Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
81 - 100 of 346 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Translation from OttawaGuy999
The HAAT (I'm pretty sure it's HAAT) has also been recalculated in light of the recalculation of the radiating centre by using more precise topographical values. This will change from 424.9 metres to 397.7 metres.
@flavoie ... I wonder if that lower tower height is only (or in part ?), caused be a revision in the topographical data ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,293 Posts
Subject to all of the gov't approvals, etc, wouldn't it be simpler for Global to just increase their ERP? Or am I over-simplifying things?
Perhaps, but Global's exisitng antenna has a very sharp null towards Orleans, and probably would have to be replaced, preferably higher up on the tower. Once they're doing that, they might as well apply for 9, 12, or 50. 9 and probably 12 have the possibility of piggybacking on existing antennas.

There is also the issue of the other 88 MHz FM transmitters. Any capital expenditures required on the FMs to co-exist with a super-power channel 6 would be on Global's dime.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,085 Posts
TOTVBuff, I didn't lose CIII channel 41 Toronto between 9pm and 11pm on Friday. Nor have I see any indications in this thread or the Toronto station status thread that anyone else (besides yourself) lost it either?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,293 Posts
Peak power from horizontal and vertical sync on analog would easily exceed the maximum ERP from a more powerful digital transmitter. I don't see any issue here.
George, were Global to stay on channel 6, they would have to use a new antenna without such a sharp null towards Orleans. According to TVFool, the ERP towards Orleans is only 70 Watts.
The null towards Montreal, originally there to protect a 100kW analog stations on channel 6, causes woefully inadequate coverage of Orleans, a highly populated suburban area. To overcome that null would either require going to much higher than 50 kW average, or a new antenna. Either way would require re-engineering of the colocated FM stations. Hopefully Shaw has a deal to use channel 9, which should work fine if the power was increased from 3 kW to something like 20 kW or more, or is willing to pony up to build a high power station on channel 50.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,085 Posts
Some painful decisions need to be made by Global in Ottawa. The current state of affairs with the transmitter serving this region is unacceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
...Either way would require re-engineering of the colocated FM stations...
I don't understand this point. If the channel 6 antenna has a strong null toward Orleans then a change to the antenna system will be required if permitted by Industry Canada. I have never heard of FM stations sharing an antenna with a TV station so a change to the antenna would not affect the FMs. The FM and channel 6 antenna will not be on the same physical section (aperture) of the tower so the physical arrangements should not be a factor. The channel 6 transmitter must have a tight mask filter to keep any spurious energy out of the FM band.

The onus is on the licensee of channel 6 to keep from interfering with the FM stations. I don't see why any re-engineering of the FMs would be required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
may be shaw could cut out some of the regular goodies and hightest gasoline in thier megayachts? to improve service to the basic minimum?

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/shaw-finds-itself-out-of-step/

Jim Shaw was given a $25.5-million payment in addition to $625,000 in salary in fiscal 2011

Corporate governance advocates have long taken a dim view of Shaw’s pension payout practices, but shareholders have typically turned a blind eye as long as the stock price produced handsome returns. Given that Shaw’s share price has declined 8.35% in the past three years — the worst in the industry — while Telus Corp. has soared 41.93%, can a revolt be far away?
my neighbour says ----
Man, ottawa service is the pits and only a few million to fix it , but if the corp is just a grab bag for profits like all the others ??????

sad very very sad ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
I agree that the current situation with Global Ottawa OTA is completely unacceptable. I often wonder if their engineers are just plain dumb putting a digital channel on VHF 6, or are there ulterior motives. IE: Shaw Direct.

Something to ponder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
...I often wonder if their engineers are just plain dumb putting a digital channel on VHF 6, or are there ulterior motives.
No, their engineers are not "dumb"; they followed the Industry Canada plan and are now trying to find a solution to the problem. I know people in the television business and the majority of them are hard-working, capable folks who deal with the realities of budgets, schedules and corporate priorities every day. Global has dozens of transmitters to convert to digital so should they spend their capital on markets with no digital at all or go back and retrofit an existing market with weak coverage? As a viewer, the answer depends on where you live.

The low-VHF assignments are underpowered because the RF propagation model used to develop the North American frequency plan was badly flawed for low-VHF and inadequate for high-VHF. The transition plan as implemented in the US didn't help matters because the transition frequencies were nearly all in UHF so viewers came to believe that they only needed a UHF antenna for HDTV. Experience with digital coverage was limited to UHF except in a few markets. The VHF stations don't have enough power to duplicate their previous analog coverage. In cases where coverage has been re-engineered with higher power, like CFPL's 45KW directional toward Kitchener, the high VHF channels seem to work.

Television reception is a two-way street that depends on both the transmitter and receiving equipment. I wonder how many of the people complaining about channel 6 assignments have installed a low-VHF antenna? UHF antennas are not designed to get low VHF stations and are nothing more than a lump of metal in the air when it comes to low-VHF. OTA television is free to receive so broadcasters expecting viewers to make an investment in the right equipment is not unreasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
I have a low VHF antenna as well as UHF hooked up. I have them on the roof of my house. Global comes in at 56% strength, and I live 8 km from Camp Fortune broadcasting tower. I cannot see how anyone past here is picking up Global adequately. My signal is quite solid, even in dismal weather. It's just a weak signal. It's all very interesting that the people in charge of this don't know any better. Yet some stations applied to be moved to other channels and were granted their wish. What happened to Global? Did they apply to be moved to a higher frequency that won't have interference from FM radio for example?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
I know people in the television business and the majority of them are hard-working, capable folks who deal with the realities of budgets, schedules and corporate priorities every day.
Excellent point that can be made in a number of threads here where engineers are under attack. Engineers can only do what their upper management (and regulators) directs them to do. In many cases, upper management has severe under-representation of engineers. Instead they are filled by MBAs and lawyers (in Shaw Media's case, the president is an MBA).

Some of the MBAs and lawyers I know need a "techie" to do simple things - these are the types that still have VCRs flashing "12:00" since the 1980s. Trying to explain the difference between UHF and VHF to guys like this makes their eyes glaze over. They'll just ask "How much will this cost?" and if they don't like the answer, they'll say no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,293 Posts
There are lots of non-CBC tenants on the tower. That wasn't my point. My point is that Global would probably want to move higher up on the tower, and as non-owner it would be subservient to what the landlord's priorities are.

When the tower was originally built, it was just CJOH, CBOT, and CBOFT at the top, and I imagine a handful of FMs.

The first tower at Camp Fortune was built in the early sixties by Frank Ryan, then owner of CFRA 580 / CFRA-FM 93.9, and unsuccessful applicant for the TV license eventually won by Bushnel's CJOH.

It's not clear to me whether the CBC bought the tower from the Ryan estate in the mid sixties, or built a new one in the same place. Any oldtimers know the history?
 
81 - 100 of 346 Posts
Top