Heh. Of course.

I had wanted to post a "note to viewers" about the maps that Emerald_Boar has been posting, and Scary's observation affords the perfect opportunity. As tvlurker notes, these contours are for allocation purposes, so they are a statistical construct, not a specific prediction to any single location. To wit, these represent a signal level that should be met or exceeded 50% of the time to 50% of locations.

This calculation is one step better than drawing perfectly round circles by letting antenna design and local terrain fit perfectly useful stations into the band. For FM, this is as far as it goes for allocations. For TV, however, terrain effects throughout a station's service area are accounted for in determining potential interference via the process documented in the FCC OET-69 report. Instead of using a statistic to extend a single calculation to represent a group of points, the statistic (% additional interference) is built by amassing calculations to a grid of points.

There have been petitions to forsake the 50,50 curves entirely and just use the OET-69 methodology to determine service areas and make spectrum allocation decisions. On the plus side, there would be more room, especially in mountainous areas, for more stations. On the minus side, no propagation model is perfect and there will be greater risk of reducing service instead of adding by allowing closer spacing.

Heh. Of course.

I had wanted to post a "note to viewers" about the maps that Emerald_Boar has been posting, and Scary's observation affords the perfect opportunity. As tvlurker notes, these contours are for allocation purposes, so they are a statistical construct, not a specific prediction to any single location. To wit, these represent a signal level that should be met or exceeded 50% of the time to 50% of locations.

This calculation is one step better than drawing perfectly round circles by letting antenna design and local terrain fit perfectly useful stations into the band. For FM, this is as far as it goes for allocations. For TV, however, terrain effects throughout a station's service area are accounted for in determining potential interference via the process documented in the FCC OET-69 report. Instead of using a statistic to extend a single calculation to represent a group of points, the statistic (% additional interference) is built by amassing calculations to a grid of points.

There have been petitions to forsake the 50,50 curves entirely and just use the OET-69 methodology to determine service areas and make spectrum allocation decisions. On the plus side, there would be more room, especially in mountainous areas, for more stations. On the minus side, no propagation model is perfect and there will be greater risk of reducing service instead of adding by allowing closer spacing.
Just a small nit, I think Industry Canada's digital contours are based on F(50/90), not F(50,50) which is used for analog contours.

From BPR-10 at http://consumer.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/bpr10-i1.pdf/$FILE/bpr10-i1.pdf
4.1 Determination of Noise-Limited Bounding Contour
The noise-limited bounding contour is computed using the site location, maximum ERP, Heights Above Average Terrain (HAATs) and the horizontal antenna radiation pattern. The distance to the bounding contour is determined, in each of the 360 degree compass directions, by using a combination of actual and linear interpolated HAAT and antenna radiation data. HAAT is determined directly from the terrain elevation database every 10 degrees, starting from true north, and by linear interpolation for radials in between. Directional antenna tabulations provide actual relative field every 10 degrees starting from true north. Linear interpolation is used to derive relative field values in between. Individual relative field values are squared and multiplied by the maximum ERP to find the ERP along a specific azimuth. In predicting the distance to the bounding contours, the F(50,90) statistics should be used to calculate the field strengths (refer to Appendix 6).

But the "protected area" is more precise:
4.2 Determination of Protected Area
The location of the noise-limited bounding contour is based on propagation curves in Appendix 6. The true television service availability may vary from these estimates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be different from the type of terrain on which the propagation curves are based. Therefore, a terrain-sensitive method, with the appropriate time and location statistics, are to be used to determine the protected area.

While I was poking around BPR-10 to look this up, I was reminded of why IC can say they don't have to require broadcasters to transmit the correct system time:

C-7.7 Complaints Judged Not Valid by Industry Canada
The following is the list of complaints judged not valid by the Department and for which the broadcaster is not responsible for remedial action:
Part 10: Application Procedures and Rules for Digital Television (DTV) Undertakings BPR-10
21
(a) where the complaint is attributed to the use of a malfunctioning or mistuned receiver or an improperly installed or defective antenna system;
... (deleted a bunch of stuff, including complaints of out-of-area reception, overloaded preamps, and reception of out-of-country (i.e. US or St. Pierre et Miquelon) signals)
..
(i)any other complaint which, in the judgment of the Department, is considered not valid. ;)

Just a small nit, I think Industry Canada's digital contours are based on F(50/90), not F(50,50) which is used for analog contours.


