K
kurtbecker
Guest
Jan Pachul and Star Ray TV received a letter from the CRTC today. A scan of the letter and Jan Pachul's comments can be found at http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?t=6 The letter is worth the read, truly unbelievable.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
> Jan Pachul and Star Ray TV received a letter from the CRTC
> today. A scan of the letter and Jan Pachul's comments can be
> found at http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?t=6 The letter is
> worth the read, truly unbelievable.
----------
Someone at Global probably paid the CRTC to do that. Note that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love to shut that station down too, because it might solicit advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
> today. A scan of the letter and Jan Pachul's comments can be
> found at http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?t=6 The letter is
> worth the read, truly unbelievable.
----------
Someone at Global probably paid the CRTC to do that. Note that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love to shut that station down too, because it might solicit advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
K
kurtbecker
Guest
> > Jan Pachul and Star Ray TV received a letter from the CRTC
>
> > today. A scan of the letter and Jan Pachul's comments can
> be
> > found at http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?t=6 The letter is
> > worth the read, truly unbelievable.
> ----------
> Someone at Global probably paid the CRTC to do that. Note
> that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a
> signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love
> to shut that station down too, because it might solicit
> advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to
> snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
>
What I had heard is that the US station complained of interference.
I monitored channel 13 from the SRTV tower and it looked like the Kitchener station had faded up. I have heard rumours of a channel 13 pirate but I have never seen it. Global TV did generously donate several tons of serviceable broadcasting equipment to SRTV last springtime. They also allowed short spacing with CHCH's DTV signal. They have actually helped us.
>
> > today. A scan of the letter and Jan Pachul's comments can
> be
> > found at http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?t=6 The letter is
> > worth the read, truly unbelievable.
> ----------
> Someone at Global probably paid the CRTC to do that. Note
> that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a
> signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love
> to shut that station down too, because it might solicit
> advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to
> snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
>
What I had heard is that the US station complained of interference.
I monitored channel 13 from the SRTV tower and it looked like the Kitchener station had faded up. I have heard rumours of a channel 13 pirate but I have never seen it. Global TV did generously donate several tons of serviceable broadcasting equipment to SRTV last springtime. They also allowed short spacing with CHCH's DTV signal. They have actually helped us.
> What I had heard is that the US station complained of
> interference.
> I monitored channel 13 from the SRTV tower and it looked
> like the Kitchener station had faded up. I have heard
> rumours of a channel 13 pirate but I have never seen it.
> Global TV did generously donate several tons of serviceable
> broadcasting equipment to SRTV last springtime. They also
> allowed short spacing with CHCH's DTV signal. They have
> actually helped us.
----------
Well that is super. I would never have expected Global to encourage a low-power entry into the Toronto market. If only they didn't fuss so much about the TVN application.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
> interference.
> I monitored channel 13 from the SRTV tower and it looked
> like the Kitchener station had faded up. I have heard
> rumours of a channel 13 pirate but I have never seen it.
> Global TV did generously donate several tons of serviceable
> broadcasting equipment to SRTV last springtime. They also
> allowed short spacing with CHCH's DTV signal. They have
> actually helped us.
----------
Well that is super. I would never have expected Global to encourage a low-power entry into the Toronto market. If only they didn't fuss so much about the TVN application.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
The thing that REALLY bothers me, is that there's plenty of room on the rogers Digital box, yet anything from All fishing to Gambling for dummies gets priority over anything Mr. Pacul puts down on an application.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts, that if both Mr. Pachul and Rogers or CTV apply for a licence to broadcast the sock channel (YES SOCK! NOT STOCK!) they'd grant Rogers or CTV the licence no problem, to find creative ways to get people to watch a million diffrent photos of socks, but kick Mr. Pachul to the curb.
Here's a sample of what the channel would look like if I could afford to put it on the air myself: www.sock-dreams.com/weblog/index.php (and no, that's not me, or anyone I know in those socks, just a site I found while surfing one day)<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts, that if both Mr. Pachul and Rogers or CTV apply for a licence to broadcast the sock channel (YES SOCK! NOT STOCK!) they'd grant Rogers or CTV the licence no problem, to find creative ways to get people to watch a million diffrent photos of socks, but kick Mr. Pachul to the curb.
Here's a sample of what the channel would look like if I could afford to put it on the air myself: www.sock-dreams.com/weblog/index.php (and no, that's not me, or anyone I know in those socks, just a site I found while surfing one day)<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>
B
Bob1370
Guest
> > Note
> > that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a
> > signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love
> > to shut that station down too, because it might solicit
> > advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to
> > snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
LOL! What you may have is someone else operating unlicensed on Channel 13 somewhere in southern Ontario. Or else someone had heard about the SRTV low power TV experiment, saw a signal he wasn't used to seeing on 13 as he cruised up the dial, and figured (wrongly) that it was SRTV. It wasn't Kitchener (that would have looked pretty much like Channel 9 in Toronto since they're both CTV) and probably wasn't WHAM-TV in Rochester either (their schedule is identical to Channel 7 in Buffalo in prime time, recognizably ABC until the local news rolls around).
