OTA NETWORK Status: GlobalTV
161 - 180 of 363 Posts
I lost PSIP EPG data yesterday on 6.1 Ottawa, but strangely enough not on 41.2 (the SD version) Ottawa. They're both on RF 6.
(Actually - not lost. I think it said 8AM - 8PM Digital Program, which is not the same thing as "No Data" on CBC, SRC, or the local french channels in Ottawa.)
I haven't checked today yet.
(Actually - not lost. I think it said 8AM - 8PM Digital Program, which is not the same thing as "No Data" on CBC, SRC, or the local french channels in Ottawa.)
I haven't checked today yet.
Paris global
I would certainly be in favour of them moving ch 6 paris to the uhf band. But unfortunately with London being so good or bad for tropo (depending on your viewpoint) there aren't many open channels that wouldn't suffer from severe tropo. You have to worry about Detroit, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo and Toronto plus the stronger channels out of Flint, Lansing, Rochester....The least affected channels would seem to be 27, 35 or 46. Another possibility would be channel 29 after the cbc shuts off their analog signal out of kitchener on July 31. All the other channels would suffer from moderate to severe tropo. If they wanted to move to vhf hi then maybe channel 11 might work. Not a lot of good choices though.
I would certainly be in favour of them moving ch 6 paris to the uhf band. But unfortunately with London being so good or bad for tropo (depending on your viewpoint) there aren't many open channels that wouldn't suffer from severe tropo. You have to worry about Detroit, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo and Toronto plus the stronger channels out of Flint, Lansing, Rochester....The least affected channels would seem to be 27, 35 or 46. Another possibility would be channel 29 after the cbc shuts off their analog signal out of kitchener on July 31. All the other channels would suffer from moderate to severe tropo. If they wanted to move to vhf hi then maybe channel 11 might work. Not a lot of good choices though.
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
Micah, only for a few more months. It's possible the moment (ok, maybe not literally 
) CHCH move to RF 15, Global applies for a channel change.
I wonder if they could apply for an unused London allotment (former CKXT, CBLN, SRC) ?
) CHCH move to RF 15, Global applies for a channel change.I wonder if they could apply for an unused London allotment (former CKXT, CBLN, SRC) ?
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
I didn't mean physically placing the transmitter in London, but using an IC allotment for London. I guess they may need it to be highly directional to the west if there may be co-channel interference from the east (true for RF 7, 19, and 40) - that might be a non-starter.
AFAIK, they own the facilities in Paris (??). Wouldn't make sense to rent space on someone else's tower in London if you've already got your own down the road.
Kitchener has allotments for 17 and 29 (as Bark64 pointed out). 17 would probably a poorer choice for viewers who pull in the Cleveland stations, although 29 is also Global's Oil Springs channel.
AFAIK, they own the facilities in Paris (??). Wouldn't make sense to rent space on someone else's tower in London if you've already got your own down the road.
Kitchener has allotments for 17 and 29 (as Bark64 pointed out). 17 would probably a poorer choice for viewers who pull in the Cleveland stations, although 29 is also Global's Oil Springs channel.
Joined
·
104 Posts
Global
Micah and Roger, I have direct contact with the Shaw media VP, they have told me that there thinking about a channel, prob in the London Area.. It would be perfect for 19.1 because that was allotted even in the states. If so, it has the same output as the one in Oil Springs. They should just move it. I have suggested this to them, so they know this. But I am not an expert as they are, and they need to know from the public, that it is needed. Just suggest it, and see what happens
Micah and Roger, I have direct contact with the Shaw media VP, they have told me that there thinking about a channel, prob in the London Area.. It would be perfect for 19.1 because that was allotted even in the states. If so, it has the same output as the one in Oil Springs. They should just move it. I have suggested this to them, so they know this. But I am not an expert as they are, and they need to know from the public, that it is needed. Just suggest it, and see what happens
Joined
·
277 Posts
Just been updated about CIII-DT-6 Ottawa to change from RF 6 to RF 14.
It will just create interference:
* WUTV (Fox) Buffalo
* WPTZ (NBC) Plattsburgh
Note that CKMI-DT Montreal was originally assigned RF 51, but they chose RF 15 which was back then a spare RF for Montreal according to Industry Canada plan in december 2008. Their presence on RF 15 creates reception problems for WPTZ for Montrelaers.
RF 14 is not allocated for Ottawa area... unless there's an updated document? But I'm sure there's another frequency they can use.
It will just create interference:
* WUTV (Fox) Buffalo
* WPTZ (NBC) Plattsburgh
Note that CKMI-DT Montreal was originally assigned RF 51, but they chose RF 15 which was back then a spare RF for Montreal according to Industry Canada plan in december 2008. Their presence on RF 15 creates reception problems for WPTZ for Montrelaers.
RF 14 is not allocated for Ottawa area... unless there's an updated document? But I'm sure there's another frequency they can use.
