What is sensible programming for ATSC sub-channels?

[Walter Dnes]

Here's another use for subchannels... in Canada. You know all the whiners in the TV industry who complain about HDTV being too expensive to transmit OTA? Howsabout they chip in and share one DTV transmitter and broadcast up to 4 SDTV signals per transmitter? CBC English and French plus CTV and Global in English Canada. I'm not familiar with French-language networks in Quebec. Somebody know enough to suggest a list? Suddenly, OTA DTV becomes affordable in small-town Canada.

Let's go one step further. Have 2 DTV transmitters in each area, and carry all English and French OTA networks, even in small towns.

[stampeder]

That's an interesting proposition - I don't recall if this has been considered. I agree that it tends to break apart the "cost and effort of going digital" into more manageable chunks for the rural and smaller urban centres that stand to lose all OTA.

Perhaps this is something new for adding to CRTC interventions...

[Tom.F.1]

I don't think sharing transmitters amost different networks would work.
When they all go HD, there isn't enough bandwdth.

A better idea, or my idea at least, is news channels on subchannels.
Or sports,
or mtv,
or bravo,
or speed,
or any other specialty channel owned/run by the same network.

That would make OTA compete with cable/sat. And OTA would bring in bux, just like it was meant too.

[Walter Dnes]

Originally Posted by Tom.F.1

When they all go HD, there isn't enough bandwdth.

But, but, but they all said that there's no economic case for going HDTV, and they don't want to go HDTV. They wouldn't merely be whining in an effort to get a government subsidy for switching over... naah

Originally Posted by Tom.F.1

A better idea, or my idea at least, is news channels on subchannels.
Or sports,
or mtv,
or bravo,
or speed,
or any other specialty channel owned/run by the same network.

Problems...
- MTV and some others have content that isn't suitble for OTA television.
- a lot of these channels are low-viewership niche channels that need subscription revenue to make money. They won't work under the commercial-supported no-subscriber-fee model.
- and no, I do NOT want to see OTA frequencies carrying scrambled channels that you need to get a descrambler and pay a monthly fee for

There's well over half a century of SDTV shows sitting around, many of which have retained their appeal over the years. While it may be hard to justify an entire ATSC channel for 1 SDTV station, putting up 3 or 4 SDTV stations on 1 ATSC channel makes more sense.

[99gecko]

Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Walter Dnes

Here's another use for subchannels... in Canada. You know all the whiners in the TV industry who complain about HDTV being too expensive to transmit OTA? Howsabout they chip in and share one DTV transmitter and broadcast up to 4 SDTV signals per transmitter? ....

Really, I'm not trying to be an idiot but is this anything different than what you proposed in post #19?

Originally Posted by Walter Dnes

.... 3 or 4 SDTV-resolution stations could share one DTV transmitter. It would be a lot less wasteful than using 6 mhz for one SDTV signal. On the economic side, splitting the cost of the transmitter 3 or 4 ways is economically attractive.

Regardless I think it is great idea. Technical issues can always be resolved.

or any other specialty channel owned/run by the same network.

That would make OTA compete with cable/sat. And OTA would bring in bux, just like it was meant too.

Aside from CRTC regulatory issues, the stumbling block I see is the problem of media centralization. For example, none of CTV's specialty channels would show up on OTA. BEV would rather have you subscribe to get them. As well, if the locals end up getting Fee-For-Carriage from the cable/sats/IPTV's etc. as they have been demanding, the incentive to put up an digital transmitter is weakened.

[Walter Dnes]

Originally Posted by 99gecko

Really, I'm not trying to be an idiot but is this anything different than what you proposed in post #19?

This is a more targetted idea, and partly a "put up or shut up" semi-bluff to shame Global and friends into doing the right thing. If they do call my bluff and stay SDTV, they'll at least stop using 6 mhz to broadcast 1 SDTV channel.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Walter Dnes

I'm not familiar with French-language networks in Quebec. Somebody know enough to suggest a list?

I'll Bite. To the best of my knowledge there are 4 French networks and one local French station in Montreal. The Networks are:

• SRC (CBC-F),
• TVA,
• Télé-Québec, and
• TQS

The local station is CFTU (Canal Savoir) which is owned by the Université de Montréal.

[another]

Originally Posted by Tom.F.1

The short answer is no. They carry the same programiming on their Analog Ch.5.
Please correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think anybody in Canada is using subchannels.

I'm guessing that no extra gov't approval is needed to send the same signal HD and SD. As for different signals...

I asked the CRTC, a few months back, about its multicasting policy. I was speaking to senior staff person. His answer was basically "Good Question?".

I assume that means that no broadcaster has even asked about multiplexing a different signal (like CityTV muxing in MuchMusic, or CBC muxing in News World.) I haven't checked beyond that.

[alebowgm]

You are not likely to see CityTV go and multicast MuchMusic or CP24, or CBC mixing News World. These are cable stations and they make money based on subscriptions and advertisments.

What you may see is CityTV go and multicast CKVR (or CMFT multicast CKVR when Rogers buys them) becuase they are OTA stations. It would be similar to WKBW and WNGS in Buffalo. All of the multicasted stations, tend to be that of another OTA station OR of a network that is only available via OTA (such as NBC Weather+ or The Tube). There are some instances in the states, which we haven't had happen here (and I wish CBC would do it for Hockey) which is when there is alternate programming occuring (CBS and the NCAA Tournament comes to mind) they but the other games on the subchannel.

Potentially, CBC Toronto could strike a deal with CHEX as well, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[another]

Originally Posted by alebowgm

There are some instances in the states, which we haven't had happen here (and I wish CBC would do it for Hockey) which is when there is alternate programming occuring (CBS and the NCAA Tournament comes to mind) they but the other games on the subchannel.

Great idea, but I'd take it a step further: When a hockey game goes into overtime, the CBC should run the regularly scheduled show as a multiplex. Presumably they've already paid for it anyways, and not everyone in Canada wants to watch the hockey game.

[alebowgm]

I wouldn't have an issue with that either, except that (at least on CBC), the programming that is almost always setup to air after a hockey game is either the news (which can be seen on CBC Newsworld, and is preempted and not joined in progress) or another hockey game. But during these NHL playoffs, it would have been a perfect time for CBC to do multicasting, as with the NJ/TB games they were recording them live-to-tape/live-to-internet for viewing. Would have been nice to at least have the choice to watch the game live if I so desired (mind you, those who have NHLCI were able to view the games)

[another]

Originally Posted by alebowgm

You are not likely to see...
What you may see is...

My point is that no broadcaster in Canada appears to have even approached the CRTC about multiplexing, even in a preliminary way.

[roger1818]

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to remember reading that the CRTC wants stations to maximize bandwidth for HD programming to showcase it in the best possible light.

[99gecko]

Originally Posted by another

...
I asked the CRTC, a few months back, about its multicasting policy. I was speaking to senior staff person. His answer was basically "Good Question?"...

Hi another,
Although it doesn't qualify as hard policy, please see paragraphs #39 to 43 inclusive, of Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-32. It shows that at least there has been some deliberation.
I particularily find interesting,

Use of DTV technology to deliver multicast services, potentially in preference to the broadcast of HDTV programming, might also have the effect of discouraging the introduction of HDTV by the industry and the purchase of HDTV receivers by consumers.

and,

· The distribution of high definition programming should take precedence over the distribution of multicast services.

edit: I guess Roger and I both just finished watching the Canucks win ?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 99gecko

edit: I guess Roger and I both just finished watching the Canucks win ?

YUP!!! Thanks for providing the link. I knew I had read that somewhere, but I wasn't sure where.