> What I had heard is that the US station complained of
> interference.
I'm assuming you're referring to WHAM-TV. That's possible but I live in the core of their market area and didn't see anything unusual all summer, although it's possible they got some unusual interference on the fringe of their coverage area in Genesee or Orleans County. What they mau have thought was a pirate interfering with their signal might indeed be an Ontario based pirate, or even one based on the US side (although you'd figure they'd pick a more open channel). More likely it was oddball tropospheric skip, which could bring in an out of town signal from almost anywhere east of the Mississippi. We had a lot of that this summer on the FM and VHF-TV bands all over Western New York. If that's the case it could have been a signal from Ottawa, Toledo, Albany, New York City, Baltimore or as far south as Tampa, Florida. I didn't see anything on 13 (most of the distant stuff was coming in on 2,3 or 4) but there could have been.
If SRTV is getting opposition from anyone in the broadcast industry that's surprising...LPTV in the US (which is pretty much like what SRTV is proposing to do) has been accepted without much opposition from the American industry. They worry a little about possible interference to full power signals but in practice that hasn't been a problem in any sizable market. Some American networks use LPTV to establish an affiliate presence in markets where there aren't enough full power channels available. Even the big ones (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas, and UPN and WB use them a lot. I take it the Canadian industry takes a different tack?
> > that the complaint was about channel 13. Perhaps it was a
> > signal for WHAM in Rochester? I'm sure the CRTC would love
> > to shut that station down too, because it might solicit
> > advertising in Canada. Either that or Global wanted to
> > snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
LOL! What you may have is someone else operating unlicensed on Channel 13 somewhere in southern Ontario. Or else someone had heard about the SRTV low power TV experiment, saw a signal he wasn't used to seeing on 13 as he cruised up the dial, and figured (wrongly) that it was SRTV. It wasn't Kitchener (that would have looked pretty much like Channel 9 in Toronto since they're both CTV) and probably wasn't WHAM-TV in Rochester either (their schedule is identical to Channel 7 in Buffalo in prime time, recognizably ABC until the local news rolls around).
> What I had heard is that the US station complained of
> interference.
I'm assuming you're referring to WHAM-TV. That's possible but I live in the core of their market area and didn't see anything unusual all summer, although it's possible they got some unusual interference on the fringe of their coverage area in Genesee or Orleans County. What they mau have thought was a pirate interfering with their signal might indeed be an Ontario based pirate, or even one based on the US side (although you'd figure they'd pick a more open channel). More likely it was oddball tropospheric skip, which could bring in an out of town signal from almost anywhere east of the Mississippi. We had a lot of that this summer on the FM and VHF-TV bands all over Western New York. If that's the case it could have been a signal from Ottawa, Toledo, Albany, New York City, Baltimore or as far south as Tampa, Florida. I didn't see anything on 13 (most of the distant stuff was coming in on 2,3 or 4) but there could have been.
If SRTV is getting opposition from anyone in the broadcast industry that's surprising...LPTV in the US (which is pretty much like what SRTV is proposing to do) has been accepted without much opposition from the American industry. They worry a little about possible interference to full power signals but in practice that hasn't been a problem in any sizable market. Some American networks use LPTV to establish an affiliate presence in markets where there aren't enough full power channels available. Even the big ones (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas, and UPN and WB use them a lot. I take it the Canadian industry takes a different tack?
> That is, if CHUM and Ed the Sock doesn't do it first...
>
Good one! LOL!<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>
>
Good one! LOL!<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>
K
kurtbecker
Guest
> > > Note
wanted to
> > > snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
>
> LOL! What you may have is someone else operating unlicensed
> on Channel 13 somewhere in southern Ontario. Or else someone
> had heard about the SRTV low power TV experiment, saw a
> signal he wasn't used to seeing on 13 as he cruised up the
> dial, and figured (wrongly) that it was SRTV. It wasn't
> Kitchener (that would have looked pretty much like Channel 9
> in Toronto since they're both CTV) and probably wasn't
> WHAM-TV in Rochester either (their schedule is identical to
> Channel 7 in Buffalo in prime time, recognizably ABC until
> the local news rolls around).
When I was monitoring channel 13 I was able to id the Kitchener station
by the programming and the CTV id. We were monitoring 13 because SRTV was notified by Industry Canada of a complaint by the FCC for channel 13 VHF. The interference was supposed to be on the US side and they thought it might be a Canadian pirate broadcasting across the lake. Also previously I have seen the ABC logo on days that Rochester was faded up. I don't know why anyone would want to use 13 but it might fit as an LPTV in Markham or North East Toronto. I'm just guessing, I did not calculate the separations.
For the record Jan Pachul's amateur station VA3-JTV, experimental station
VX9-AMK or SRTV never transmitted anything on any VHF frequency.
>
> > What I had heard is that the US station complained of
> > interference.
>
> I'm assuming you're referring to WHAM-TV. That's possible
> but I live in the core of their market area and didn't see
> anything unusual all summer, although it's possible they got
> some unusual interference on the fringe of their coverage
> area in Genesee or Orleans County. What they mau have
> thought was a pirate interfering with their signal might
> indeed be an Ontario based pirate, or even one based on the
> US side (although you'd figure they'd pick a more open
> channel). More likely it was oddball tropospheric skip,
> which could bring in an out of town signal from almost
> anywhere east of the Mississippi. We had a lot of that this
> summer on the FM and VHF-TV bands all over Western New York.
> If that's the case it could have been a signal from Ottawa,
> Toledo, Albany, New York City, Baltimore or as far south as
> Tampa, Florida. I didn't see anything on 13 (most of the
> distant stuff was coming in on 2,3 or 4) but there could
> have been.
>
> If SRTV is getting opposition from anyone in the broadcast
> industry that's surprising...LPTV in the US (which is pretty
> much like what SRTV is proposing to do) has been accepted
> without much opposition from the American industry. They
> worry a little about possible interference to full power
> signals but in practice that hasn't been a problem in any
> sizable market. Some American networks use LPTV to establish
> an affiliate presence in markets where there aren't enough
> full power channels available. Even the big ones (ABC, CBS,
> Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in
> small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas,
> and UPN and WB use them a lot. I take it the Canadian
> industry takes a different tack?
I appreciate the US method of regulating LPTV and the industry response to LPTV.
Star Ray TV would not have a problem in the US but alas, we are in Canada!
I think its pretty obvious with this latest salvo from the CRTC, they are using any means including fraudulent to stop Star Ray TV. They just won't give up until they dig their own grave with their criminal activity.
The Canadian industry is looking upon SRTV as the watershed station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away from their dwindling audience shares.
>
wanted to
> > > snuff out a competitor in Kitchener.
>
> LOL! What you may have is someone else operating unlicensed
> on Channel 13 somewhere in southern Ontario. Or else someone
> had heard about the SRTV low power TV experiment, saw a
> signal he wasn't used to seeing on 13 as he cruised up the
> dial, and figured (wrongly) that it was SRTV. It wasn't
> Kitchener (that would have looked pretty much like Channel 9
> in Toronto since they're both CTV) and probably wasn't
> WHAM-TV in Rochester either (their schedule is identical to
> Channel 7 in Buffalo in prime time, recognizably ABC until
> the local news rolls around).
When I was monitoring channel 13 I was able to id the Kitchener station
by the programming and the CTV id. We were monitoring 13 because SRTV was notified by Industry Canada of a complaint by the FCC for channel 13 VHF. The interference was supposed to be on the US side and they thought it might be a Canadian pirate broadcasting across the lake. Also previously I have seen the ABC logo on days that Rochester was faded up. I don't know why anyone would want to use 13 but it might fit as an LPTV in Markham or North East Toronto. I'm just guessing, I did not calculate the separations.
For the record Jan Pachul's amateur station VA3-JTV, experimental station
VX9-AMK or SRTV never transmitted anything on any VHF frequency.
>
> > What I had heard is that the US station complained of
> > interference.
>
> I'm assuming you're referring to WHAM-TV. That's possible
> but I live in the core of their market area and didn't see
> anything unusual all summer, although it's possible they got
> some unusual interference on the fringe of their coverage
> area in Genesee or Orleans County. What they mau have
> thought was a pirate interfering with their signal might
> indeed be an Ontario based pirate, or even one based on the
> US side (although you'd figure they'd pick a more open
> channel). More likely it was oddball tropospheric skip,
> which could bring in an out of town signal from almost
> anywhere east of the Mississippi. We had a lot of that this
> summer on the FM and VHF-TV bands all over Western New York.
> If that's the case it could have been a signal from Ottawa,
> Toledo, Albany, New York City, Baltimore or as far south as
> Tampa, Florida. I didn't see anything on 13 (most of the
> distant stuff was coming in on 2,3 or 4) but there could
> have been.
