-
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
If you guys could clarify something...
CBC proposes turning off CBLN London because a) there aren't any digital channels available in that part of Ontario or b) it's too expensive switching over to digital for all these CBC repeaters?And the only channel they could find to broadcast CBLN London, if it does stay on the air, is the same channel being used by a stations in Cleveland and Buffalo? This seems odd.
As for Quebec City losing its English CBC service, that seems very unusual. At one time Quebec City had a privately-owned CBC station broadcasting on Channel 5. It had it's own weekday newscasts. I think it was co-owned with Channel 4, the TVA affiliate. Eventually the station couldn't make a profit in a city that has a much higher percentage of French-only residents than Montreal, so CBC took over Channel 5 and made it a repeater of CBMT 6 Montreal. Imagine that we've come so far that the CBC may simply turn off the signal altogether?
Didn't the CBC have a pledge at one time to maintain English and French over-the-air TV service for well over 90% of each linguistic population?
By the way, for those complaining they can't get a decent signal in the U.S. since the switch over, I have a couple of suggestions. My family has a cottage in New Hampshire 100 miles north of Boston. Because TV signals were always hard to pick up there, the previous owner installed a large outdoor TV antenna on a rotor on the roof. And he also bought a signal booster from Radio Shack.
After the switchover, we get much better reception than during analog days. The CBS station from Poland was hard to watch before, filled with ghosts and snow. Now we get a perfect signal. ABC from Portland was watchable but filled with ghosts. Now we get a perfect signal on that station too. I thought I'd lose my nighttime reception of some Boston stations but no, they're still there a few nights a week. The other night/early morning I even was getting CBS DTV 13 and My DTV 12 from Providence in digital.
You may have to invest in a good outdoor antenna on a rotor. I've found that a slight adjustment of postion, among even stations licensed to the same city, can mean the difference between getting the station clearly and not getting it at all. And if the signal booster is not hooked up, we don't get as good a signal. Just remember to save your receipts. Radio Shack is good about accepting returns on merchandise that doesn't help you even if it is working properly.
Gregg
[email protected]
CBC proposes turning off CBLN London because a) there aren't any digital channels available in that part of Ontario or b) it's too expensive switching over to digital for all these CBC repeaters?And the only channel they could find to broadcast CBLN London, if it does stay on the air, is the same channel being used by a stations in Cleveland and Buffalo? This seems odd.
As for Quebec City losing its English CBC service, that seems very unusual. At one time Quebec City had a privately-owned CBC station broadcasting on Channel 5. It had it's own weekday newscasts. I think it was co-owned with Channel 4, the TVA affiliate. Eventually the station couldn't make a profit in a city that has a much higher percentage of French-only residents than Montreal, so CBC took over Channel 5 and made it a repeater of CBMT 6 Montreal. Imagine that we've come so far that the CBC may simply turn off the signal altogether?
Didn't the CBC have a pledge at one time to maintain English and French over-the-air TV service for well over 90% of each linguistic population?
By the way, for those complaining they can't get a decent signal in the U.S. since the switch over, I have a couple of suggestions. My family has a cottage in New Hampshire 100 miles north of Boston. Because TV signals were always hard to pick up there, the previous owner installed a large outdoor TV antenna on a rotor on the roof. And he also bought a signal booster from Radio Shack.
After the switchover, we get much better reception than during analog days. The CBS station from Poland was hard to watch before, filled with ghosts and snow. Now we get a perfect signal. ABC from Portland was watchable but filled with ghosts. Now we get a perfect signal on that station too. I thought I'd lose my nighttime reception of some Boston stations but no, they're still there a few nights a week. The other night/early morning I even was getting CBS DTV 13 and My DTV 12 from Providence in digital.
You may have to invest in a good outdoor antenna on a rotor. I've found that a slight adjustment of postion, among even stations licensed to the same city, can mean the difference between getting the station clearly and not getting it at all. And if the signal booster is not hooked up, we don't get as good a signal. Just remember to save your receipts. Radio Shack is good about accepting returns on merchandise that doesn't help you even if it is working properly.
Gregg
[email protected]
Gregg said:
Too expensive. The CBC's budget has been cut significantly in recent years, and with OTA viewership down somewhere in the single digits, it's just not a priority. And yes, the RF spectrum in the Great Lakes is that crowded.
