that i have?

I will leave the decision up to the moderators. My thought is it should go in a separate thread or maybe even a Wiki and divided up by region not network. I like the idea though.

You could just post them all to a photo album in your profile and link to it, maybe in a signature file.

You could just post them all to a photo album in your profile and link to it, maybe in a signature file.
But that puts the work all on one person. The advantage of the wiki method is that the work gets spread around.

I wasn't suggesting he do all the work, just a method to achieve what it seemed he was offering to do. His question was should he post the coverage maps he has? Given as he's already got them, and uploading to an online album ain't that hard, that's the solution I thought best for his idea. Alternatively, especially if anyone else has coverage maps, a separate thread may be a better idea. Doing a wiki may exceed the scope the mods envisioned involving with this site.

Doing a wiki may exceed the scope the mods envisioned involving with this site.

I thought there was a DHC wiki, but I can't seem to find it now. Did it get removed or am I going crazy?