Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Its funny that WNYO was forced to be directional on RF16 because of CITY moving to 16, now their is no point of them being directional since CITY not moving, now 2 stations are messed up in parts of Southern Ontario. My reception of WNYO is steady, but weaker than before because of this nonsense. Rogers provides WNED to Woodstock on cable, so I wonder how they are receiving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,186 Posts
Rogers provides WNED to Woodstock on cable, so I wonder how they are receiving it.
It's probably received somewhere else, such as Toronto, and sent to Woodstock over fibre. It might even be a direct fibre feed from the station itself. That's how WQLN is done on Rogers. Some cable systems use satellite feeds of US stations.That's how most signals are handled now. There are a lot of US OTA stations on cable that are impossible to receive locally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Maybe WNED is backhauled on the same fibre with WQLN, assuming the fibre passes through Buffalo. I once did see WQLN in the broadcast center in Toronto on one of the many monitors at Rogers York Mills facility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,186 Posts
When the US digital conversion took place in 2009, Rogers stopped carrying Erie stations and discontinued use of their Erie antennas. The condition Rogers laid down for WQLN to stay on their cable system was to pay for it's own fibre feed which was reported to cost $30,000/yr at the time. I assume that WQLN gets enough Canadian donations to cover the cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
You've probably been unable to target the right person at Rogers. Using the generic contact us form on Citytv's website would be downright useless; it's probably only monitored by morons who don't even realize OTA broadcasting exists.

Poking around recent CRTC filings for CITY-DT reveals the name Steve Martak as the engineering supervisor at Rogers Media. Actually, I posted something nine years ago mentioning him by name and title. His email address is of the format [email protected] and I'd suggest you complain to him directly.

Alternatively, here's a practising professional engineer whose Linkedin profile says he's a "transmitter technician at Rogers Media" in Toronto.
Individual licenced P.Eng records can be searched by last name, etc. @ www.peo.on.ca where it even shows the guy's direct office phone number at Rogers.

Please let us know if you get a response.

As others have pointed out, CITY-DT-2 Woodstock was supposed to transition to RF16 according to the repack schedule that can be examined, here.
City tv Woodstock is a horse's ass I live in west Waterloo and if I want City tv I will pick it up via Toronto I so much want to support WNED however since their transition like many others I cannot receive their signal sure if some want to call me self centered I accept that would an ATSC 3 signal make a difference or would this still blocked by an ATSC 1 signal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Interference is interference. Doesn't matter what format the signal is in.
thank-you so how does atsc 3 format differ from atsc 1 other than a higher definition reproduction I was hoping it was a more robust format and less prone to atsc 1 interference however it seems as you stated interference is interference no matter the source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,966 Posts
"was hoping it was a more robust format"
correct, cofdm (what they use in europe) is more robust than 8vsb... meaning, all other factors the same, the data will get there. Minimum SNR required for reception of ATSC 1 (8VSB) is like 15.2 dB, while the below document says ATSC3 using COFDM can receive down to around 8 dB or so... That should result in a huge difference in coverage, depending on the actual planning parameters used by the broadcaster.

some info here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,218 Posts
Why can't Citytv just use one of the Omni antenna's in London to broadcast its signal? It seems incredibly stupid to be wasting limited broadcast spectrum when the same owner has 2 other stations in the same market. Same goes for Toronto. They could easily run Omni1 and Omni2 on one channel and City on another. Channels 7-36 is pretty crowded in Southern Ontario, Western/upstate NY, Northern Pennsylvania and Northern Ohio. This is a situation that is easily resolvable and at fairly low cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,186 Posts
Why can't Citytv just use one of the Omni antenna's in London to broadcast its signal?
The simple answer is short sighted CRTC policies. The CRTC doesn't allow combining existing OTA signals on a single channel. I assume that is meant to preserve signal quality. Subchannels are allowed but they must be a new service.

The other issue is that the CRTC does not allow more than one signal in any market from the same broadcaster. CTV and CTV2, for example, are not allowed to have stations in the same city. That's why CTV2 is not on the CN tower. There is an exemption for multicultural channels such as Omni 1 and 2.

What I would like to see is a reversal of those policies. It artificially restricts OTA services to many Canadians. The subchannel restriction should be relaxed for ATSC3 in order to promote that format. The other thing I would like to see are policies to promote or mandate the operation of antenna farms that carry all national, regional and local networks in all major population centres. They would operate like the CN tower does in Toronto and it would make adoption of OTA much easier for Canadians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
1 ATSC 3.0 channel could accomodate every local Toronto station in HD no problem, all in a 6Mhz spectrum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,186 Posts
That's a bit optimistic. Using ATSC 3.0 the 13 Toronto stations could probably fit into two or three 6MHz stations with full HD bandwidth. That assumes they are using the 720p or 1080i HD standard. If they want to use 1080p, 4K or some higher resolution, it could require more. Thinking that Canadian broadcasters would want to use ATSC 3.0 is extremely optimistic. It took them almost 10 years to fully convert all their stations to producing HD content. Even that involved shutting down most of their local studios and moving production to major cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Apart from using it to get simsubs on co-owned BDUs, broadcasters such as CTV have yet to figure out how to make a profit with OTA. Even with government subsidies, the CBC is walking away from OTA. Canadian broadcasters have shown repeatedly that they would rather shut down stations or flout international agreements than spend any money on upgrades. The result is that Canadians would rather walk away from Canadian broadcasters than put up with any more of their BS. If it weren't for protectionist laws and policies, they would be out of business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,744 Posts
When WNYO goes to ASTC 3.0 their signal will signal will be put onto WUTV for ASTC 1.0 coverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
The Citytv retransmitter in "Woodstock" is a strange beast; it's actually located at 464545 Rivers Road near Sweaburg. The tower was built in 1986, so probably not yet at end-of-life. Switching from RF31 to RF16 would mean they'd have to swap out the broadcast antenna at relatively high cost, and Rogers is probably way too cheap to like that idea. :rolleyes:
Using a geographic area search of ISED's spectrum management system, it shows that the only thing on that guyed mast besides CITY-DT-2's antenna, is a 6.6GHz microwave receive antenna for the 16QAM studio-transmitter link signal. Rogers doesn't even bother to use the tower for expanding coverage of its wireless phone service, or leasing extra space to a third party.

Anyway, somebody ought to complain to a bureaucrat at ISED about this flouting of the DTV repack assignment. Martin Proulx is listed numerous times as the director general of the engineering, planning and services branch, but his email address is intentionally absent from all government employee directories. It's probably [email protected] but I'd imagine he's "too important" to answer the public directly, and you'd get referred to this ridiculous web page that essentially tells Canadians that the federal government hasn't given a damn about broadcast signal interference for several decades. :mad:
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top