OTA Channel 10 Overlap in Southern Ontario/Rochester? - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

rob50312 · 2011-04-22, 11:26 AM

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.

GeorgeMx · 2011-05-04, 11:38 AM

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.

rob50312 · 2011-05-04, 06:25 PM

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.

GeorgeMx · 2011-05-04, 06:48 PM

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.

rob50312 · 2011-05-04, 09:06 PM

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.

rob50312 · 2011-05-04, 10:24 PM

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.

GeorgeMx · 2011-05-11, 11:19 PM

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.

rob50312 · 2011-05-12, 06:17 PM

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

tvlurker · 2011-05-12, 07:08 PM

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.

GeorgeMx · 2011-05-12, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob50312

I am in Mississauga

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

rob50312 · 2011-05-12, 10:22 PM

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.

wilspin · 2011-05-19, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob50312

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.

rob50312 · 2011-05-20, 07:57 PM

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.

majortom · 2011-05-20, 08:30 PM

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 · 2011-05-21, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob50312

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?

2011-04-22, 11:26 AM	#1
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	OTA Channel 10 Overlap in Southern Ontario/Rochester? 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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham. Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-13 at 12:43 PM. Reason: moved to it's own thread

2011-05-04, 11:38 AM	#2
GeorgeMx Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 732	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. Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-13 at 12:44 PM. Reason: moved to this thread

2011-05-04, 06:25 PM	#3
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-04, 06:48 PM	#4
GeorgeMx Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 732	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. Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-13 at 12:45 PM. Reason: moved to this thread

2011-05-04, 09:06 PM	#5
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-04, 10:24 PM	#6
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-11, 11:19 PM	#7
GeorgeMx Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 732	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. Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-13 at 12:45 PM. Reason: moved to this thread

2011-05-12, 06:17 PM	#8
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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 __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-12, 07:08 PM	#9
tvlurker Veteran Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Craig Henry (Greenbank/Hunt Club), Nepean, ON Posts: 2,729	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. Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-13 at 12:46 PM. Reason: moved to this thread

2011-05-12, 10:22 PM	#11
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-20, 07:57 PM	#13
rob50312 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: derry + winston Mississauga Posts: 1,300	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. __________________ CM 4248 at Buffalo,XG43 at Toronto,M4 at Buffalo,CH 11 yagi at Ham.

2011-05-20, 08:30 PM	#14
majortom Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,558	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. __________________ uhf/vhf combo rotor chimney mount homebrew vhf hi hpf ap-8700 preamp 4way split lg lcd dtt901 pctuner mythtv

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode