-
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
DIGITAL SWITCHOVER ON AUGUST 31ST.
- Thread starter blackgold
- Start date
The digital switchover in Canada has been a disaster, both from an operational and marketing point of view. We have a national public broadcaster that has crafted a plan to bring digital signals to some Canadian cities while eliminating over-the-air broadcasting entirely in other cities. CBC has not been upfront in its advertising that it is planning to eliminate over-the-air in Saskatoon, London, Moncton (English), Calgary (French), and other cities. CTV, owned by Bell Media, is airing misleading advertising about the transition, which makes it sound like you need to subscribe to their own Bell TV (satellite) service to continue receiving television signals. The digital switchover only affects some parts of Canada, not all parts.
I work in sales in the cable industry and there is a perception among viewers that (a) the digital switchover affects every single transmitter across Canada, and (b) that over-the-air broadcasting is being eliminated entirely nationwide. In my sales role I do make a point of telling people that they do not necessarily need to subscribe to our service or a competitor's service after August 31; in some of the areas I work some broadcast signals will remain in analog after August 31, and I mention the digital conversion boxes anyways. It all depends how many channels the viewer wants.
By the way, according to numbers I've seen in the past, cable/satellite penetration in Canada is not that much higher than in the United States. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I recall during the U.S. DTV transition the OTA numbers being touted were not that much higher than Canada's.
I work in sales in the cable industry and there is a perception among viewers that (a) the digital switchover affects every single transmitter across Canada, and (b) that over-the-air broadcasting is being eliminated entirely nationwide. In my sales role I do make a point of telling people that they do not necessarily need to subscribe to our service or a competitor's service after August 31; in some of the areas I work some broadcast signals will remain in analog after August 31, and I mention the digital conversion boxes anyways. It all depends how many channels the viewer wants.
By the way, according to numbers I've seen in the past, cable/satellite penetration in Canada is not that much higher than in the United States. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I recall during the U.S. DTV transition the OTA numbers being touted were not that much higher than Canada's.
K
kenglish
Guest
Sad thing is...the Digital Transition in the USA was a fiasco for Cable viewers, and not a lot better for satellite.
For years, the Cable industry told people, "Don't worry. It's all taken care of", "You won't need no stinkin' converter box", "Hey, No Problem! We'll do it all".
Now, we have Cable customers losing their analog channels, and having to rent boxes for every TV set. They are running HDTV big screens on the outputs of cheap DTA's that provide nothing more than a channel-3, NTSC analog output with mono sound. They have no EPG. Many systems do not carry sub-channels.
Satellite customers have to keep adding more dishes, and replacing receivers, as well as paying extra fees to get any HDTV, even off local stations.
Seems that the Digital Transition, for Cable and Satellite viewers, has been a step backwards in technology.
For years, the Cable industry told people, "Don't worry. It's all taken care of", "You won't need no stinkin' converter box", "Hey, No Problem! We'll do it all".
Now, we have Cable customers losing their analog channels, and having to rent boxes for every TV set. They are running HDTV big screens on the outputs of cheap DTA's that provide nothing more than a channel-3, NTSC analog output with mono sound. They have no EPG. Many systems do not carry sub-channels.
Satellite customers have to keep adding more dishes, and replacing receivers, as well as paying extra fees to get any HDTV, even off local stations.
Seems that the Digital Transition, for Cable and Satellite viewers, has been a step backwards in technology.
Good luck.Again DTV what I see it stinks.I dont know if its these cheap zero sensitivity china tuners.or the stations are not puting out power.Again thats my opinion.In Canada you guys got 1000's of miles of land.here were I live I get ZERO ota tv,Before at lease I received 8 and if not more analog channels.I hope it works out better in Canada.Horay more cell phone bandwidth....
WPPCProductions said:
Well, with CTV being owned by Bell, and City being owned by Rogers, I guess they're happy now!
I can't believe CBC is killing OTA service in London.
That analog channel 40 covers a BIG gap in Ontario between Windsor (CBET) and Toronto (CBLT). And it's not like they're dismantling a local operation there, because CBLN is just a CBLT repeater.
I've seen CBLN down here along the Lake Erie shoreline when conditions are right, but any digital replacement likely wouldn't make it across the lake...so it doesn't affect me at all, as I'd lose OTA reception in Ohio no matter what.
But killing OTA in London seems odd.
That analog channel 40 covers a BIG gap in Ontario between Windsor (CBET) and Toronto (CBLT). And it's not like they're dismantling a local operation there, because CBLN is just a CBLT repeater.
I've seen CBLN down here along the Lake Erie shoreline when conditions are right, but any digital replacement likely wouldn't make it across the lake...so it doesn't affect me at all, as I'd lose OTA reception in Ohio no matter what.
But killing OTA in London seems odd.
N
nocomradio
Guest
You folks up North be prepared for what we were handed here.
I am in a fringe area concerning TV reception, but with a tall enough tower and a good quality antenna, I used to be able to pull in around 9 channels out of the sky that were quite watchable, and clear. After the DTV switchover, I cannot receive but ONE. Just one. If I went back to my satellite TV at $70 a month I could get a couple of locals from one city, but have to pay extra for them while putting up with the other 120 channels of useless poo.
In short, all the promises of how great digital is were nothing more than hot air. Meanwhile, many are now without television unless they pay the cable/satellite companies for the privilege.
I am in a fringe area concerning TV reception, but with a tall enough tower and a good quality antenna, I used to be able to pull in around 9 channels out of the sky that were quite watchable, and clear. After the DTV switchover, I cannot receive but ONE. Just one. If I went back to my satellite TV at $70 a month I could get a couple of locals from one city, but have to pay extra for them while putting up with the other 120 channels of useless poo.
In short, all the promises of how great digital is were nothing more than hot air. Meanwhile, many are now without television unless they pay the cable/satellite companies for the privilege.
nocomradio said:
I feel the same nocomradio.Garbage is the key word.DTV and Iboc are garbage.Its not perfected yet.Back to the drawing board for another 15 years to get the load of bugs out of it.and hell with those cell phone freqs.and did the us get the emergency responce channels they were promised to get.
Meanwhile, I'm mostly happy with how OTA digital TV played out here.
I'm in a major market (Cleveland) and have easy digital reception of all but two full-power stations...thus, the mostly...without a rooftop antenna.
The stragglers are our Fox and CBS affiliates, which have unusually low-powered VHF signals. The Fox station is trying to move back to its pre-transition facility on RF 31 (a strong signal when it was up), and the CBS affilliate is adding a digital fill-in translator for the southern part of the market.
So, yeah, MOSTLY happy, except for two stupid technical decisions by two stations.
The pundits make it sound like Canadians are nearly all connected to cable and satellite.
I'm in a major market (Cleveland) and have easy digital reception of all but two full-power stations...thus, the mostly...without a rooftop antenna.
The stragglers are our Fox and CBS affiliates, which have unusually low-powered VHF signals. The Fox station is trying to move back to its pre-transition facility on RF 31 (a strong signal when it was up), and the CBS affilliate is adding a digital fill-in translator for the southern part of the market.
So, yeah, MOSTLY happy, except for two stupid technical decisions by two stations.
The pundits make it sound like Canadians are nearly all connected to cable and satellite.
OhioMediaWatch said:
The only thing differentiating CBLN from CBLT is local ads for London-area businesses. Personally, the switchover will affect local advertisers more than the viewers, as it would close down one means of advertising.
London is in a mandatory market for digital, with one local station (CFPL), with all other TV from repeaters. Another sizable mandatory market where CBC and Radio-Canada are available only through repeaters is Saskatoon, where CBKST will go dark after August -- like CBLN, CBKST repeats everything from a larger CBC station (in this case, CBKT Regina), but inserts local ads.
azumanga said:
CBC no longer offers local advertising availabilities for CBLN, as of sometime in 2009. The signal now repeats CBLT Toronto in its entirety.
