Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

101 - 120 of 247 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,236 Posts
I already have a hi-VHF antenna and preamplifier so a change to UHF is a problem for me. I don't have a UHF antenna pointed toward Hamilton and don't expect to receive it off the side - channel 18 was intermittent. More power on channel 11 would be better from my perspective but that is clearly not in the cards.
Ch 15 will be using 3 dB more than ch 18, so you may have better luck.
Still, CHCH is only applying for 132kW peak, when the allotment allows for 493kW, so there is room to ask for more.
This a part I app, and the comment period is still open. Feel free to expres your opinion on the CRTC website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I suspect that the vast majority of viewers who've lost CHCH Hamilton likely don't have a VHF antenna.
Yeah, but I didn't hear of the vast majority of users having an issue of receiving CH11 prior to the transition when it was an analog flamethrower, and I suspect that they didn't have a VHF antenna then either. I'm not saying to increase the power to the pre-transition days, but they should increase it enough to cover the same contour that their analog signal covered, which apparent from all the complaints, they are not currently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
The engineering data in the CHCH application to the CRTC shows they will use the same antenna as CITS and purchase a new transmitter. No need for speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I read their announcement on their site. It reports there that another reason for going after the RF15 allocation is for mobile transmition. If that is the case, then UHF frequencies would be more valid. But still wouldn't a higher allocation be better...allowing for a smaller antenna, which would be more important for the mobile market?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
...They have a CP only for CH15 operating as a Class A station which require protection from interference on both sides of the border. The FCC will never allow CHCH to go forward with this application. In fact I spoke to an engineer at TCT and he confirmed to me that this application is laughable and wont see the light of day.
In the US, lawyers seem to deal with the FCC, not engineers. I wouldn't bet heavily on him being correct in this situation. The channel was originally licensed by a different faith broadcaster that transferred it to the licensee of WBNF. The license was approved before SunTV announced it would cease broadcasting so the original applicant probably thought it was a good bet to remain low power.

The FCC and Industry Canada coordinate frequencies along the border. Unless IC transferred channel 15 to the US, it is still a Canadian assignment. There is a shortage of channels in the zone along the Ontario/US border so giving one away would make no sense. Posters on DHC have often criticised IC for requiring protection in the form of lower power or directional antennas for vacant assignments. This situation illustrates why IC protects unused or underused Canadian assignments.

The channel 15 antenna is installed on the WUTV tower. The technical data shows WBNF has a different radiation centre than WUTV so the stations do not appear to be sharing an antenna. The separate antenna will facilitate WBNF moving to a new channel. If the antenna is relatively broadband and they find a new channel within the useful bandwidth, changing channels may be a matter of retuning the transmitter and mask filter.

Buffalo has an open assignment for channel 34 with 175 KW ERP originally allocated to WNYO. Whether the FCC would grant a license to use the channel is an open question particularly given the fact the WBNF could improve coverage by applying for a power increase from 350KW to 1 MW on channel 26 at Jamestown. A more technically adventurous solution would be a synchronous repeater on channel 26.

In the background of all this discussion, remember that the FCC and the current batch of US political leaders want to carve another chunk of channels off the TV band for auction to wireless carriers. In this case, there will be another scramble for channels as the band shrinks. Low power repeaters will surely take a hit in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Marbles,
If CHCH wants to offer mobile service then a UHF assignment is definitely the best choice. The option to go higher power in the future is also a consideration for the mobile market. CHCH is not associated with a wireless carrier so they don't have the conflict of interest like Bell and Rogers. Global, CHCH, CBC and TVO could create a big enough choice of programming to make ATSC mobile television viable in the Golden Horseshoe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
Here is an excerpt from the FCC regarding Class A stations, as is WBNF

1. In April 2000 we released a Report and Order establishing a Class A television service.1 Our action implemented the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (“CBPA”), which was signed into law November 29, 1999.2 Pursuant to the CBPA and our implementing rules, certain qualifying low-power television (“LPTV”) stations will be accorded Class A status. Class A licensees will have “primary” status as television broadcasters, thereby gaining a measure of interference protection from full-service television stations, even as those stations convert to a digital format. The CBPA and our Report and Order will facilitate the acquisition of capital needed by LPTV stations to allow them to continue to provide free, over-the-air programming, particularly locally-produced programming, to their communities. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, we dispose of petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order, make changes to some of our rules, and provide clarification of other rules.3

As you can see, it clear states that Class A stations are accorded protection from Interference from Full power stations, such as CHCH is. CH15 is not a Canadian assignment. WBNF has operated on CH15 under different call letters since the early 90's, long before it was assigned for use in Southern Ontario. In fact CKXT on CH15 was forced to protect WBNF, which is why they had a directional antenna transmitting mostly to the North and West with little signal propagting towards Grand Island. Unless WBNF volunteers to move to another assignment, then CHCH is SOL.

