This last statement is puzzling since Canada is considered by many to be a world leader in HD programming. With the exception of the United States, Canada has more HD stations than any country in the world.

Does this really reflect the state of Canadain HD OTA or does it include subscription services? I certainly don't feel like a world leader when Vancouver has a single (okay, one and a half if you count CITV) broadcast station while Seattle has almost a dozen.

As for content. Sure the Network fare is sewn up. But what about cable's specialty channels. Even with more commercials, I'd happily cancel Shaw to watch free OTA that featured some of the best shows from Space, History, HGTV, Discovery, etc. Is there a reason they can't sell their shows in the same way the Networks sell/syndicate their series?

Just so you all know, the way I've read it, the application was submitted to the CRTC only last week. That means it will take two to three months before the application is officially published on the CRTC Web site and the call for comments process begins. Two months after that, the CRTC will hold a non-appearing public hearing to consider the application. The official answer will be published on the CRTC's Web site up to three months later.

In all, it could take up to NINE months before we find out if the license application is actually approved or not, not including the various license applications that would have to be filed for all the digital transmitters.

We're in for a very long wait, giving the competition plenty of time to plan their strategies against the newcomer.

Yes, that's a good point - its good to have a realistic sense of the time frame. Some of us are well acquainted with CRTC processes as interested parties and intervenors. ;)

So, if we say nine months for regulatory approval, we would then have to factor in some time for Industry Canada to allocate frequencies and approve transmitter specifics, then more time for equipment purchase/installation/configuration. It is starting to look like at least 1.5 years for the first stations of such a network to take to the air.

That means it will take two to three months before the application is officially published on the CRTC Web site and the call for comments process begins. Two months after that, the CRTC will hold a non-appearing public hearing to consider the application.

This will be a good time for DHC-OTA users to organize and be vocal. Be heard and be counted!!

^^ yeah, I'm sure every step of the process will be posted on the OTA thread. When it comes to non-appearing public hearings, we will answer the call. You know the other networks are going to be at the table complaining ('cause HDTV networks will make them look bad), so it's only right that the OTA'ers at DHC are in the corner behind HDTV networks. We've got the upper hand (provided we get our act together when the time comes), because the networks don't believe there are many OTA'er to put up a fight... Let's prove them wrong!

at least 1.5 years for the first stations of such a network to take to the air
IMHO that is very aggressive timeline.
There would be a miriad of agreements to negotiate for broadcast programming rights for example, as well as all of the supplementary support to be developed and in place: staffing/advertising-revenue/site construction etc. I can't see any of these would really start in earnst until some sort of intial approval is given.
That being said, DHC OTA'ers should be preparing as well, as mentioned above. With the CRTC public hearing 2006-5 some DHC'ers (including myself - feeling shame) were making last minute submissions. Perhaps a unified submission as opposed to individuals in the future, could be considered?? I believe quality as opposed to quantity, is the measure that might be considered.

Well kudos if the company is Canadian, and not simply an American outfit trying to be first on the block for maximum market share. Each HD signal whether satellite or cable is compressed to varying degrees (satellite less cable more) This compression cannot be compensated for PERIOD which is a shame if you own are are intending to get a top of the line HDTV. The only true HD is an OTA signal which has ZERO compression, therefore much better picture quality by far of any commercial signal.

I have never seen one but recall the days of analog CRT and on a GOOD terrestrial antenna neither satellite or cable could hope to come close. It was stunning vibrant colour larger than life. One can only imagine what OTA HD must be capable of.

Keeping in mind he doesn't expand to quickly (eg site Future Shop) I'd think this would be a wonderful compliment to HD programming in Canada provided it stays Canadian owned that is.

Each HD signal whether satellite or cable is compressed to varying degrees (satellite less cable more)

You have this backwards. There is more compression on satellite than there is on cable.

The only true HD is an OTA signal which has ZERO compression

I keep reading this on this forum and it is not quite true. Fully uncompressed data requires a huge amount of bandwidth (especially in HD) and is typically only seen in raw video data from a studio camera. Having said that, there are two types of compression, Lossy and Lossless.

