: CRTC Reviewing Proposed HD OTA Network for Canada
2007-06-07, 05:31 PM
Right on queue.
2007-06-07, 09:47 PM
Complain to your MP, the minister of Industry, and the minister of Canadian Heritage. That usually works to speed things up (ie. Mr.Bitove's DTV license). MPs don't like it when they find out their constituants aren't happy and won't vote for them (or their party) if things in their power aren't changed.
In fact, I think it's time to revisit my previous MP mailout and modernize it for current events. Free postage, don't forget. I'll put a green slant on it too (DTV requires less power than analog), as now more than ever MPs realize going green or at least appearing to be green=votes.
2007-06-11, 03:19 PM
Ask and Ye shall receive:The Commission announces that it has received an application from HDTV Networks Incorporated for a broadcasting licence to carry on an over-the-air digital/HD television programming undertaking to serve Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax.
The Commission hereby calls for applications from other parties wishing to obtain a broadcasting licence (or licences) to provide an over-the-air digital/HD television service (or services) across Canada.http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2007/pb2007-62.htm
2007-11-03, 10:09 PM
You have any news for this license ?
2007-11-09, 11:03 AM
Given the potential impact of this:
CRTC announces changes to the public proceedings scheduled for 2008 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2007/r071105.htm) on any new and existing license OTA applications, I doubt we will hear any news on this front until the Fee-for-Carriage issue is resolved.
See this thread for more info:
2007-12-13, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure whats up with Edmonton getting 100,000 watts and Calgary getting 10,000.
2007-12-13, 03:06 PM
I'll bet that Calgary number is a misprint with a zero missing. At least I hope! :)
2007-12-13, 05:29 PM
I'll bet that Calgary number is a misprint with a zero missing. At least I hope!
If you look on page 310 of the application, you'll see that the transmitter is in fact 10kW.
The 44 dBu contour extends from north of Madden in the north to High River in the South. (The map reproduction is of poor quality, so it's hard to read the place names.)
The ERPs are all over the map (no pun intended). As with most OTA applications, the priority seems to be covering the cable companies headend for mandatory carriage on basic.
Stampeder, I think it's the Vancouver proposal that is more upsetting -- only 300 Watts on ch. 18. Look on page 305. The interference free contour barely reaches the border at White Rock.
2007-12-13, 05:38 PM
10kw is actually not bad for covering just the City of Calgary, especially if it might be coming from up on CFCN's antenna given the surrounding landscape, but it is defintely not good either.I think it's the Vancouver proposal that is more upsetting -- only 300 Watts on ch. 18.I get irritated by the companies putting up pea shooter DTV transmitters. 300 watts?! Who are they trying to kid?!
2007-12-13, 05:40 PM
The big question is: What will the content of these channels be?
OASIS et al: local edition?
I am to the point now that just because it is in HD... does not make it special. If the shopping network went HD- I still would not watch it.
2007-12-13, 05:51 PM
Those puny power levels for Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are an insult to consumers. I will be intervening to discuss my objections to the Vancouver 300w proposal, so I hope people in Toronto and Montreal will do likewise for theirs.
Remember that if you use their online method you should construct your message on your local machine first using Notepad or a text editor, then just copy-paste it into theirs. Too many people have tried to use just their form and had their documents go missing for no apparent reason.
The deadline for Interventions is January 17, 2008.
2007-12-13, 06:02 PM
The spectrum is too crowded in the large cities along the border to give licenses to this broadcaster. In Montreal we have at least two EXISTING stations (CFTM, CJNT) that have an "out-of-core" digital allocation. I'm sure there are some in Toronto as well.
The top priority should be getting the digital transition for existing done and over with as efficiently as possible. Only after that should they consider "HDTV Network".
2007-12-13, 06:36 PM
I totally agree with Stampeder,with the Toronto transmitter at 160 watts is a token transmitter to force carriage onto to cable.It should be easily receivable anywhere within city limits at minimum.160 watts will not due and would be a waste of bandwidth.Lets object to the low power levels.
2007-12-13, 06:53 PM
Perhaps the applicants should just consider purchasing SunTV instead of wasting a lot of money on a new (nobody is watching) television service in Toronto.
2007-12-13, 07:10 PM
This new network seems a little strange to me. Especially when the current stations that are transmitting are not even living up to their commitments of serving the public they are licensed to do so in the first place.
At present...in Montreal
1) No HD channel is broadcasting from Mount-Royal. Therefore half the city can't receive their signals.