B
Bob1370
Guest
You in Canada may end up doing what it looks like the FCC is going to do in the US in a couple of years.
They're going to clear out the upper UHF band (above Channel 40) completely for broadband data services.
They will then push all the full power stations which were heritage VHF signals before the digital conversion, back to their old 1941-2009 channels--at much higher power (probably equal to their old visual ERP) to cut through the noise and match their old coverage footprint. Then, some UHF stations will be sandwiched in on the VHF band wherever co-channel spacing will permit, and a few stations which had been repositioned on the VHF band will be moved again to reduce interference. Adjacent channel interference is apparently no longer an issue for digital TV the way it was for analog, so more stations will be shoehorned in next to each other in many markets. It may not be necessary, but they may also reduce co-channel spacing to 170 miles between transmitters everywhere in the country on Channels 2-13 (and 150 on UHF) as well, just like they do now in the eastern and midwestern states. Some even say a new VHF Channel 1 might come into existence at 48-54 mHz just below Channel 2 (a band which is no longer used much by the public safety channels for which it was assigned in the late 40s when FM was moved) with 100 kW max ERP, and could be spotted wherever Channel 3 stations used to exist...you could make room for another 60 over the air full coverage signals in the US that way. Do all that, and apparently you can fit 2000+ stations on the bottom 40 channels, which is more than we have on the air in the US now.
They're going to clear out the upper UHF band (above Channel 40) completely for broadband data services.
They will then push all the full power stations which were heritage VHF signals before the digital conversion, back to their old 1941-2009 channels--at much higher power (probably equal to their old visual ERP) to cut through the noise and match their old coverage footprint. Then, some UHF stations will be sandwiched in on the VHF band wherever co-channel spacing will permit, and a few stations which had been repositioned on the VHF band will be moved again to reduce interference. Adjacent channel interference is apparently no longer an issue for digital TV the way it was for analog, so more stations will be shoehorned in next to each other in many markets. It may not be necessary, but they may also reduce co-channel spacing to 170 miles between transmitters everywhere in the country on Channels 2-13 (and 150 on UHF) as well, just like they do now in the eastern and midwestern states. Some even say a new VHF Channel 1 might come into existence at 48-54 mHz just below Channel 2 (a band which is no longer used much by the public safety channels for which it was assigned in the late 40s when FM was moved) with 100 kW max ERP, and could be spotted wherever Channel 3 stations used to exist...you could make room for another 60 over the air full coverage signals in the US that way. Do all that, and apparently you can fit 2000+ stations on the bottom 40 channels, which is more than we have on the air in the US now.
Bob1370 said:
Not a chance. 50-54 MHz is still an ITU-allocated ham band in the entire Western Hemisphere, and there are still plenty of land-mobile & government users and cordless phones in the 48-50 MHz band, at least in the US (not sure what the Canadians use the band for, but on the border, they would have to contend with US users).
Bob1370 said:
That's not exactly the plan, Bob...what we'll see instead, if the FCC gets its way, is a sharing of the channels 21-51 spectrum between broadcasters and broadband users. The idea is to "repack" the existing spectrum by getting some broadcasters to either give up OTA operation completely or agreeing to share a 6 MHz slice of spectrum among several "stations," each operating a single SD service. But the result wouldn't be as simple as "broadcasters on 2-40 and broadband on 41+" - it would vary by market, depending on who's already operating and who's willing to move or be moved.
In practice, it should come as no surprise that broadcasters roundly hate the idea, and the markets where broadband spectrum is most in demand (LA, in particular) are the ones where broadcasters are least amenable to being moved.
OhioMediaWatch said:
As it turns out, they may not be...
This week, the CRTC put on public notice two CBC applications to maintain analog service in mandatory markets.
Specifically in London, they propose to leave CBLN-TV on the air in analog. However, it would move to channel 23 and reduce power to 24 kilowatts. CBLN can't stay on channel 40 because of CKXT-TV using that channel in Toronto. (yes, I realize CFTO-TV is already using channel 40 for their digital operation -- at the same site as CKXT proposes to use, and with *more* power. Interference is both a technical and a political concept...)