Lossless compression accurately reproduces the data (which could be the picture or sound) by finding patterns and describing them in a more abbreviated format. As a simple example, if your data was "8888888883333334444444" which is 22 digits, this could alternately be expressed as "986374" (ie 9 eights, followed by 6 threes, followed by 7 fours), which is only 6 digits. Now this is a very simple compression algorithm and it won't work very well, but it gives you the idea of how lossless compression works. The key is to find patterns in the data and represent it in a more efficient way. Video tends to have a lot of patterns, especially over time where the background is often the same from one frame to the next.

Lossy compression tries to find patterns that are almost but not quite there. For example, if due to lighting irregularities the background changes in colour or brightness by in imperceptible amount, the algorithm will assume that it didn't change and compress it as if it hadn't. The question is how much of a change is imperceptible? The larger a window of change you use, the more compression you will get, but you will also degrade the picture and risk people noticing the difference.

Since the limiting factor is bandwidth a changing compression rate is typically used. If lots of patterns can be found in the data, a narrow window is used (or maybe even go to lossless compression). But if fewer patterns can be found, a larger window must be used to fit all the data in.

OTA broadcasts have the most bandwidth and thus they can use lossless compression most of the time (though not necessarily always). Satellite signals have much less bandwidth and have to use lossy compression more often. Cable companies are somewhere in between and how much bandwidth they dedicate to each HD channel varies from cable co to cable co.

This can also help explain why recorded programs often look better than live broadcasts. In a recorded program they have lots of time to search for patterns in the data, but in a live broadcast, if they can't quickly find enough patterns, they have to make them.

In this description I have used layman’s terms here to keep things simple and easy to understand so please excuse the fact that some of the terminology might not be correct.

Just another investment for the millionaire to help write off his loses from sat radio, the raptors, and whatever else comes to mind. It really makes little sense as the majority of Canadians in those markets (around 96%) receive their signals from cable or sat. The long term outlook for OTA transmission is very dim and quite frankly a waste of money for those interested in broadcasting a television signal. Would wager that by the end of the decade most of the OTA transmitters in major areas will be shutting down.......the CRTC will agree with Global's request as long as they pretend to reinvest the savings into programing. Ha Ha Ha.:rolleyes:

Even if the CRTC says its okay to turn off OTA ,I doubt any transmitters near the border will be turned off or in big cities.They just do not want to spend for digital transmitters and rural areas.I do not mind watching my favorite American shows on American stations.

As I read this I keep thinking about A-Channel here in Calgary. They were the first station in town to build their studio out in digital. Not HD but they did have a reasonable upgrade path. They were also rumoured to be one of the first that would get on the air with an HD signal in Calgary. The recent merger kind of torpedoed all that.

I beleive A-Channel up in Edmonton was kind of in the same boat. So I wondering if he is going to be able to pick those studios up at a fire sale price and possibly make a go of it. Can any one think of other stations in the cities listed that would make sence?

To be honest, I don't think this network should be allowed for the simple fact that I doubt they will have much original programming that people would want to watch and any programming that they get the rights to will likely come from sources that we already have access to now.

To be honest, I don't think this network should be allowed for the simple fact that I doubt they will have much original programming that people would want to watch and any programming that they get the rights to will likely come from sources that we already have access to now.
Sources you have access to via cable or satellite might be new programing for people who receive their TV strictly by OTA. Are you going to deny them that privedge because some company is charging you for that same show on a different network?

By that same logic, you'd want me and other OTA'ers to pay for a HD subscription (with inferior HD quality) just we can watch shows in HD that we can already tune in for free via digital OTA. Don't do us any favors now.

OTA broadcasts have the most bandwidth and thus they can use lossless compression most of the time (though not necessarily always).

All HD broadcast options rely on MPEG-2 lossy compression, including OTA. An uncompressed 1920x1080, 24 fps bitstream would require (1920x1080 pixels)(24 bits/pixel)(24fps) = 1132462080 bits/second (1.1 Gbps). That is over 50 times the 19.2 Mbps capacity of an ATSC channel, and 50-fold compression is far beyond the capabilities of lossless compression algorithms. It just happens that the "sweet spot" for MPEG-2 about 50:1. More bandwith produces only modest improvements while less bandwith starts to significantly impact quality.