Broadcasters are free to apply for channels that were not previously allotted in the DTV plan -- they have to follow all the rules in in BPR-10 to deal with any interference issues.
That's the reason you're seeing this application as a CRTC Part I application which is open for comment, because it is proposing a channel not previously allotted in IC's plan.
The bottom line is that under International agreements, neither WUTV nor WPTZ are afforded protection outside their own country.
The Engineering Brief in the application states that the proposed new transmitter in Ottawa will not "cause any area of possible interference to" the following stations:
and the interference caused to the following stations is within approved limits:
It also includes interference maps, but none include Montreal.
Having said that, assuming you are using an at least somewhat directional antenna, I doubt if it will cause significant reception issues in Montreal. QC-PT-2086 in Sherbrooke would be a more significant source of problems.
Code:
Call Letters Channel Location
ON-PT-1343 14R Barrie, ON
WUTV-PT 14R Buffalo, NY
CBVU-PT 15R Maniwaki, QC
Code:
Call Letters Channel Location Pop Affected %
QC-PT-2086 14R Sherbrooke, QC 481,900 7,861 1.6
WPTZ-PT3 14R North Pole, NY 463,804 1,488 0.3
NY-PT-10793 14R Syracuse, NY 942,446 3,209 0.3Having said that, assuming you are using an at least somewhat directional antenna, I doubt if it will cause significant reception issues in Montreal. QC-PT-2086 in Sherbrooke would be a more significant source of problems.
Joined
·
277 Posts
Isn't that intentional? Isn't that a "flaw" that Global is exploiting?
With the transmitter in a city, they gain simsub rights on cable. If the american RF signal is far but strong enough, placing their transmitter on a RF channel next to the american one will make it difficult to receive. OTA viewer will get angry and will have no choice but to subscribe to cable to get all his shows, including Global simsubs.
In the case of Montreal, CBS (22) is next to CBC (21), NBC (14) is next to Global (15), which I get no reception during the day. Fox (43) operates at a lower power than CBS and NBC so it can be difficult sometimes, ABC (13) is next to CTV (12) but it's at very low power, as in, forget it. But I get PBS-57 (38) and PBS-33 (32) without any problem as they have no co-adjacent channel problem.
Companies knows this, you cannot sell your house to get better RF reception or live nearest a phone CO so you can get a better DSL sync.
Is it possible to receive WUTV Buffalo or WPTZ from Ottawa? Maybe, in tropo conditions. Moving CIII-DT-6 Ottawa to RF 14 will just make it impossible for Ottawa residents, and create interference for Montreal and Toronto markets during tropo conditions.
Choosing RF 14 is most likely strategic. One of the reasons why Global Montreal chose RF 15 instead of RF 51 was because it can use the same antenna as Radio-Canada (19) and CBC (21) at the top of the Mont-Royal tower. But they could have instead pick RF 18 (PBS St-Johnsbury), or RF 16 (I see nothing of interference here), but they had to pick RF 15 somehow by strategy.
With the transmitter in a city, they gain simsub rights on cable. If the american RF signal is far but strong enough, placing their transmitter on a RF channel next to the american one will make it difficult to receive. OTA viewer will get angry and will have no choice but to subscribe to cable to get all his shows, including Global simsubs.
In the case of Montreal, CBS (22) is next to CBC (21), NBC (14) is next to Global (15), which I get no reception during the day. Fox (43) operates at a lower power than CBS and NBC so it can be difficult sometimes, ABC (13) is next to CTV (12) but it's at very low power, as in, forget it. But I get PBS-57 (38) and PBS-33 (32) without any problem as they have no co-adjacent channel problem.
Companies knows this, you cannot sell your house to get better RF reception or live nearest a phone CO so you can get a better DSL sync.
Is it possible to receive WUTV Buffalo or WPTZ from Ottawa? Maybe, in tropo conditions. Moving CIII-DT-6 Ottawa to RF 14 will just make it impossible for Ottawa residents, and create interference for Montreal and Toronto markets during tropo conditions.
Choosing RF 14 is most likely strategic. One of the reasons why Global Montreal chose RF 15 instead of RF 51 was because it can use the same antenna as Radio-Canada (19) and CBC (21) at the top of the Mont-Royal tower. But they could have instead pick RF 18 (PBS St-Johnsbury), or RF 16 (I see nothing of interference here), but they had to pick RF 15 somehow by strategy.
The Canadian broadcast spectrum is regulated for the benefit of Canada, not the US.
There was no "flaw" for Shaw to exploit -- RF protection rules are designed to protect a broadcasters investment in serving its licensed area which is limited by recent rules to 100km from the transmitter, no matter how good the propagation conditions.
Under international agreement, stations in each country are only protected within their own country. Don't forget that cross-border audiences of commercial stations do not even count towards their ratings.
