OTA Coverage: CTV and CTV2 Not Allowed In Same Areas? - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Canadian Internet, Phone, TV and Wireless Service Providers > Over-The-Air (OTA) Digital Television

Digital Home Helpful Information

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2014-07-23, 12:52 PM   #1
orbot
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rockwood, ON
Posts: 335
Question OTA Coverage: CTV and CTV2 Not Allowed In Same Areas?

CHCJ increased power back in January, but they're still on their lower tower which was supposed to be temporary, but is now permanent. From what I understand (or misunderstand), any CTV2 station isn't allowed to pump too much power into Toronto because there's already a CTV (CFTO) there.
__________________
30' tower, Winegard HD7698P, CM7777 (old), Eagle Aspen rotor, Insignia 50" LED
orbot is online now   Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2014-07-25, 02:53 AM   #2
dheian
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Midtown Toronto (OTA) LG 32LD400, MythTV
Posts: 522
Default

But CTV2 is completely different programming from CTV.
__________________
Antennas Direct C2V antenna pointed @ curved building NE. Cable free since May 2011.
dheian is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 10:47 AM   #3
thenewdc
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,805
Default

CHCJ's license states it's to provide reception to Toronto and surrounding areas because CKVR doesn't deliver a reliable enough signal.
thenewdc is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 01:14 PM   #4
orbot
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rockwood, ON
Posts: 335
Default

Where do you see that, thenewdc? In Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2012-51, it says CKVP and CHCJ are to serve the areas of Burlington, Fonthill, Fort Erie, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Oakville and Welland.

I think what I read on this forum a couple years ago about CTV & CTV2 not being allowed to serve the same area had to do with the CRTC's common ownership policy: "which generally permits ownership, by one person, of no more than one conventional television station in one language in a given market" (taken from decision 2012-51 paragraph 19). But apparently it's more complicated than that and there are exceptions.
__________________
30' tower, Winegard HD7698P, CM7777 (old), Eagle Aspen rotor, Insignia 50" LED
orbot is online now   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 01:35 PM   #5
ExDilbert
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43░ N, 81.2░ W
Posts: 2,684
Default

This situation is totally the CRTC's fault. Apart from the ownership rules stated above, they modified a deal where Rogers was to acquire the A network (now CTV2) when CTV purchased CHUM. Bell wanted CITY but the CRTC stepped in and said it would only approve the deal if CTV took the A channels and Rogers took CHUM. That ruling was due largely to CRTC ownership rules already in place. CTV's reaction was to start gutting the A channels of their assets and threatening to shut them all down unless it got financial relief in the form of a tax on BDU subscribers (which became the LPIF.) That staved off the shutdown of the A network long enough for CTV to come up with a new business plan that created the CTV2 network.

The larger situation, of course, is that the the CRTC would even allow this type of concentration of ownership when its own regulations meant it would deny Canadians full OTA coverage by all networks. The bottom line is that the CRTC will not allow CTV to operate both CTV and CTV2 stations in the same markets, a situation that is contrary to consumer interests and the wishes of most Canadians. In my opinion, the CRTC should encourage Canadian TV networks to have a market presence for all their networks in all major Canadian TV markets and operate transmitters that provide full OTA coverage to as many Canadians as possible. Until then, we are stuck with the current situation where most Canadians can only get either CTV or CTV2 (or neither.)
ExDilbert is online now   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 01:38 PM   #6
Robbers Bhell
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
... CTV & CTV2 not being allowed to serve the same area ...
They can serve the same "area", but can't be domiciled in the same city. Another example CKCO Kitchener and CFPL London both serve most of Southwestern Ontario.

Orbot is correct that this "officially" has nothing to do with Toronto, but for all practical purposes, it does improve CTV Two availability for some in the 416.

CKVR was never at risk of losing cable carriage/simsub rights in the 416 (and the northern 905) as it is "officially" served from the Barrie tower (the fact that many in the 416/northern 905 have no hope of getting the signal from Barrie is irrelevant to the regulation unfortunately).
Robbers Bhell is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 01:47 PM   #7
ExDilbert
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43░ N, 81.2░ W
Posts: 2,684
Default

The other "fact" is the coverage maps and allowed ERPs in use for VHF stations are hopelessly out of date, inaccurate for local reception conditions and need to be revised. In this area, we frequently lose reception for Canadian stations due to interference from US stations even though such interference is not "allowed" under agreements between Canada and the US. That is partly due to the fact that US stations have upgraded their transmitters and ERPs to better reflect real conditions observed after the transition to ATSC and some Canadian stations (most notably CTV stations) have not.

Quote:
They can serve the same "area", but can't be domiciled in the same city.
Not necessarily the same city but the same coverage area. The Barrie, Hamilton and Toronto regions are considered to be separate coverage areas by the CRTC. Many transmitters are not located in major cities they are meant to serve. They are located in a particular coverage area at a location where they may not completely serve that area or may even serve another coverage area better. That may be due to local terrain and propagation conditions that are not reflected in the coverage maps used to determine licensing.
ExDilbert is online now   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 01:58 PM   #8
Robbers Bhell
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 65
Default

Good points ExDilbert!

As for

Quote:
In my opinion, the CRTC should encourage Canadian TV networks to have a market presence for all their networks in all major Canadian TV markets and operate transmitters that provide full OTA coverage to as many Canadians as possible. Until then, we are stuck with the current situation where most Canadians can only get either CTV or CTV2 (or neither.)
I suspect that is the prevailing opinion of OTAers, but would be vigorously rebutted by all networks if the CRTC ever tried to do such a thing. The CRTC has never been a advocate for the consumer, although that discussion is for another thread.
Robbers Bhell is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 02:45 PM   #9
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbers Bhell
They can serve the same "area", but can't be domiciled in the same city. Another example CKCO Kitchener and CFPL London both serve most of Southwestern Ontario.
Vancouver is an example of CTV and CTV2 broadcasting from the exact same antenna farm on Mount Seymour, but CTV2 is nominally based in Victoria BC with a main transmitter there, with the Vancouver transmitter being simply a repeater, according to the CRTC. It is all about satisfying the regulations, even though the net result is complete overlap.
stampeder is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 2014-07-25, 02:52 PM   #10
Jase88
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 4,571
Default

The location of the transmitters is about simsub rights on cable systems, not about reception for viewers.

In Toronto, CTV2 Barrie (Bell) could easily apply for a repeater transmitter on the CN Tower. But this wouldn't gain them any additional simsub rights advantages.
__________________
DMX 68' tower, HyGain HAM 5 rotator, Antennas Direct 91-XG & C5, Channel Master 7777 preamp, Siemens surge protection
Jase88 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

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:

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.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 AM.

OTA Forum Sponsor


Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.