CamDAB, the CTV2 application said they'd be on the CHCH tower, but CHCH intervened in their application, saying that they were lied to and that they won't approve CHCJ being on their tower. So at this point it's anyone's guess.

HoserHead, then I *think* I know which tower it's going on (visible from my balcony), and that's the one with Country 94.7 on it. What that does to Buffalo should be interesting...

That gives me another OTA DT then if that's how it pans out

But then, they could put it on one of the towers to the north of the city... :-(

Cameron

Here is a link (http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-51.htm) to the actual CRTC approval, if anyone is interested in reading it.

(On the other hand, CHCH's equivalent (http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.php?appid=1282749&map=Y) thinks I'd have great reception of channel 11. I guess you can't rely on VHF modeling!)

Believe it or not, I already adjusted the coverage downward somewhat from what the FCC and CRTC/IC use for VHF.

- Trip

Anyone notice the height on the broadcast is down to 248 metres while CTS channel 36 is at 338 metres.Am I correct ? Repeater will have less range then CTS.

I'd believe it, Trip! It doesn't help that I'm aimed at Buffalo, not Hamilton. :)

If that broadcast will have less range than CTS, looks like we will have two CTV2 problem stations in the GTA, Barrie and Hamilton. :(

Update: Just checked and it seems CTV2 will be super low 10kw and at half the power of CITS and with 100 feet less height. Yup, another problem CTV2 transmitter coming...

CHCJ appeasr to be sending in very different directions than CITS (less towards Toronto). CHCJ is <100m lower in height but it's 5kW ERP higher than CITS.

If that broadcast will have less range than CTS, looks like we will have two CTV2 problem stations in the GTA, Barrie and Hamilton. :(

Update: Just checked and it seems CTV2 will be super low 10kw and at half the power of CITS and with 100 feet less height. Yup, another problem CTV2 transmitter coming...
The time to raise issues like this was when the CRTC was open for comment on the CTV application last summer.

Oh, I'm sure, but is it really up to members of the public to ensure that these new transmitters meet basic objectives?

Problem: 2.5 million viewers in the GTA have little or no access to CTV2 because the Barrie transmitter doesn't function as required.

Proposed solution: Let's add a repeater in Hamilton that will also be unreceivable to most of the GTA without people taking extreme measures to receive the new signal.

Dare I say it looks like we have another case of technical incompetence on our hands...

And here's another question: many of the US stations are broadcasting at 300KW+ or even 1GW. Why do we Canadians keep erecting tiny little transmitters that reliably serve virtually noone?

I wouldn't call this a case of "technical incompetence". I'm sure their engineers could effect ubiquitous Toronto coverage of the CTV2 signal if given the proper parameters to work with.

It's clear to me, from CTV2's application for Hamilton and Font Hill, that they're simply interested in the money from simsubs--and not improving coverage for OTA viewers.

As I recall the original proposil had them sharing the channel 36 antenna on the CHCH tower at 338m.Now we find out the there has been a change to 247 metres.I agree its all about simsub rights not OTA reception.

So i've been following this as it's progressed and am happy that it's finally approved, so now on to being able to recieve this channel, in reading your post it sounds like there using cts's old pre-transission antenna? Is that the case or is it even lower power than cts's pre-transission channel? I'm sure that i'll catch it either way i could catch cts when it was on 35 well and i could even catch sunnews on 15 well. But I agree with you guys that it's all about the simsubs and not at all about the OTA reception, oh well for the few that will get it they'll be happy.

As I recall the original proposil had them sharing the channel 36 antenna on the CHCH tower at 338m.Now we find out the there has been a change to 247 metres.I agree its all about simsub rights not OTA reception.
I downloaded the proposal since I made an intervention. Here are the details:


RADIATION PATTERN:
Directional

POLARISATION:
Horizontal

ERP(at beamtilt): Max.: 25.0 KW
Avg.: 10.5 kW

ERP (at horizon): Max.: 24.3 kW
Avg.: 10.2 kW

EHAAT: 248.1 Meters
RCAGL: 205.0 Meters
RCAMSL: 395.5 Meters

GROUND ELEVATION: 190.5 Meters
OHAGL: 333.1 Meters

CHANNEL: 35 (596-602 MHz)

The coordinates indicate the tower location as 481-525 First Rd W, Stoney Creek. Would that be the same tower owned by CHCH?!

Since I pass that tower at least once weekly....