Ever been to Quebec City? In the decades since 1970, the Anglo minority there has dwindled to a tiny, tiny handful. The English-language private radio station there failed as well. It's a monolingual, Francophone market now.
And indeed they do - by way of cable and satellite, which reach close to 90% of Canadian viewers even in the absence of any OTA signals at all. CBC-TV and Radio-Canada TV both have 100% carriage across Canadian cable and satellite systems, regardless of the dominant language in any given area. I'm not sure how close it is to reality, but there was some talk of providing a subsidized "broadcast basic" satellite service that would have been free to Canadians in areas no longer served by local OTA transmitters. Expensive? Yes, but nowhere near the cost of building and maintaining a DTV service that would 100% replicate the analog network that's taken 60 years to build.
Signal amplifiers are useful in some situations. Bad amps add noise to signals, and that's the enemy of DTV. And an amp that's not properly hooked up can radiate noise all over a neighborhood, wiping out reception for the neighbors, too. I'm glad yours is working out for you...you're in the right situation for one, out in a rural area far away from any transmitters that can overload an amp.
Scott's points are very much correct, and I certainly understand the cost factors.
It just seemed like a rather big hole in a decently populated area, for the country's public broadcaster to have no OTA signal, particularly since some far less populated areas will retain OTA service due to the nature of the home station.
I have to keep reminding myself that OTA usage in Canada is not nearly what it is here. When I dated someone who lived north of Toronto, I got a decent look at her local cable lineup, and they spread local broadcast services far and wide on digital cable.
And you're right about Quebec City, of course. When I visited there a few years ago, I saw no signs of anything Anglo - aside from the very small building outside downtown that was the studio for CBC Radio One!
It just seemed like a rather big hole in a decently populated area, for the country's public broadcaster to have no OTA signal, particularly since some far less populated areas will retain OTA service due to the nature of the home station.
I have to keep reminding myself that OTA usage in Canada is not nearly what it is here. When I dated someone who lived north of Toronto, I got a decent look at her local cable lineup, and they spread local broadcast services far and wide on digital cable.
And you're right about Quebec City, of course. When I visited there a few years ago, I saw no signs of anything Anglo - aside from the very small building outside downtown that was the studio for CBC Radio One!
Scott Fybush said:
It's also somewhat strategic and political. CBC/Radio-Canada is making darn sure Regina, Saskatchewan continues to receive a Radio-Canada station over-the-air in digital, even though the French-speaking population there is minuscule.
OTA figures in Canada are also misleading, and vary widely from one area to another. I work in the cable industry and from what I've seen on the ground, OTA viewership in some communities, especially in rural areas, is significantly higher than the national average. In one town I've worked in within the CBLN coverage area, I'd wager the number of OTA-only households is about 15%, and the number of households with an outdoor antenna is over 60%.
I forget the exact numbers, but from my understanding, OTA usage in Canada is not that much lower than in the United States.
I have cable, but this past week I've been watching tv without it. Why? The blo0dy cable is out. Has been for a week, and since the landlord takes care of it, I have to wait for him to come by on Sunday before I can have anything done about it. He is on vacation in Florida. I'm getting about 3 channels with a snowy picture and sound with the cable. Without it, that number goes up to about 15 or so that I'm seeing over the air. I'd be right pissed if this happened next month. I would have missed watching the local news as well as the national news. I don't even have a real set of rabbit ears. What I did was stick a guitar string into the jack the cable goes, switched the tv from cable to antenna by the remote and voila. Perfectly watchable television. Am I really going to want to shell out $100 for a converter PLUS buy a real antenna just so I can have a back up if the cable decides to go out again? Despite searching through every connection I could get to in the house, I couldn't find the source of the problem. I've always seen over the air tv as a back up to watching shows I want to see when the cable goes out. I remember it happend during the season finale of Survivor last year, and my gf really wanted to see who won. She didn't have anything to stick in to the tv as an antenna. We did have a week signal that was coming through the cable on the OTA channel, but no sound. I ended up grabbing an FM radio and tuning it to 87.75 to hear the audio. I won't even be able to do that once the switchover happens. I'll have 2 radios that get tv audio that will be useless in that section of the band.