It's F(50,90) for DTV in the US, too. My mistake. That's the signal level met or exceeded 90% of the time to 50% of locations.

But the "protected area" is more precise:

The procedures laid out in Appendices 4 and 5 of BPR-10 match up with FCC practice. Note that a "planning factor" of assumed receive antenna directivity is included in determining if assignments are compatible.

It's F(50,90) for DTV in the US, too. My mistake.

I had thought so too, but I was getting confused about this line at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/FM_TV_DTV_propagation_curves_graphs.html:
F(50,90) digital television service graphs are also provided although these are not in the FCC's rules.
But perhaps that means that while the graphs are necessary, they have not been formally adopted as FCC "rules"? The FCC seems to be a much more legalistic than IC or even the CRTC.

The FCC seems to be a much more legalistic than IC or even the CRTC.

The rules the FCC adopts become part of the US Code of Federal Regulations. As such, there is a formal process to adopt or change rules, the Notice of Proposed Rule Makings that is posted and commented to each time.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-842.htm

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2010-842

Route reference: 2010-69

Additional reference: 2010-714

Ottawa, 10 November 2010

Christian Channel Inc.
Fraser Valley and Victoria, British Columbia

Application 2010-1446-4, received 3 September 2010
CHNU-TV Fraser Valley and CHNU-TV-1 Victoria – Licence amendment

1. The Commission approves the application by Zoomer Media Inc., on behalf of the Christian Channel Inc., to amend the broadcasting licence for the television programming undertaking CHNU-TV Fraser Valley in order to add a post-transition digital transmitter in Fraser Valley (CHNU-DT) and in Victoria (CHNU-DT-1). The Commission did not receive any interventions in connection with this application.

2. The new transmitter in Fraser Valley will operate on channel 47 with an average effective radiated power (ERP) of 7,800 watts (maximum ERP of 21,400 watts with an effective height of antenna above average terrain [EHAAT] of 335 metres).

3. The new transmitter in Victoria will operate on channel 21 with an average ERP of 1,600 watts (maximum ERP of 3,500 watts with an EHAAT of 94.4 metres).

4. In Revised licensing framework for over-the-air digital television services, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-69, 10 February 2010, the Commission stated that it would not issue separate licences for digital television transmitters. Instead it would authorize the operation of digital transmitters by way of an amendment to the existing licence that would allow the simulcast of the associated service’s programming on a digital transmitter. In light of the Commission’s determinations set out in that policy, the Commission has considered this application as an amendment to the existing licence.

5. The Commission reminds the licensee that, pursuant to section 22(1) of the Broadcasting Act, this licence amendment will only be effective when the Department of Industry notifies the Commission that its technical requirements have been met and that a broadcasting certificate will be issued.

6. The transmitters must be operational at the earliest possible date and in any event no later than 31 August 2011. The Commission expects the licensee to inform it in writing once these transmitters are in operation..

Posting the 2 big chau maps. The other 9 cover very small areas.
CHAU CARLETON (TVA)

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/314/d/f/chau_by_emeraldboar-d32ktl4.png

CHAU5 Percé
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/314/2/8/chau5_by_emeraldboar-d32ktna.png

Read ya l8r,
al

Application by Télé Inter-Rives ltée to amend the broadcasting licence of the television programming undertaking CIMT-TV Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.

The licensee proposes to add post-transition digital transmitters at Edmundston, Trois-Pistoles, Baie-Saint-Paul, Saint-Urbain, Les Escoumins and Cabano to broadcast the programming of CIMT-TV.

Leech Proposal @ http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-1546-2.zip

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-845.htm#1

Application by Télé Inter-Rives ltée to amend the broadcasting licence of the television programming undertaking CIMT-TV Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
The licensee proposes to add post-transition digital transmitters at Edmundston, Trois-Pistoles, Baie-Saint-Paul, Saint-Urbain, Les Escoumins and Cabano to broadcast the programming of CIMT-TV.

