While I hope the FCC rejects it when CKVR wants to increase their channel 10 power when they find out how poor their digital coverage will be.With Rochesters < 500 foot towers no reason for not allowing power increase.

Why? The FCC rejected the power increase request because it would violate the agreement between the FCC and IC that governs interference between the two countries. The FCC gave WHEC 30 days to amend the application to come into compliance with the agreement. WHEC will probably require a directional antenna to make higher power work.

VHF stations clearly require much higher ERP than currently permitted by IC and FCC to provide coverage equal to their original analog contours. The agencies need to reach agreement on new higher levels and amend their regulations accordingly. When they do, this kind of problem will go away.

Yet CFPL London and CKVR will have a much larger interference zone but its okay with Broadcaster because there both the same owners and CFPL gets 45KW.Rochester signals barely reach Canadian soil yet get denied.Protectionism not management as usual with our regulators.

As I said, the FCC denied the power increase, not IC. From a technical perspective, IC and FCC both have an obligation to protect the signals of their broadcasters in their respective jurisdictions. The agreement between the FCC and IC provides the framework for protecting signals. This issue is about engineering RF coverage, not ideology.

While then why are their so many Canadian signals causing problems with US reception of US signals.This whole thing is very much one sided and thats why it appears to be protectionism.CKVR on Channel 10 is poor management.Interference from adjacents and co-channel just stupid.Many other frequencies available and allotted for Barrie.Channel 10 should never be allotted for use in Barrie.

WHEC needs to use a directional antenna away from Canada to protect
Barrie even tho they have been omni on 10 since 1960 while all the Toronto stations are much closer to Rochester and have omni patterns.Further Rochester towers are less than 150 metres while Toronto around 450 metres and its Rochester that needs the directional signals.Does not seem fair to me.CFTO -dt currently causing problems with a Rochester station on 40 yet barrie/rochester is no good.

CFPL has been omni from the start just like WHEC but has to go directional to increase power while protecting US stations on channel 10 in Ohio and Michigan. The technical issue goes both ways across the border.

Channel 10 can be used in Barrie and London if both stations are able to replicate their official analog contours using the channel. The allocation was done long before the difficulties with VHF coverage were evident. Interference between the two stations is not relevant if it occurs outside the official recognised contours.

I am in Mississauga according to the contour i am in the adjacent interference zone for reception on CKVR-dt from CFTO-dt.I am inside their proposed coverage zone and had no issue receiving CKVR on analog 3.People in the Guelph area will get co channel as the contours with CFPL overlap.Good job planning I think not.People in Barrie are in reversed situation with adjacent problems.Its CKVR thats changing frequency and there are many better choices available.Channel 10 should not be used in Barrie

I think that the real problem with using channel 10 for both London and Barrie, is that although CTV as the common owner is free to waive any interference problems, those in the interference zone may have no alternative, and these are the only two /A\ stations in the area. From a public interest point of view, this is not good planning.

It's possible, though, with a VHF Yagi, a 20 dB delta between the signals should be achievable for at least one of the channel 10s.

I am in MississaugaYou probably receive 38, 39, 40 and 41 where you live without problems so why do you think 9 and 10 will be an issue?

George thats true but channel 39 WIVB is at 790kw vs CFTO at 17kw.Those co -channel interference zones are stated on the contour map by the experts not me.I hope they are wrong.People in Buffalo/Niagara area are having problems with CFTO on 40 tho.

CFTO -dt currently causing problems with a Rochester station on 40 yet barrie/rochester is no good.
I don’t know if that’s a good argument. 40 in Rochester is low power analogue. I only get is during ideal conditions. I can’t see it affecting Toronto. 10 is rock solid here I can’t see what the power increase need are about. CFTO will be fine after they go back to 9.

Wilspin people near Rochester along lake ontario report problems caused by CFTO-dt because the Toronto CN tower stations are not directional yet Industry Canada expect the US signals to be directional.

very rarely have i ever seen cfto-dt / rf-40. maybe twice very brielfy.
I've always attributed that to the weak signal toward Buffalo, (-3dB Tvfool NM) and being co-channel with CBLN 40 in London.
Never noticed the LP Analog 40 in Rochester.

Wilspin people near Rochester along lake ontario report problems caused by CFTO-dt because the Toronto CN tower stations are not directional yet Industry Canada expect the US signals to be directional.
I have not heard of this co channel complaint in Roc. I cannot get CFTO 40 here, how can Rochester have issues with it?

Wilspin do you think CKVR will effect your reception of WHEC come September.Rochester stations were so much stronger in analog ,no wonder they are requesting more power a 3rd time.If you drive south of Rochester there are large hills and their FM signals fade right out 60km to the south of Rochester.

In my situation, I get a very strong signal from CKVR off the back of my UHF antenna, so come August, I suspect I'll lose any potential of recieving WHEC once CKVR moves to channel 10.

Wilspin people near Rochester along lake ontario report problems caused by CFTO-dt because the Toronto CN tower stations are not directional yet Industry Canada expect the US signals to be directional.
Your comment prompted me to find the engineering brief for CFTO in the CRTC documentation. First, CFTO channel 9 operates with a directional antenna in analog which has been used since the start of broadcasting from the CN Tower in the 70s. The deepest part of the notch in the pattern is 34% of maximum ERP at 120 degrees. The direction pattern was required to provide protection for channel 9 in Syracuse. The digital signal will use the same antenna and therefore be directional.
The second interesting point is the request and subsequent approval of digital ERP higher than the IC plan for channel 9. The proposed ERP was 2.4 KW but CFTO proposed 10.2 KW (peak) on the horizon and 10.8 KW at 0.9 degrees below the horizon. I had not realized they asked for more power than IC proposed - perhaps others in the forum spotted it earlier. The directional antenna prevents interference to the co and adjacent channels in the US and eastern Ontario.

Yes there were several e-mails and submissions when IC proposed only 2.5kw.Even the 10kw is low for a major city.Power not height for indoor reception.I did not know CFTO analog had a directional signal,only new of city tv slight directional signal.WUTV-dt has only 12% north to protect nothing.

Wilspin do you think CKVR will effect your reception of WHEC come September.Rochester stations were so much stronger in analog ,no wonder they are requesting more power a 3rd time.If you drive south of Rochester there are large hills and their FM signals fade right out 60km to the south of Rochester.
I do not think so as long as I have antenna thats very directional and good frt/back ratio. Currently 3 is weak, not watchable, maybe 3-1 will be better.