If you go up (south) on Centennial PKWY, up the "mountain" you'll see the tower looming off to the right, thus on the WEST side of Centennial PKWY. If you then greatly explode Google maps, you'll see that First Road West actually is on the west side of Centennial PKWY at the top of the escarpment. (First Road West actually runs N/S. (?!)

So, to make a short story long, yup, it does indeedee seem to be the CHCH tower. :-)

Ahhh... Something else I won't be able to get...

Oh.... Someone made reference in either this thread or the CH thread about 1GW... Ummm... 1 Gigawatt installations for TV, or any broadcast OTA undertakings for that matter on any frequency here in Canada haven't quite gone that stretch in power output that I'm aware of... The current infrastructure isn't capable, not to mention the environmental impact.... :-) Typo more likely....

Cameron

Typo indeed. I meant 1000KW, or 1MW.

I lived in the Stoney Creek mountain area for many years. That is definitely the CHCH tower.

Following on brantford bill's comment: Is the signal strength/height for CKVR similar to pre-transition CTS? If so, I will have no trouble catching this in downtown Toronto.

I could be wrong, but where does it say 'CHCJ' is assigned to Bell Media's recently approved expansion of CKVR? :confused:

Again, maybe I'm not as informed as some on this board, but from what I recall, Bell's original application to the CRTC showed they had Channel Zero's approval to use the CHCH tower, but then Channel Zero intervened and said "no way" since they didn't realize it was for CKVR and not CFTO. Bell's response was that they'd find a suitable tower, regardless -- and the CRTC rubber stamped, as usual. Since then, the only piece of information on public record is the CRTC's decision, which makes no reference to callsign 'CHCJ' (rarely, if ever, are callsigns for new undertakings assigned at this stage in the license approvals process) nor does it say anything about technical parameters like EHAAT, ERP, radiation patterns, etc.

It seems as though everybody's jumping on the information they thought only "just appeared" on TVFool and/or RabbitEars.

A full year ago, a bunch of DHCers were talking about "CHCJ", long before any CKVR expansion was proposed -- read the details from post #9 onward (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=134969).

Hasn't it been long established, here, that the origin for this information is the FCC TV query database, that's full of reserved, but unused and often abandonned entries, especially for Canadian stations? I think this was also the source of misguided rumours back when people thought Citytv Toronto was going to be operating at 1MW.

I'd say unless someone can prove me wrong about 'CHCJ', then you're all speculating about nothing until you confirm with Industry Canada that it's the real deal. Heck, call CKVR/CTV Two Barrie, talk to engineering, and ask if there's even a firm choice for a transmitter site yet for their Hamilton repeater! (I bet there isn't...)

Hopefully I'm not in for a scolding for suggesting 'CHCJ' is not for CKVR... :(

I believe CHCJ that is in the FCC Database matches the same specifications as provided to the CRTC in Bell Media's application though it's quite possible to have a different call-sign afterwards as we don't see one for Fonthill.

CHCJ-DT ON HAMILTON Canada (Digital)

Service Designation: DT Digital television station
Transmit Channel: 35 596 - 602 MHz
Virtual Channel: (viewer sees this channel number)
File No.: BPFS-20110104AAX Facility ID number: 189105
CDBS Application ID No.: 1413391

43° 12' 27.00" N Latitude
79° 46' 27.00" W Longitude (NAD 27)

Polarization: Horizontal (H)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 25. kW ERP
Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 248.1 meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 396.3 meters AMSL
Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 0. meters AGL


NEW ON FONTHILL Canada (Digital)

Service Designation: DT Digital television station
Transmit Channel: 42 638 - 644 MHz
Virtual Channel: (viewer sees this channel number)
File No.: BPFS-20110712AAV Facility ID number: 189719
CDBS Application ID No.: 1435157

43° 03' 6.00 " N Latitude
79° 18' 3.00 " W Longitude (NAD 27)

Polarization: Horizontal (H)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 5. kW ERP
Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 146.2 meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 316. meters AMSL
Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 0. meters AGL


2. The transmitter serving Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville would operate on channel 35 with an average effective radiated power (ERP) of 10,500 watts (maximum ERP of 25,000 watts with an effective height of antenna above average terrain (EHAAT) of 248 metres). The transmitter serving Fonthill, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Welland would operate on channel 42 with an average ERP of 1,340 watts (maximum ERP of 5,000 watts with an EHAAT of 146 metres).

Sources:
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=189105
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-51.htm