Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums - Reply to Topic

Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Canadian Internet, Phone, TV and Wireless Service Providers > Over-The-Air (OTA) Digital Television > DTV Subchannels in Canada's Future? > Reply to Thread
Thread: DTV Subchannels in Canada's Future? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
2018-04-17 01:37 AM
daggry Necro post, I'm a bad person.


Given TVO's attempts to go dark last year and CBC's poor coverage in most of Ontario (and attempts to go dark, cbc roku app please?) wouldn't a channel merge between these two make sense? Government is already bailing out TVO, why not just channel share to save money and potentially increase coverage at the same time?
2017-03-24 04:15 PM
ExDilbert Never mind that broadcasters aren't interested, the CRTC will not allow it. Existing OTA services are not allowed to share channels, they must be on their own channel. New services are allowed on sub-channels but broadcasters are more interested in shutting down towers to save costs, not expanding OTA services to generate revenue. Any new services are going on cable because collecting fees from subscribers generates more income than OTA.
2017-03-24 01:19 PM
rob50312 Robert Canadian sub channels not likely to happen.With TV service providers and broadcasters owned by the same groups ,there is no profit in providing OTA.I suspect you will lose those analog signals you now have too.Your politicians expect you to pay to watch Canadian stations.
2017-03-23 10:23 PM
Robert C Wicks I live in a small Northern Ontario area that used to have a decent number of analog TV channels. We still have two analog channels and one digital. We used to have more but they disappeared? when they were switched to Digital. I would like them to use the Sub channels so we could regain the channels we lost like CBC English and French, TVO etc. The channels I recieve from USA added major networks to their subchannels in my area. Canada should do the same.
2011-02-17 11:38 AM
roger1818
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScaryBob View Post
Then the CRTC would need to make a ruling on whether subchannels qualify for mandatory carriage and/or simsubs and/or negotiated FFC. If it's a yes, broadcasters might decide to start adding subchannels. If not, I doubt they would bother.
For mandatory carriage and/or simsubs the CRTC has said they would consider it on a case by case basis. There three categories of BDU carriage (with various sub options):
  • Mandatory Carriage
  • Optional Carriage
  • Prohibited Carriage
Only in that last case could I see the "concerns of Pelmorex and others" not being applicable. In the other two cases, the channel could be competing with other cable channels. Having said that, I am not convinced that this competition is a bad thing.
2011-02-17 10:57 AM
ScaryBob Then the CRTC would need to make a ruling on whether subchannels qualify for mandatory carriage and/or simsubs and/or negotiated FFC. If it's a yes, broadcasters might decide to start adding subchannels. If not, I doubt they would bother.
2011-02-17 09:51 AM
roger1818
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnysmoke View Post
Would be predisposed..... But I don't believe anyone has ever applied for a sub-channel licence. It could be easily argued that there is no conflict. That for over-the-air viewers, no service would be duplicated,(I don't believe there is presently any Canadian music, weather, retro or sports over-the-air channels). And for cable and sat subscribers, these subchannels would not appear on their dial. They would be none the wiser, not having an antenna. Really this bit appears to be nothing more than a sop to the objections of Pelmorex.
If BDUs were prohibited from carrying the sub-channel, this would be true, but it is unlikely to be the case. If it was, I am not sure if a profitable business case could be made for Canadian broadcasters to have a sub-channel that isn't carried by any BDUs.
2011-02-16 08:35 PM
johnnysmoke
Quote:
The Commission shares the concerns of Pelmorex and others in this regard, and will therefore be predisposed to license new and innovative services, in preference to those that would merely duplicate the services of existing off-air, specialty or pay television undertakings.
Would be predisposed..... But I don't believe anyone has ever applied for a sub-channel licence. It could be easily argued that there is no conflict. That for over-the-air viewers, no service would be duplicated,(I don't believe there is presently any Canadian music, weather, retro or sports over-the-air channels). And for cable and sat subscribers, these subchannels would not appear on their dial. They would be none the wiser, not having an antenna. Really this bit appears to be nothing more than a sop to the objections of Pelmorex.
2011-02-15 10:27 AM
roger1818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip View Post
1. The CBC seems to be trying to move to UHF in advance of a roll out of Mobile DTV.
The CBC is, but in many cases the SRC isn't, so they will continue to use their VHF-HI antenna.

Quote:
2. I'm under the impression that single-channel antennas are cheaper than broadband antennas.

3. I've been led to believe that combining gear is a pain compared to having a single transmitter hooked to a single antenna.
While true, in many if not most markets in question, the CBC will be sharing a UHF antenna with other stations so they will need to do these anyway.

Quote:
4. Transmitting only one signal instead of two reduces the power bill, in addition to only requiring one transmitter.
True.

The other factor that prevents the CBC from doing this is hockey. For most programming, you can get away with reducing the bandwidth and not see a huge difference in PQ. The exception is scenes with fast motion and since hockey is a big revenue generator for the CBC and it is one of the fastest moving sports they need all the bandwidth they can get.
2011-02-15 10:02 AM
roger1818
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK View Post
For example, CTV could add Newsnet and the CP24 channel and the CBC might broadcast CBC Documentary & News Network.
As discussed previously in other threads, even if the CRTC permitted it, not only is there little incentive for the networks to do it, there is actually a large disincentive. As cable only channels the broadcasters currently receive money from subscribers for them (even the ones on basic service). Put them on a sub-channel and the broadcaster would likely loose this funding.
2011-02-15 01:09 AM
Obed Thanks Stampeder, good to know. Awesome forum btw!

By the look of things HD picture quality should be superb for the Canadian stations for a long time to come and far superior to many of the US feeds leaking over the border. Should keep a few folks happy!
2011-02-14 11:40 PM
stampeder Obed, just to make sure you are aware of the technical issues that cause many OTAers to dislike sub-channels, please be sure to read Post #15 in the OTA FAQ, which explains that as sub-channels are added, the picture quality of the main channel and any other sub-channels on it are compromised. While you may see good reasons for sub-channels, many of us despise them.
2011-02-14 08:49 PM
Trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
With separate transmitters you can often share an antenna (which they may already have anyway) so about all you are saving is the amplifier. Granted these aren't cheap, but in the scheme of things, it isn't a big deal.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if I am, but:

1. The CBC seems to be trying to move to UHF in advance of a roll out of Mobile DTV.

2. I'm under the impression that single-channel antennas are cheaper than broadband antennas.

3. I've been led to believe that combining gear is a pain compared to having a single transmitter hooked to a single antenna.

4. Transmitting only one signal instead of two reduces the power bill, in addition to only requiring one transmitter.

To me, it seems like there could certainly be savings in providing SRC by subchannel in places where the Francophone population is small. The down side in my mind is that it eliminates redundancy; in Toronto, for instance, if the gear for CBLT fails, the CBC could theoretically put the programming on CBLFT 25-2 while it's down.

- Trip
2011-02-14 08:25 PM
downbeat Anti-CRTC rants do not belong here.
There's an existing thread for that:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/12-television-industry-channels-providers/30998-official-i-hate-crtc-thread.html
2011-02-14 06:59 PM
ScaryBob The CRTC has stated that they will only be interested in new, innovative services on subchannels. For example, if SunTV had applied to air a new, all news service as a sub-channel for SunTV (prior to the CAT2 application), it would be looked upon favorably. OTOH, if the CBC wants to combine their existing English and French analog services on a single digital channel, that would not.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
Terms of Use
Copyright