2) There are anologue channels that have not indicated that they will meet the transition dates (CKMI,CJNT) for HDTV
3) There are even analogue channels (CKMI, CJNT, CFTU) which are not even pumping enough power on their present analogue transmitters to even say that they are serving the island of Montreal, so people can't rely on them for OTA reception.
Now, this new network. Well how about dealing with the present broadcasters to smarten up and serve their broadcast market based on what they promised before adding another station to the market.
Here are a few suggestions that the CRTC might consider....
1) All stations with a local license for OTA must have a certain amount of power on their transmitters (Example 800 KW or whatever) or no license.
2) Force a cut down on re-transmitters, and even shut down. Because the OTA stations use them to reason the low power on their main channel.
3) All OTA stations have to indicate their call letters and channel broadcast in every hour of the broadcast day. No exceptions.
3) The CBC & SRC are to be forced to use their OTA sub-channels. They should be forced to add Newsworld on SRC & RDI on CBC subs. They are suppose to serve the country in both languages, then this wili make sure, so that are reminded what their function is.
4) CRTC is to stop placing Canadian OTA channels next to USA channels in attempts to cause signal interferance. This forces people to go to cable & satelitte services which in turn effects all OTA reliabilty for all canadians. We shouldn't have to pay $30- $70 a month for cable or satellite in order to watch a Hockey game, or a few US shows.
5) No Canadian OTA network is to own more than 60% of their affliates. Meaning, if a network has 10 affiliates, then they can only own 6 of them. This should allow other parties into the OTA market with an interest to serve their community. You want to call yourself a national network, then work for it. Else, get a speciality channel license, and return your broadcast license back to the CRTC. And, get off the OTA airwaves.
6) No one company is to own more than 1 OTA station per market. If they want a second channel, then they can use their subs-channels. Power at present is in too few hands in all markets.
Am I the only one who sees a problem, or the the big wigs playing the Canadian public for fools.
2007-12-13, 07:51 PM
I like most of what you are saying but when you have as much invested as I do in HD gear the idea of sub channels sends a shiver down your spine. Why can't we have atleast one source of HDTV?
2007-12-13, 09:19 PM
The ERP for Vancouver is insulting. Until 2009 there will be an american station on 18 that reaches to Vancouver (in some parts), after 2009 it will be moved to 13.
I have never emailed the CRTC but would it be enough to just drop an email saying my displeasure with Vancouvers ERP? I mean even CTV is broadcasting at 900 watts and that is low! I wonder how far the coverage area would be with such a low power transmitter like this.
2007-12-13, 11:43 PM
Channel 26 is currently in use with high power analog from Jamestown NY 5000kw ,858m ,140km from Toronto and plans to revert their digital back to channel 26 after shutdown so channel 26 will not be suitable.They could use 17,29 after shutdown of US analog.Who picked 26 needs to do a little research.
2007-12-14, 01:52 AM
I can tell you right now what the answer will be from HDTV Networks. The spectrum is crowded in these cities for 2 reasons...
These are major metropolitan centres with several local channels
They are close enough to the US border that American channels are also using up part of the spectrum. E.g. 26 (Toronto) is the same channel as Jamestown, which can occasionally be received in Toronto.
If you ignore those facts in your intervention, HDTV Network's lawyers will tear your intervention to shreds. I believe that the best approach is to...
Accept the low-power transmitters as a temporary compromise during the digital transition
Insist that the CRTC make it a condition of the licence that HDTV Networks switch to a reasonable power level at the first available opportunity. They may choose the same or different channel, depending on spectrum availability in the area.
"The first available opportunity" shall be defined as the sooner of...
The cessation of NTSC broadcasting in the USA (currently scheduled for Feb 17, 2009)
The cessation of NTSC broadcasting in Canada (currently scheduled for Aug 31, 2011)
Both of the above events will open up additional channels. I've used the above wording to allow for possible delays in the schedule, as has already happened in the USA.
2007-12-14, 07:30 AM
Oops, mdelleman was right; ignore my previous post unless the US switchover is delayed. According to an article in the Globe and Mail at http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071214.wrbitove4/BNStory/Business/home
Hearings on the bid are set for Feb. 11, along with a separate proposal from Toronto-based start-up Yes TV Ltd., which wants to launch a single high-definition station in that market.
If successful, HDTV Networks could be operating in 18 to 24 months, executive vice-president Stewart Lyons said in an interview.
18 to 24 months from now is mid-June 2009, approx 4 months after the planned US analog shutdown, which opens up a bunch of channels.