From Shaw's point of view, and there were a lot of reasons to favour 14 over other options (4, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 50 are the other existing allotments in Ottawa)
4 and 6 are practically unusable for digital
9 would require an increase in power and agreement from CBC for interference to CKSH
11 needs to protect the CKWS-DT assignment in Kingston, and might not even be possible from Camp Fortune instead of Herberts Corners because of the elevation
12 needs to protect Montreal
50 would require much hihger power than 14 to cover the same area, and would need to protect a 50 allotment in Watertwon.
UHF is preferred because it is much more amenable to Mobile ATSC than VHF.
Most of all, there is some concern that IC might eventually follow the FCC and (try to) auction off the channels above 31. Investing in 14 is a prudent choice, in that case.
Also, don't forget that during the pre-transition era, 14 was in use by a high-power analog station on 14 from Herberts Corners.
While obstructing reception of American stations may be a minor consideration in channel selection, I doubt that it plays a major role compared to economics of operation, amenability to mobile ATSC reception, site location, and preference for a station in the 14 to 31 range.
Also note that reception of Mount Mansfield stations in the Ottawa area is obstructed by a mountain range about 50 miles to the west of Mount Mansfield, so any reception in this area is iffy to start with.
I agree that people in the area between Cornwall and Valleyfield might be affected, but that is not a protected reception area for either the American nor Ottawa stations.
There was no "flaw" for Shaw to exploit -- RF protection rules are designed to protect a broadcasters investment in serving its licensed area which is limited by recent rules to 100km from the transmitter, no matter how good the propagation conditions.
Under international agreement, stations in each country are only protected within their own country. Don't forget that cross-border audiences of commercial stations do not even count towards their ratings.
From Shaw's point of view, and there were a lot of reasons to favour 14 over other options (4, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 50 are the other existing allotments in Ottawa)
4 and 6 are practically unusable for digital
9 would require an increase in power and agreement from CBC for interference to CKSH
11 needs to protect the CKWS-DT assignment in Kingston, and might not even be possible from Camp Fortune instead of Herberts Corners because of the elevation
12 needs to protect Montreal
50 would require much hihger power than 14 to cover the same area, and would need to protect a 50 allotment in Watertwon.
UHF is preferred because it is much more amenable to Mobile ATSC than VHF.
Most of all, there is some concern that IC might eventually follow the FCC and (try to) auction off the channels above 31. Investing in 14 is a prudent choice, in that case.
Also, don't forget that during the pre-transition era, 14 was in use by a high-power analog station on 14 from Herberts Corners.
While obstructing reception of American stations may be a minor consideration in channel selection, I doubt that it plays a major role compared to economics of operation, amenability to mobile ATSC reception, site location, and preference for a station in the 14 to 31 range.
Also note that reception of Mount Mansfield stations in the Ottawa area is obstructed by a mountain range about 50 miles to the west of Mount Mansfield, so any reception in this area is iffy to start with.
I agree that people in the area between Cornwall and Valleyfield might be affected, but that is not a protected reception area for either the American nor Ottawa stations.
LOL. Buffalo is more than 350km from Ottawa, so receiving WUTV would require a pretty extreme tropo event! As for WPTZ, it was receivable in the most eastern parts Ottawa when the analog transmitter was on Terry Mountain in New York. The DTV transmitter was built on Mount Mansfield in Vermont and is now completely blocked by mountains and thus completely un-receivable in any part of Ottawa.
In reality central Ottawa is unable to receive any American broadcasts due to a hill south of the city. People in the far east, west and south ends can receive PBS (WNPI or WCFE) and if they are lucky, maybe CBS and FOX (on WNYF-LD). That's it.
As for causing problems for Toronto, that is also extremely unlikely since it is about 350 km away. That is just too far to cause any significant problems, especially if you consider Ottawa is in a totally different direction so their antenna will have considerably less gain.
Also, don't forget that analog channel 14 was used in Ottawa by CJMT-TV-2 up until the analog shutdown last August. If you didn't receive interference from it, you likely won't notice a problem with Global. Channel 14 is also being used in Foymount, ON by CBOT-TV-1 until July 31 (when they shut down all of their remaining network owned analog transmitters).
Joined
·
358 Posts
In the US, an application for new or changed facilities must demonstrate that they cause only de minimus, defined as 0.5%, additional interference to the service areas of other stations. The minimum signal that defines the service area is different for the low VHF, high VHF, and UHF bands. For your reference, here are the service area plots for WUTV and WPTZ. Ignoring the international factor, interference outside the countour doesn't count, and viewers' complaints will fall on deaf ears at the FCC.
Note that I said additional interference. There are already locations within these service areas where interference and terrain blockage occurs. A new proposal cannot make the problem noticeably worse.
Note that I said additional interference. There are already locations within these service areas where interference and terrain blockage occurs. A new proposal cannot make the problem noticeably worse.
161 - 180 of 363 Posts
