CRTC Reviewing Proposed HD OTA Network for Canada

[jvillain]

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?

[mdelleman]

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.

[rob50312]

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.

[Walter Dnes]

I can tell you right now what the answer will be from HDTV Networks. The spectrum is crowded in these cities for 2 reasons...

1. These are major metropolitan centres with several local channels
2. 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.

[Walter Dnes]

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/serv.../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.

[jvillain]

With Quebecor Inc.'s Sun TV channel struggling in Toronto, the CRTC has concerns about further saturating the market.

If there is room on the dial (showing my age ) give them both licencenses and let them compete. The looser will probably be Global. I have never understood this whole guaranteed to make a decent profit thing.

[foxfan]

Keep in mind the power levels are set by Industry Canada (which regulates spectrum), and NOT the CRTC (which regulates content).

[VBC1]

OK guys, now I am starting to think differently and stop blaming only our stations for low signal strength.
Now I think that our government is definitely to blame, and that it has a (secret) agreement with US government about it all (yeah, I admit, it is kind of paranoid)
After last time we had a discussion about it here, I started thinking if perhaps it is possible that CRTC is in some kind of agreement with US authorities never to grant a license for 'regular' or 'high power' digital transmitter here, in order to prevent Canadian stations to ever reach or interfere with US territory, for the purpose of US reassigning of channels above 50, perhaps also for other reasons, like not bringing competition to existing US broadcasters in those regions, or God knows what else.

I just read the application for license by "HDTV Networks Inc" to CRTC, which made me think about all this issue again and rethink:

HDTV Networks would broadcast 100% HD programming on the following channels with the following effective radiated power (ERP):

Service Area / Channel / ERP (watts):

Vancouver / 18 / 300

Calgary / 25 / 10,000

Edmonton / 50 / 100,000

Winnipeg / 40 / 15,000

Toronto / 26 / 160

Ottawa / 50 / 9,500

Montréal / 15 / 450

Halifax / 14 / 15,000

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/He...n2007-17.htm#1

Notice that in Vancouver, the new HD channel has a proposed power output identical to that of CTV (also Channel M, I think, should have a similar one).
Also, notice that 'proper' (high) power output (ERP) is given in those tv markets (areas) that are farther from US border. Looks to me that this plan is solely based on the proximity to US border. Notice that the lowest power is proposed for Toronto, where the super-high CN tower compensates for much by it's hight alone, and therefore seems more threatening to neighbouring US markets by it's signals.

Now I start thinking why only CBC has ERP of 30 kW (much higher than average). Perhaps because it is a public broadcaster (not commercial) and it almost never shows stuff seen on US networks. Also, it is already seen on Comcast cable in Washington state, which makes its OTA broadcast less painfull.
Call me paranoid, but it kind of makes some sense to me.

[danbcman]

Well I think any agreement would be between fcc and Industry Canada scince they are the ones that seems to have aprovales on things first.

Like I learned the unknown dtv 37 frequentcy is for radio telescopes.

[airmike]

A while back I complained to the CRTC about the power levels and like other posters here I found out it's Industry Canada we have to complain about in droves.
This is what the CRTC told me:
" Industry Canada, not the CRTC approves the technical parameters under which broadcasting stations operate."

[Blackburst]

I agree with the comments that there is something up with the low power output on Canadian OTA stations. But, my theory has nothing to do with US authorities. I beieve Industry Canada, the CRTC, & the broadcasters themselves are using this low power output to force the Canadian public to subscribe to Cable & Satelite. This way, the Canadian Broadcaster can use the rules related to a US station & a Canadian station running the same show at the same time to block the US station. Example, Global TV gets Industry Canada & CRTC protection on the Super Bowl by blocking the US Broadcaster out of the Canadian market place. And we the viewers are forced to watch the awful Canadian ads, and even worse Global promo ads.

They know, on a one to one bases, the average Canadian viewer would watch the US broadcaster. And why in God's name would Americans watch the second rate production values of the Canadian station. The same thing is happening with not allowing us to subscribe to DISH Network & Direct TV. These are protectionist actions against the interests of the Canadian public & US industry.

But, this madness can be fought by the Canadian public. Just cut your Cable & Sat subscriptions and put up a OTA antenna if you are close to major US markets. The new ATSC signals provide a perfect image when it locks in on any station transmitting a ATSC (HD & DT ) signal. This will force the Canadian Broadcasters to change there ways.

Also, one other thing to think about. The FCC is suppose to take back Channels 52-69 for other purposes. So no US channels on those frequencies. Now, if the CRTC doesn't follow and continues to issue licenses on those channels... does that mean that new TV sets for the Canadian market will have to provided a different ATSC tuner than those of the US market. Will they charge Canadians extra? Will a TV bought in the US due to a great deal not be able to tune into stations past Ch. 51. Well, if so, then too bad for the sucker Canadian Broadcaster with a Channel assignment past Ch. 51. As long as I get the US channels, who cares about the Canadian ones.

[rob50312]

The situation with low power levels is a technical and financial.Shared antennas,adjacent to analog and other interference issues are resulting in low power levels.When Canadian analog ends we will see if Canadian broadcasters are really interested in OTA coverage.There will be no reason for such low power levels.Toronto proposed 160 watts on 26 will reach 10km if its on the CN tower.In Mississauga I receive analog 26 from the U.S just fine so there will be interference issues with using channel 26.The FCC list the Toronto digitals at proposed 1000kw CBLT-dt so it has nothing to do with the Americans .

[I_Want_My_HDTV]

Channel allocations and power levels for border areas are set by agreements between Canada and the US. Digital signals are likely at low levels due to lack of available high power frequencies. This situation will get worse when the US stops using channels above 51 because those frequencies will be used for other services which precludes high powered Canadian stations on those frequencies. When Canadian stations stop broadcasting analog signals, they will be able to move their digital transmissions to the high powered frequencies that are freed up. That is when Canadian border cities will get higher powered digital broadcasts.

Also, many of the digital channels are currently interim licenses. These are typically low power. Once they become full time licenses, higher powered frequencies will likely be allocated.

[99gecko]

I wish.

Vancouver: 300 watts: Pathetic.
Toronto: 160 watts: Pathetic.
Montréal: 450 watts: Pathetic.

The three largest metro areas in Canada being proposed to being served with such low power than I could best describe it as resembling a campus transmitter. Some of the larger plasmas actually consume more power (peak) than that. Pathetic.

I will be putting in an intervention on this one.

Points for others contemplating filing an intervention:

• Be sure to read the instructions on how to file very carefully. See How to Participate in a CRTC Public Process (Broadcasting)
• Don't wait until the last day to file an intervention online. I have learned this the hard way in the past.

[SensualPoet]

I believe Global doesn't even bother with OTA for HD.

If stations are selecting OTA just to ensure space on primary cable then the rules ought to be changed.

I like the idea of additional choice -- and additional HD choice -- but it's not clear to me what this new network is offering. They've already said a local presence is not what they are planning: this is, basically, a pacific coast network. Bravo. But what do they offer Winnipeg? Halifax? Montreal? Toronto? Repeater signals in prime time? Reruns the rest of the day? Why not a single channel "network" like a typical "superstation"?