CBC FTA?

[Techno_Dweeb]

Long list of transmitters.

You could just post this link instead.....

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explor...es/analoguetv/

[mrvanwinkles]

Having the internet link is GOOD. That gives the source of the information.

But having it posted explicitly, in text form is also GOOD, I think.
[ Even if it is L O N G and takes two posts. ]

It makes the point directly, and shows the list directly, and can show how many transmitters are/were on the list, at that specific point in time.

The linked information on the web could change, be updated, edited, or even "go away" entirely.

The Link could go "out of date" too, or the web address be changed - rendering the link useless.

So having an actual "snapshot" in time, in TEXT, of that list - can be a good thing.

One can go back and compare, old TEXT list, with current link / WEB information - and note any changes. Additions or Deletions to the list.

Web doc's and links can sometimes be SLIPERY / GREASY items. Changeable.

Sometimes it is also good to have some text - cut and pastes - or even snapshots ... even screenshots - as back up information or even proof of previous content.


[ CTRL ] + [ Print Scrn ] combined keystroke takes an image snapshot of what is currently showing on your screen - and puts it onto the clipboard.

I have found that function very very useful at times.

Then you can Paste that clipboard image into something like MS Word ... and you can then edit a little, like crop the edges, ie. cut the non-essential infomation out of the borders of the image, and then after that, resize the image so it is larger and fits nicely onto one page, and then save it as a Word file for future reference. Print it out, or email it around ... whatever you wish to do with it.

Caution though ... put a date on it, and include the internet LINK as a reference.

Always remember, it is a snapshot in time of that info - and may go out of date.

[ Thank you DrSat for going to the trouble to post the TEXT version. The historical saving of that information on the FORUM in direct text form may be useful in the future, say in the future forum ARCHIVES. Some future historian researcher, or future member, in the future may thank your / our initiatives. ]

[ Yes, long ago, in a nation far far away ... TX WARS / BX WARS ]

[roger1818]

I find it interesting that the CBC has a link to Shaw's LTSS program on their notice. See the link BDU to Offer Free Satellite to Canadians Losing OTA (LTSS) for discussion of the LTSS program.

[Cham]

The BDU offer (Shaw) is only for a few months, then no picture (you have to subscribe with basic service to get it back). I talked to the local Shaw dealer/installer about this after two of my family members had theirs shut down. Seems a common issue. Makes me look bad because I recommended they use this service... but no cost involved other than for me to make a pair of GH antennas and mount them on the satellite dish mast...
(Sorry for the double post in the other thread...)

[majortom]

for anyone curious, from the CBC OTA future thread, where there was some discussion. here's some info on rain fade which will provide a comparison of rain fade on Ku Band vs CBAND.

http://www.geo-orbit.org/sizepgs/Noi...#anchor1149220

As you can see, Rain Fade is a huge problem on Ku Band, and practically a non-issue on CBAND (marginal issue along the horizon).
As DrSat said in that thread, it's one reason why CBAND spectrum is optimal from a distribution standpoint.
Another reason I can think of is that CBAND may be cheaper $$$ wise to lease. The larger antenna size requirements for the uplink and the downlink makes C Band spectrum less valuable to prospective uplinkers.

[ota_canuck]

Originally Posted by DrSat

You mean CBC in HD and the 6 ft. dish size is typically not an issue in rural communities where land lots are much larger than in the city.


Regards,

Dr. Sat

You're missing the point:

poor quality and only a temporary solution that does not warrant the equipment costs and the size of installing a backyard dish

It's only a temporary fix and a very costly fix for CBC reception. You'd be better off to use that 'BUD system' money to subscribe to a cable or satelite provider and get a basic service.

[DrSat]

The whole point that many people are trying to make is that many Canadians feel that they should not be forced to subscribe to a cable or satellite provider just to receive the CBC and/or Radio Canada as they are already paying for it indirectly through their taxes.

Subscribing to a basic cable or satellite service will actually end up being more expensive than purchasing a $400 C-band system (i.e. $350 + $50 shipping) after only about 9 months (i.e. $45 x 9 months) = $405


Best regards,

Dr. Sat

[Davage]

The CBC should pay Bell TV to 'unscramble' their CBC feeds on satellite. The new Nimiq satellite that is currently at the 91 degree location has a very sharp spot beam on Canada, so spillage into the USA should be minimal so that should alleviate any concerns over copyright issues and US broadcasters. An 18 inch dish with an inexpensive free-to-air receiver that can pull in CBC would be a good option for many.

[dirtroad]

The CBC says that the shutdown of the 623 analogue transmitters will save $10 Million and only affect 1.7% of the population of Canada or 595,000 people who watch the CBC over the air in the suburb and rural areas of Canada, unfortunately these are some of the same people who don't have cellphone service or highspeed Internet. If the CBC doesn't think 1% is a significant number, they should talk to the 1% of the people who control bulk of the wealth, or better yet, the outlaw motorcycle clubs who's one percenters are the ones who do the worst in society.