Now in regards to WNYB's application to go full power, that application was denied because they did not provide adequate protection to another Canadian assignment on CH26. They were given 1 month to re-submit their application and they did not respond or re-apply. Their is a letter of correspondance regarding this under their application. Here is the link to the letter denying their application for 1000KW ERP

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=24741

I don't see any evidence supporting your claims which are blatantly wrong, with the exception regarding your comments for the CH34 assignment which is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Humbar,
Channels were moved around as part of the DTV transition planning. The Industry Canada database shows channel 15 as 493 kilowatts with an omni-directional antenna. The FCC and IC coordinated the transitional and permanent DTV channels and documented their international agreement. In the channel 26 letter, the FCC document referenced is the 'Broadcast Agreement between the Commission and Industry Canada', released December 15th. 2008 which shows in Table A, Canada Plan of Allotments and Primary Assignments, that channel 15 is assigned to Hamilton, Ontario with the same parameters as the Industry Canada database.

As I said before, unless IC and FCC have agreed to a mutual revision of the plan, channel 15 is a Canadian assignment.

With respect to channel 26, WBNF could have submitted a revised application with a directional antenna to keep their signal out of Canada where they are not licensed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
I've looked at the IC database and it's full of errors. Regarding WBNF they already broadcast with a restricted contour away from Toronto, but I currently receive them quite well east of Toronto.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
CHCH-3 Aspect Ratio

I was in Collingwood for the weekend and watched a movie on CHCH-3 (Muskoka) on Satruday evening. CHCH-3 braoadcasts in 480i with a 4:3 aspect ratio. However their source is 16:9. Hence back bars at the sides that mask part of the picture. I sent the following e-mail to CHCH. I wonder if I wil get a response or if they have plans to convert their repeaters to 1080i
===============================
In the evening of Saturday Nov 26, I tuned to CHCH-3 from Muskoka to watch the movie, Home For the Holidays. I was disappointed that the aspect ratio was 4:3 rather than 16:9 for which it was intended. The Black bars on either side masked parts of the screen and were most annoying. Could CHCH change the aspect ratio of the Muskoka repeater to 16:9? Other stations such as WBBZ in Buffalo have 16:9 aspect ratio even on their 480i subchannels.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,063 Posts
WBBZ 480i sub channels are not in 16:9 ratio. There is something in their PSIP stream that instructs some tuners to stretch the 4:3 image to 16:9.

To accomplish the same effect, you can simply put your tuner/TV into "stretch" mode when tuning to CHCH on their 480i transmitters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,410 Posts
majortom,

Thanks!

It was mentioned a few times that CHCH would prefer UHF over VHF giving consideration of future mobile service. I didn't know if the broadcaster's [CHCH's] frequency was used for the mobile service or if the mobile service provider uses a separate BDU broadcast frequency. So, the mobile service provider is the broadcaster OTA and is using a piece of thier own original broadcast frequency? It is still not clear to me why the local mobile services needs a UHF frequency preference. I would prefer that they stay on 11RF and simply increase power.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,063 Posts
Mobile OTA DTV Broadcasting & Devices (ATSC-M/H)

Refer to this thread for information and discussion regarding mobile ATSC-M/H.

In short, the broadcaster themselves provides the signal for mobile devices within their signal feed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
I've looked at the IC database and it's full of errors.
On the contrary, the Letter of Understanding on file with the FCC and IC show the channel 15 allotment in Hamilton exactly as described, at 493 kW.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/SMBR-005-08-FCC_to_IC_letter_Dec08_e.pdf/$FILE/SMBR-005-08-FCC_to_IC_letter_Dec08_e.pdf

It is on page 31.

- Trip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,236 Posts
Trip, could you make a plot of the new channel 15 application for CHCH? Also, would you be able to compare interference zones with WBNF for channel 15 as proposed at 132 kW, and ch 15 at 493kW? I'm wondering how much further the protected contours would extend towards Ft Erie, and thus increase the interference zone. (In the end, the large poulation in toronto might skew the results, and thus perhaps EVERYONE in Ft Erie could fail to receive CHCH and the poulation percentage might still be below the the limit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
I made another call to TCT this morning and spoke to an engineer regarding CHCH's application. He assured me that WBNF gets Interference protection from both American and Canadian allotments. How this application is going to play out will be quite interesting.
 
101 - 120 of 247 Posts
Top