For a demonstration, start playing with a picture in your favorite image editing software. Save JPEGs (same spacial compression algorithm as MPEG) with progressively higher compression factors and then compare them side by side. Depending on the picture you will be able to achieve an approximately 20 fold compression (JPEG's sweet spot) without a noticeable loss of quality at normal size, but compression by a further factor of 2 will produce severe quality loss.

Let's get back to the topic of the HDTV Network proposal. If you want to read about picture quality differences between satellite, CATV, and OTA, just click on the links in this post for starters. There are also several threads in the OTA Forum and DHC that discuss compression levels used in various TV signal modulations and formats.

Once again, the topic is the new HDTV Network proposal.

Bitove is saying 2008 for a launch. This article says that his programming would be mostly Canadian and foreign (mostly not American), and it speculates about hockey too:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=baa73063-3ac9-4c53-9e9e-c4e0918e45e4

Wow! 2008? That is very aggressive! That means he plans to be on air within the next 2 years! The existing networks have had troubles migrating to just DTV, yet alone full HD, from application to first broadcast within that time frame

I am curious what foreign (non US) content he is hoping to get? Most of the British programming is in WS not HD and I am not sure about Australian programming. Maybe he is willing to settle for WS programming at first or use foreign language programming.

As for him buying up A-Channel, they have stations in Barry/Toronto, London, Ottawa, Windsor, Wingham, and Victoria (although they may have repeaters elsewhere) so there isn't much overlap with HDTV Networks' target cities (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax). A better fit would be for Sun TV to pick them up.

I think that since Global TV wants to stop broadcasting OTA and they haven't even tested a single DTV transmitter, the CRTC should grant them their wish and strip them of their broadcast licences (and all the rights and responsibilities that go with it such as simulsubbing and priority carriage on cable) and give the licences to HDTV Networks instead.

Wow! 2008? That is very aggressive! That means he plans to be on air within the next 2 years! The existing networks have had troubles migrating to just DTV, yet alone full HD, from application to first broadcast within that time frame
In this case, the new network will most likely be starting with new equipment and facilities without any need to convert old equipment or facilities. This alone will considerably cut down start-up time and costs. However, the network still has to obtain a broadcast license for each region it plans to serve, and that alone requires A LOT of research, preparation and submissions to both the CRTC and Industry Canada to get everything up and running for a single location.

Mr. Bitove does state in the article that he can get the station up and running in two years. However, he also pointed out that he also has to factor in the time required to obtain all the necessary broadcast licenses. I'm just wondering if he's fully aware that this alone may require a year of bureaucratic work for each region he plans to set up a transmitter.

2008? More like the fourth quarter of 2009 to me. And that's just for the first transmitter.

He only really has to bring up one "station" (broadcast centre in Vancouver, he says) and feed his automated transmitters across Canada via fibre. Local sites would backfeed their news, advertising, etc. to the central hub via satellite or fibre. This means just getting transmitters/antennas up in the various cities while the broadcast centre is being built out.

OTA broadcasts have the most bandwidth and thus they can use lossless compression most of the time (though not necessarily always). Satellite signals have much less bandwidth and have to use lossy compression more often. Cable companies are somewhere in between and how much bandwidth they dedicate to each HD channel varies from cable co to cable co.Technically this isn't quite true. The compression used, which is MPEG-2 for digital TV (the same as for DVDs), is a lossy compression and is always used.

But there are times when there picture is not moving so that compression does not result in a loss of quality. MPEG-2 uses different types of frames and some frames are the full picture, like a snapshot, and subsequent frames can be built off of the previous frame - i.e. it will use a differential algorithm where you only include info for pixels that have changed. In many instances the bulk of the picture is unchanged from one frame to the next so this doesn't cause any problems.

You get into more problems with fast moving action when the whole picture changes abruptly. You will see this in sports, particularly when a player runs past the camera. obscuring it from a short range and then runs off. You will also see it in shows were much of the picture is moving at once - common examples are a flock of birds taking off or a waterfall.