>
> If SRTV is getting opposition from anyone in the broadcast
> industry that's surprising...LPTV in the US (which is pretty
> much like what SRTV is proposing to do) has been accepted
> without much opposition from the American industry. They
> worry a little about possible interference to full power
> signals but in practice that hasn't been a problem in any
> sizable market. Some American networks use LPTV to establish
> an affiliate presence in markets where there aren't enough
> full power channels available. Even the big ones (ABC, CBS,
> Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in
> small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas,
> and UPN and WB use them a lot. I take it the Canadian
> industry takes a different tack?
I appreciate the US method of regulating LPTV and the industry response to LPTV.
Star Ray TV would not have a problem in the US but alas, we are in Canada!
I think its pretty obvious with this latest salvo from the CRTC, they are using any means including fraudulent to stop Star Ray TV. They just won't give up until they dig their own grave with their criminal activity.
The Canadian industry is looking upon SRTV as the watershed station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away from their dwindling audience shares.
>
> Even the big ones (ABC, CBS,
> Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in
> small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas,
> and UPN and WB use them a lot.
In WB's case, they would rather shy away from LPTVs -- in the early days, they had several affiliations on LPTVs (and national carriage on WGN), but after the new millenium started, they insisted to be carried only on either regular TV stations or on cable (especially in smaller markets ranked higher than 100, in which they can get a special cable feed).
> Fox and NBC) have used affiliation agreements with LPTVs in
> small markets to get on the air and on cable in some areas,
> and UPN and WB use them a lot.
In WB's case, they would rather shy away from LPTVs -- in the early days, they had several affiliations on LPTVs (and national carriage on WGN), but after the new millenium started, they insisted to be carried only on either regular TV stations or on cable (especially in smaller markets ranked higher than 100, in which they can get a special cable feed).
> The Canadian industry is looking upon SRTV as the watershed
> station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's
> the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away
> from their dwindling audience shares.
------------
The problem is, LPTV is already getting up and running in other parts of Canada. With approved LPTV stations soon to be operating in Leamington, Ontario and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and already in operation in Abbotsford, SRTV will have a sound legal case. I hope it reaches the Supreme Court.
Technically Canada already has plenty of LPTV transmitters, but for the most part they are very remote rebroadcasters of CBC and CTV affiliates and other stations such as TVO.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
> station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's
> the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away
> from their dwindling audience shares.
------------
The problem is, LPTV is already getting up and running in other parts of Canada. With approved LPTV stations soon to be operating in Leamington, Ontario and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and already in operation in Abbotsford, SRTV will have a sound legal case. I hope it reaches the Supreme Court.
Technically Canada already has plenty of LPTV transmitters, but for the most part they are very remote rebroadcasters of CBC and CTV affiliates and other stations such as TVO.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
K
kurtbecker
Guest
> > The Canadian industry is looking upon SRTV as the
> watershed
> > station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's
>
> > the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away
>
> > from their dwindling audience shares.
> ------------
> The problem is, LPTV is already getting up and running in
> other parts of Canada. With approved LPTV stations soon to
> be operating in Leamington, Ontario and St. Stephen, New
> Brunswick, and already in operation in Abbotsford, SRTV will
> have a sound legal case. I hope it reaches the Supreme
> Court.
These are small towns that don't mean anything to the big broadcasters.
Star Ray TV is "beachfront property." I hope it doesn't reach the Supreme
court because all the paperwork will be a pain in the ass. We want to
run a TV station, not a legal firm. Our best hope is that the next government
disbands the CRTC.
>
> Technically Canada already has plenty of LPTV transmitters,
> but for the most part they are very remote rebroadcasters of
> CBC and CTV affiliates and other stations such as TVO.
Happy holidays everyone! Just for a laugh see the front page of www.srtv.ca "The Grinch Who Stole a TV Station"
> watershed
> > station that could kick start LPTV in Canada. To them it's
>
> > the eyeballs that SRTV and others following will take away
>
> > from their dwindling audience shares.
> ------------
> The problem is, LPTV is already getting up and running in
> other parts of Canada. With approved LPTV stations soon to
> be operating in Leamington, Ontario and St. Stephen, New
> Brunswick, and already in operation in Abbotsford, SRTV will
> have a sound legal case. I hope it reaches the Supreme
> Court.
These are small towns that don't mean anything to the big broadcasters.
Star Ray TV is "beachfront property." I hope it doesn't reach the Supreme
court because all the paperwork will be a pain in the ass. We want to
run a TV station, not a legal firm. Our best hope is that the next government
disbands the CRTC.
>
> Technically Canada already has plenty of LPTV transmitters,
> but for the most part they are very remote rebroadcasters of
> CBC and CTV affiliates and other stations such as TVO.
Happy holidays everyone! Just for a laugh see the front page of www.srtv.ca "The Grinch Who Stole a TV Station"
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.