F
flashback
Guest
GET AN OUTDOOR ANTENA.
i hear that so often.what about people who live in apartments who can`t put one up?why should people have to go to the expense and trouble to get tv signals that they always could get before the change to DTV?
as far as indoor antennas are concerned,if a good tv antenna hooked up to the set is always not good enough to get all the local channels when you are within the city limits of the station the delivery system is not good.
one thing i hate about DTV is someone has to pratically have an engineering degree to know what to do to get a decent signal .let alone great.i know some of you are very knowledgable about such things. put yourself in the shoes of the average viewer.the ones who don`t have that knowledge.getting good tv is not something one should have to do extensive reserch to know how to do.
with analog one could just use an simple antena that came with the set and get a good signal.now it is a challange to get good tv signals in the middle of the city the station is in.
DTV was a terrible idea.one that the bugs needed to be worked out before implimentation.
i hear that so often.what about people who live in apartments who can`t put one up?why should people have to go to the expense and trouble to get tv signals that they always could get before the change to DTV?
as far as indoor antennas are concerned,if a good tv antenna hooked up to the set is always not good enough to get all the local channels when you are within the city limits of the station the delivery system is not good.
one thing i hate about DTV is someone has to pratically have an engineering degree to know what to do to get a decent signal .let alone great.i know some of you are very knowledgable about such things. put yourself in the shoes of the average viewer.the ones who don`t have that knowledge.getting good tv is not something one should have to do extensive reserch to know how to do.
with analog one could just use an simple antena that came with the set and get a good signal.now it is a challange to get good tv signals in the middle of the city the station is in.
DTV was a terrible idea.one that the bugs needed to be worked out before implimentation.
flashback said:
I'd beg to differ with that, at least somewhat.
I travel a lot, and as far back as the early 1990s began carrying VCRs around with me as I traveled to record local news, station IDs and sign-ons/sign-offs. I stayed in a lot of hotel rooms in the US and Canada over the last two decades of analog TV, and it was very rare indeed to be able to get a truly clean picture to tape off an indoor antenna. I vividly remember a stay in a Montreal high-rise hotel in 1998 where the local signals were so full of multipath as to be unusable; I got a cleaner (but hardly clean) picture from Sherbrooke than from Mont-Royal. Ottawa and Quebec City on that same trip weren't any better.
Back then, I always carried with me that special tool that unlocked the cable from the back of the hotel-room TV, because 8 or 9 times out of 10, I needed to use the hotel cable to get clean enough reception.
Since the US went all-digital in 2009, I don't think I've used that tool more than once or twice; while digital is certainly finicky (and sometimes close to impossible with a set-top antenna on VHF), once the signal is locked in, it's pristine - and I have a big pile of DVDs here from the last few years that demonstrate that pristine DTV reception with an indoor antenna can be accomplished.
The real key - and this is something we emphasized like crazy when the station where I work here in Rochester was doing DTV-education efforts back in '08 and '09 - is to use the right antenna. Probably 90% of the indoor "DTV" antennas on the market are terrible, and the ones that aren't are often hard to find in stores. That's not the fault of TV stations; it's the fault of a consumer electronics industry that's more interested in selling something flashy and "amplified" than in selling something that actually works.
F
flashback
Guest
^that goes back to my point .a person shouldn`t have to study up on what antenna to use to get good tv signals.
you may have had trouble getting good video recordings in hotels but as far as regular tv reception goes, when we had analog i never had anyone have troubles with basic antennas who did not have cable.
i don`t blame the channels for the problem.i blame the DTV delivery system and those responsible for the decision to impliment it.
you may have had trouble getting good video recordings in hotels but as far as regular tv reception goes, when we had analog i never had anyone have troubles with basic antennas who did not have cable.
i don`t blame the channels for the problem.i blame the DTV delivery system and those responsible for the decision to impliment it.
I'll weigh in on this, because I've been with Scott on many of those trips - yes, he does have a special tool that gets him access to the cable that's normally tough to get out from the wall. 
Locally, 20 miles out from the local antenna farm (Cleveland, which is in suburban Parma, OH):
Analog: A sparkly signal from WKYC/3 (NBC), a less sparkly but not quite perfect signal from WEWS/5 (ABC), and a clear signal from WJW/8 (now Fox, ex-CBS). All the market's UHFs were fine, for the most part.