Here are other ways of looking at the cut of 10 Million dollars from the CBC's reported 1.7 Billion dollar budget.

(1) If 30% of these people get the Shaw Direct LTSS and the receiver, dish and installation are valued at $200, that is 595,000 people X 30% X $200 = $35,700,000 or 3.57 times more than the savings that is projected by the CBC not a vary cost effective way to replace the OTA CBC.

(2) If someone told the CBC they could increase their viewership by 1.7% with an increase of only .59% additional investment spending and that would be a good thing, they would probably do it. So with that in mind, $1.7 Billion x .59% is $10,030,000. Yes, less than 1% of spending increase to increase viewership by 1.7%, a very good buy! After all, the CBC has just spent somewhere in the area of 200 Million Dollars to increase viewership for two weeks in 2014 and 2016 with the "Winning Olympic Bid".

(3) If the 1.7 Billion Dollars is divied out proportionally, that would mean that those 1.7% of the population should be entitled to 1.7% of the 1.7 Billion Dollars or $28,900,000 or 2.89 times the suggested 10 Million Dollar saving. Meaning that the CBC has effectively $18,900,000 Dollars to add Digital Video Broadcast modulators to the 623 transmitters at $30,337.08 each. Which is about 5 times the cost of a DVB-T modulator.

(4) The alternative could be that the $1,700,000,000 divided by 35,000,000 people in Canada is $485.71 per year or $40.48 per person a month. Say that there are on average 3.85 people per household, that would subsidize Cable or Satellite to the tune of $155.83 per month per family right across Canada, or about $100 more than any service I have ever had! However this would include the loss of the CBC TV, CBC 1, CBC 2, Bold, CBC NewsWorld, CBC Galaxy etc....

.....So it could be said that instead of 1.7% of Canadians loosing our CBC, we all "loose it" and get free full service cable or satellite of their choice for life!

.....or every home gets basic cable or satellite of their choice for free valued at $55 plus they get paid $100 back each month!

So come on Mr. CBC, get your act together and give All Canadians their CBC OTA, or shut it all down and give us our money back!

[Cham]

I find that "Olympic bid" deal quite interesting. Strange how the taxpayer has to pay for this, considering Bell Media is doing a fine job right now without all that tax money. To add salt to the wound, they have to cut off the analog stations right as the Olympics starts... Couldn't they have waited another 2 weeks? Of course CBC isn't broadcasting the games, at least the local and National news carried the results and some footage, maybe the only way some residents would have gotten the information...

[mrvanwinkles]

... all the reasoning, and philosophizing, and calculations are good ...

but ... really to no avail . Because:

Sorry to have to say this ... but the whole point of this (illustrious national leadership) exercise folks, is very simple:

To shift the costs of the national broadcaster to the viewers.
( " slash " ... budgets and transmitters ) ( downloading of costs )
( "externalizing of costs" )

And to give more control (and profits) for the distribution of that signal to some private interests. i.e. to let private industry do the job instead.
( middle-men. BDU's - subscription cable co's and satelite co's )
( Gov't getting out of the business of national broadcasting )


So Gov't will:

A. RID itself of some troubles and expenses - in maintaining a national OTA broadcaster in many regions.

and, at the same time:

B. Generate more tax revenue for itself.

Through new subscriptions... those private interests will also generate *NEW* tax revenues for government.

It's like DOWNLOADING of services and COSTS directly to the viewers.

So the whole idea of a National Broadcaster is going down the TUBES and the National Broadcaster is being sold down the RIVER.

[ Like a Crown Corporation being privatized ]

It's a national policy decision made by the current majority "illustrious leadership"

They no longer support the idea of a National Broadcaster.

Well ... as I mentioned earlier ... I will be wanting my tax supporting money back then.

And thinking carefully about the next election - and talking to my current member of parliament.

My new national broadcaster is CBS - The Columbia Broadcasting System.

[ no kidding. I find myself watching, and enjoying - the CBS Evening News - more than any other newscast these days. I tune that in, watch it, then shut off the TV. ]

[Obed]

Whilst not wishing to get into the very obvious politics and agenda of the current government, I would agree with Davage that as a minimum the national broadcaster should have a free, unscrambled FTA signal on the nation's authorised satellite distribution systems.

The CBC needs more guts and leadership.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Davage

The CBC should pay Bell TV to 'unscramble' their CBC feeds on satellite.

One could argue that Bell should do this for free as a condition of license.

[alebowgm]

This has been discussed previously. As nice as it sounds, it won't happen because the programmers often have language in their contracts with the broadcaster that requires the station not be available in the clear.

[roger1818]

^^^If you read the OP, the claim is that the new Nimiq satellite has a sharp spot into Canada, so there is little spillage into the US, alleviating those contract concerns.