Please see the link for a list of re-transmitters and their proposed technical parameters.
CIMT is a privately owned affiliate of TVA.

If anyone gets a substantive response from CHEK about the VHF-LO issue I'd sure like to see it.

From what I've heard (from a resonably reliable source) CHEK is still undecided. Their preference is to use their UHF allotment. However, they may try to stay on channel 6 if the cost of moving to the UHF band is too prohibitive vs. staying on channel 6.

Looking at the CRTC application for CHCH

Am I assuming correctly that the CHCH transmitter for London(Alvinston) is going to digital 14, Being in Windsor, Detroit WKBD 50 is already using digital 14 which would make reception for CHCH completely impossible.

I am sure it would create a lot of headaches for people in the Chatham, Sarnia area as well.

Hopefuly WKBD, being only 77 miles away will post an objection.

As far as I know CHCH Alviston will be moving to ch 24 not 14. CITS (crossroads) will be staying on 14. Possibly you are getting the two stations mixed up?

I hope your right but this is what I gather from the application

The application makes reference to CITS-TV2 as London
"programming undertakings CITS-TV Hamilton/Toronto, CITS-TV-1 Ottawa and CITS-TV-2 London "

The CITS-TV transmitter would operate on ....

. The CITS-TV-1 transmitter would operate on channel 42 with an ERP of 18,500 watts (maximum ERP of 37,000 watts with an EHAAT of 203 metres). The CITS-TV-2 transmitter would operate on channel 14 with an ERP of 2,300 watts (maximum ERP of 4,000 watts with an EHAAT of 266 metres).

Did I miss something.

Did I miss something.

Yes. You missed that you are you are now talking about CITS (CTS) when your original post asked about CHCH (Channel Zero).

Oops sorry, messed up was thinking CrossRoads was the same animal as CHCH, don't expect it to be an issue for me, however if there are any London area viewers pulling in WKBD from Detroit it could be an issue.

if there are any London area viewers pulling in WKBD from Detroit it could be an issue.

I don't think anyone in London has any hope of receiving WKBD as the terrain is against them (TVFool lists it as Tropo). However, this could be a problem for those somewhere a bit further west (like Chatham or Sarnia) where they are just outside the noise limited contours of both stations.

According to the CRTC website:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-866.htm

Application by Télévision MBS inc. to amend the broadcasting licence for the conventional television programming undertaking CFTF-TV Rivière-du-Loup.
The licensee proposes to add a post-transition digital transmitter to serve the population of Rivière-du-Loup.
The new digital transmitter at Rivière-du-Loup, CFTF-DT, would operate on channel 29 with an average effective radiated power (ERP) of 26,200 watts (maximum ERP of 44,000 watts with an effective height of antenna above average terrain of 341.1 metres).
This transmitter would increase potential viewership in the regional service area by 114%, from 53,989 persons to 115,645.

As a note of interest: Their proposed maximum ERP for DTV is almost as much power as they use currently for analog television, on the same channel.

So the CHCH that we get here in Ottawa would remain analog for a while. I was hoping they would take over Sun TV's antenna considering they are taking over much of the Sun programming. It sure would be nice to get those shows in HD again starting this fall. It doesn't look like it.
I emailed CHCH about their plans for Ottawa. CHCH will go digital on channel 22 from Herberts Corners by August 31, 2011.

I wonder how this will affect WCAX-DT (CBS 22 RF from Mt Mansfield) viewers in the Cornwall area, as Herberts Corners is much closer to them than Camp Fortune.

I wonder how this will affect WCAX-DT (CBS 22 RF from Mt Mansfield) viewers in the Cornwall area, as Herberts Corners is much closer to them than Camp Fortune.

Closer, but at a much lower elevation. I know CHRI (the only FM station from HC) had to put up a repeater in Cornwall.

CITS's post-transition transmitters (in Hamilton, Ottawa and London) have been approved:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-920.htm