Digital: Solid, clear signals from WKYC/3 (now on RF 17), WEWS/5 (now on RF 15), and nearly all the market's signals that were on analog pre-2009 (17, 23, 25, 43, 49, 55, 61, and 67, which is now PSIPing as its RF channel 47). A couple of these break up very occasionally, but are solid 95-99% of the time.
The problem children are the two VHF stations, WJW/8 (went from RF 31 pre-transition to RF 8, and is in the early process of trying to go back to 31) and WOIO/19 (CBS, RF 10 before and after, and on topic for this board, gets a LOT of cross-Lake Erie problems from CFPL/10 in London).
19 has a CP for an RF 24 digital translator in the southern part of the market, which will solve its reception problems here at the OMW World Headquarters(tm), as would a full-power RF 31 facility for WJW.
I am using a modest UHF indoor antenna for all of this. Overall, aside from the 8/19 problems, I'm much happier in the digital era.
Locally, 20 miles out from the local antenna farm (Cleveland, which is in suburban Parma, OH):
Analog: A sparkly signal from WKYC/3 (NBC), a less sparkly but not quite perfect signal from WEWS/5 (ABC), and a clear signal from WJW/8 (now Fox, ex-CBS). All the market's UHFs were fine, for the most part.
Digital: Solid, clear signals from WKYC/3 (now on RF 17), WEWS/5 (now on RF 15), and nearly all the market's signals that were on analog pre-2009 (17, 23, 25, 43, 49, 55, 61, and 67, which is now PSIPing as its RF channel 47). A couple of these break up very occasionally, but are solid 95-99% of the time.
The problem children are the two VHF stations, WJW/8 (went from RF 31 pre-transition to RF 8, and is in the early process of trying to go back to 31) and WOIO/19 (CBS, RF 10 before and after, and on topic for this board, gets a LOT of cross-Lake Erie problems from CFPL/10 in London).
19 has a CP for an RF 24 digital translator in the southern part of the market, which will solve its reception problems here at the OMW World Headquarters(tm), as would a full-power RF 31 facility for WJW.
I am using a modest UHF indoor antenna for all of this. Overall, aside from the 8/19 problems, I'm much happier in the digital era.
Are they really charging $100 for converter boxes in Canada? They were selling for ~$45 in the States. Tiger Direct's Canadian site lists an Apex box for CA$63.98 if bought with a HDMI cable. (which, ironically, cannot be used with the converter boxes ??? ) Their U.S. site is showing a number of boxes in the US$45 vicinity. Unfortunately, you're not getting the $40 subsidy from the government we got down here.
If a guitar string plugged into your analog TV is delivering stable, ghost-free analog signals, then it will probably be adequate for digital OTA reception. A set of rabbit ears may be a better idea
DO NOT let a store clerk talk you into buying a special "digital" antenna. These are responsible for a majority of the reception complaints my station receives. Many of them do not work on VHF frequencies -- in your case, a UHF-only antenna will cost you Radio-Canada, Global, and CTV. An amplified antenna will be a problem if you live near either tower site. Old-fashioned "rabbit ears" are not only the least expensive indoor antenna you can buy, but also the most effective.
What probably will be a problem in Canada, is that many stations seem to be skimping on their digital power levels. That shouldn't be a problem in the city, but if I was watching somewhere around Renfrew or Smiths Falls, I'd better be budgeting for cable. That's not the fault of the ATSC standard; if CTV reduced their *analog* power from their current 325,000 watts to just 38,000, there'd be a bunch of *analog* viewers who'd lose the signal. One can't expect digital transmission to make up for an intentional reduction in power.
Right now it's looking like CTS (channel 32) is the only station that's really trying to replicate their analog coverage in digital...
==================
At my location ~35km from the Nashville transmitters, in analog with an indoor antenna I received eleven stations -- none of them well enough to follow the programming or tell where a severe weather alert was happening. Even with an outdoor antenna, four of these channels were not intelligible and two were frequently buried in interference.