They also propose to leave CBEFT, the French-language station in Windsor, on the air in analog. This station would move to channel 35 and reduce power to 36 kw.
In both cases, the proposed new analog channels are the stations' assigned post-transition digital channels.
Whether the CRTC will buy it remains to be seen. At this point London and Windsor are the only two markets affected but I wouldn't be surprised to see similar applications arise elsewhere.
There are some creative (but consistent with announced CRTC policy) solutions going on elsewhere in Canada.
w9wi said:
Three more appeared today.
- CBLN-TV-1 Kitchener which proposes to move from channel 56 to 29 and reduce power to 60kw but remain analog;
- CBVE-TV, the English station in Quebec City which proposes to take over the channel 11 analog transmitter of French-language station CBVT and reduce power to 84kw; (the French station is going digital on channel 12)
- CBMT-1, the English station in Trois-Rivieres which proposes to take over the channel 13 analog transmitter of French-language station CKTM and reduce power to 90kw. (the French station is going digital on the channel the English station is abandoning, 28)
Again, these are applications, the CRTC hasn't acted on them yet or given indication whether they're inclined to approve them.
40 in London to 23?
23 is ION O&O WVPX in the Cleveland market, which just lit up their 1000 kW CP. Is 24 kW (analog) in London small enough not to interfere with digital 23 across the lake, or for that matter, is it big enough not to get squashed by WVPX down here?
Overall, I like the idea, at least as far as providing SOME CBC OTA service post-8/31, if the CRTC goes along.
23 is ION O&O WVPX in the Cleveland market, which just lit up their 1000 kW CP. Is 24 kW (analog) in London small enough not to interfere with digital 23 across the lake, or for that matter, is it big enough not to get squashed by WVPX down here?
Overall, I like the idea, at least as far as providing SOME CBC OTA service post-8/31, if the CRTC goes along.
They don't seem to think it'll be a big deal. The Longley-Rice analysis in the application shows a bit of interference from WVPX on the south side of the coverage, but nothing serious. It also shows a bit of interference from WPXJ in the Buffalo market.
http://www.w9wi.com/maps/cbln-analog-23.jpg
That's a fairly significant reduction in coverage, as you would expect. Due to a transmission site somewhat to the west of London and a deep notch in the pattern in the direction of something due north of Toronto, it may have some signal issues on the north side of London. (I don't think the application would be grantable under the FCC analog rules in the US; you were required to make 80dBu across the city of license)
http://www.w9wi.com/maps/cbln-analog-23.jpg
That's a fairly significant reduction in coverage, as you would expect. Due to a transmission site somewhat to the west of London and a deep notch in the pattern in the direction of something due north of Toronto, it may have some signal issues on the north side of London. (I don't think the application would be grantable under the FCC analog rules in the US; you were required to make 80dBu across the city of license)
Great map!
What are they protecting to the northeast? There's a rather noticeable null there, and results in some of the coverage issues you mention on the north side of London.
Of course, the new CBLN's grade B contour barely makes it to the Lake Erie shore. On 23, we'd lose reception on this side no matter what, due to WVPX.
I'm resigned that my trips up to Geneva-on-the-Lake OH to pick up Canadian signals on good reception days will end with the digital era in Canada no matter what. I have only ONCE gotten a PSIP pickup on the existing London DT station, but have never gotten a viewable signal from it.
What are they protecting to the northeast? There's a rather noticeable null there, and results in some of the coverage issues you mention on the north side of London.
Of course, the new CBLN's grade B contour barely makes it to the Lake Erie shore. On 23, we'd lose reception on this side no matter what, due to WVPX.
I'm resigned that my trips up to Geneva-on-the-Lake OH to pick up Canadian signals on good reception days will end with the digital era in Canada no matter what. I have only ONCE gotten a PSIP pickup on the existing London DT station, but have never gotten a viewable signal from it.
- Status