In digital, with an indoor antenna, ten of the eleven stations go away -- not that any of them were useful reception in analog -- and the eleventh comes in perfectly. With the same outdoor antenna, ten stations are perfect. (and the eleventh is gone)
If a guitar string plugged into your analog TV is delivering stable, ghost-free analog signals, then it will probably be adequate for digital OTA reception. A set of rabbit ears may be a better idea
DO NOT let a store clerk talk you into buying a special "digital" antenna. These are responsible for a majority of the reception complaints my station receives. Many of them do not work on VHF frequencies -- in your case, a UHF-only antenna will cost you Radio-Canada, Global, and CTV. An amplified antenna will be a problem if you live near either tower site. Old-fashioned "rabbit ears" are not only the least expensive indoor antenna you can buy, but also the most effective.
What probably will be a problem in Canada, is that many stations seem to be skimping on their digital power levels. That shouldn't be a problem in the city, but if I was watching somewhere around Renfrew or Smiths Falls, I'd better be budgeting for cable. That's not the fault of the ATSC standard; if CTV reduced their *analog* power from their current 325,000 watts to just 38,000, there'd be a bunch of *analog* viewers who'd lose the signal. One can't expect digital transmission to make up for an intentional reduction in power.
Right now it's looking like CTS (channel 32) is the only station that's really trying to replicate their analog coverage in digital...
==================
At my location ~35km from the Nashville transmitters, in analog with an indoor antenna I received eleven stations -- none of them well enough to follow the programming or tell where a severe weather alert was happening. Even with an outdoor antenna, four of these channels were not intelligible and two were frequently buried in interference.
In digital, with an indoor antenna, ten of the eleven stations go away -- not that any of them were useful reception in analog -- and the eleventh comes in perfectly. With the same outdoor antenna, ten stations are perfect. (and the eleventh is gone)
The ads running on tv state they cost less than $100, which means it's more likely to be in the 90 dollar range. I knew about the so-called hd antennas, and that they were crap. I should be getting the cable back in a few days when the landlord comes back. It lo0ks like something got unho0ked somewhere..or pinched. It's his job to find it since he wired the house and pays the bills. I'm just glad this happened now instead of next month when the NFL begins play again. Cable costs are part of my rent, and I have a really go0d landlord who actually cares about our comfort and that everything is up to code. Honestly, when I move in the future, I wish he could come with whatever place I move into next.
Who knew a guitar string could be such an effective antenna? Not everything is perfect, but the signals are stable...even in my downtown location. CTS is the only station that isn't watchable with a guitar string. Terrible signal. Even CHCH's low powered signal over the air is better than what I get on cable.
Who knew a guitar string could be such an effective antenna? Not everything is perfect, but the signals are stable...even in my downtown location. CTS is the only station that isn't watchable with a guitar string. Terrible signal. Even CHCH's low powered signal over the air is better than what I get on cable.
So the exact same boxes were $40 in the US and now a few years later they should be cheaper if anything. They are using the same NTSC, have the same AC power, its the same converter boxes required. With the Canadian and US dollar about the same the price point should be about the same. Maybe there is an issue with a low supply since they seem a lot harder to find in the US nowadays. It would have been nice to see some of the Zenith or Insignia boxes produced again for the Canadian market. Maybe the fact that rural areas are staying analog has something to do with it.
What makes consumer electronics so cheap is the abiolity to produce them in mass production runs. It may well be that it was possible to build a couple million Insignia/Zenith boxes for a wholesale price of probably $20 or $30 each. (The boxes retailed for more like $70, IIRC, before the $40 federal subsidy cards were applied.) It may not be economically feasible to produce a few tens of thousands of the boxes at the same price point, especially if the specialized DTV tuner chip used in the boxes is no longer in production. (I don't know if that's the case.)
Add into that the much smaller size of the Canadian economy vis a vis the US, the much higher level of cable/satellite penetration, the incomplete nature of the Canadian DTV conversion...and one more thing: in the four years since the Zenith and Insignia boxes became available in the US, a lot more TVs have been sold in both the US and Canada with integrated ATSC tuner chipsets, further reducing the potential demand for converter boxes.
Add into that the much smaller size of the Canadian economy vis a vis the US, the much higher level of cable/satellite penetration, the incomplete nature of the Canadian DTV conversion...and one more thing: in the four years since the Zenith and Insignia boxes became available in the US, a lot more TVs have been sold in both the US and Canada with integrated ATSC tuner chipsets, further reducing the potential demand for converter boxes.
- Status