In the United States, majority of the DTV power are at the max of 1,000 KW. Why in Canada the DTV power are so weak, majority of them are under 100 KW. For example, in Vancouver, the majority of DTV stations are under 100KW. CBUT is at 30kw, CHAN is at 8.3 KW, CKVU is at 8.3 kw for Vancouver and 2.75kw for Victoria, and CHMN is at 11kw for Vancouver and 8.8 for Victoria. Their power level seems to match LPTV DTV in the United States. Why such a low power. IF the power is that low, can anybody in the fringe area able to picked up the Canadian DTV signal?
-
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
Question about Canada's DTV power
- Thread starter e-dawg
- Start date
I imagine they will increase power after the transition, and the CRTC may even allow power greater than the US DTV limit of 1000kw on UHF. Back in the days of analog it was 5000kw ERP limit in the US. For VHF the limits are much lower as VHF travels further, but much of the US has abandoned VHF as part of the DTV transition. The extremely low power limits on VHF-L and the summer e-skip on this band have driven away many channels. VHF-H is better but the power limits are still too low to replicate analog coverage. Hopefully Canada will keep the analog power limits for digital and not follow the US.
K
kenglish
Guest
I'll go with answer #2 
.
.
B
Bob1370
Guest
They may have to follow the FCC's lead.
The FCC is looking at ways to clear more spectrum space for WiFi and other broadband data transmission, and the UHF spectrum above 600 mHz (TV ch. 36) is their prime target. The trades are saying the likely outcome will be to push all TV stations that were originally on VHF back to their old channels, with increased ERP (100 kW channels 2-6, 316 kW in the US, 325 in Canada on channels 7-13 matching their old analog visual signals) to match their original coverage area and overcome noise. UHF heritage stations may be either pushed down into the VHF band or moved to a lower UHF channel if they aren't on one already. Since adjacent channels can now be assigned to the same market on all bands in digital mode as long as co-channel stations are at least 170 to 190 miles apart, and UHF stations no longer need a 6-channel separation in the same market (an artifact of the sloppy technology of 1952) you can probably squeeze all existing stations into half the number of channels used now.
So you'll see all TV compressed into channels 2 to 35 or 40, running 100 kW channels 2-6, 316-325 kW on 7-13, 3000 to 5000 kW on 14-up. It'll happen in the US in the next few years, and Canada will have to follow.
This is more important than you may think. A.C. Nielsen says OTA reception still counts for about 25% of TV viewing in North America, and given dissatisfaction with cable and satellite service quality and cost (as well as the likely emergence of new portable/mobile viewing devices) that won't significantly decline, and might even rise.
The business of building TV transmitters will be a good one for years to come.
The FCC is looking at ways to clear more spectrum space for WiFi and other broadband data transmission, and the UHF spectrum above 600 mHz (TV ch. 36) is their prime target. The trades are saying the likely outcome will be to push all TV stations that were originally on VHF back to their old channels, with increased ERP (100 kW channels 2-6, 316 kW in the US, 325 in Canada on channels 7-13 matching their old analog visual signals) to match their original coverage area and overcome noise. UHF heritage stations may be either pushed down into the VHF band or moved to a lower UHF channel if they aren't on one already. Since adjacent channels can now be assigned to the same market on all bands in digital mode as long as co-channel stations are at least 170 to 190 miles apart, and UHF stations no longer need a 6-channel separation in the same market (an artifact of the sloppy technology of 1952) you can probably squeeze all existing stations into half the number of channels used now.
So you'll see all TV compressed into channels 2 to 35 or 40, running 100 kW channels 2-6, 316-325 kW on 7-13, 3000 to 5000 kW on 14-up. It'll happen in the US in the next few years, and Canada will have to follow.
This is more important than you may think. A.C. Nielsen says OTA reception still counts for about 25% of TV viewing in North America, and given dissatisfaction with cable and satellite service quality and cost (as well as the likely emergence of new portable/mobile viewing devices) that won't significantly decline, and might even rise.
The business of building TV transmitters will be a good one for years to come.
Bob1370 said:
Very true. The figure of "10% OTA" that keeps floating around is one you hear from broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies, who have vested interests in either discontinuing OTA or selling more cable/satellite subs.
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, USA, and TNT are probably the biggest reasons more people aren't dropping cable/satellite in the United States. The same can probably be said about TSN, Rogers Sportsnet, and Family Channel in Canada.
M.J. said:
Furthermore, the CRTC has not approved the use of separate subchannel programming or services that US stations enjoy, such as Accuweather, RTV, This TV and Estrella -- practically giving Canadians not much of a reason to switch back to antenna, unless they live close enough to the border to get American stations.
N
nickelodeonfan97
Guest
Bob1370 said:
ESPN and Fox News as well. Those are two of the most watched channels on US cable.
w9wi said:
There are quite a few people who still rely on OTA. Some in the US have dropped cable/satellite since they can now get their locals in HD for free. Some have satellite service because they can't get cable in their area, and they can't get their locals on satellite, or satellite charges them extra for locals which justifies the one time cost of an antenna. I know many people who do that in rural areas.
spunker88 said:
In the U.S., fully agreed. But we're talking about Canada. Where OTA HD signals exist only in the largest markets - and even there, not for every station. Fewer than half of the stations in Montreal and Calgary have HD OTA signals. There's even one Toronto full-power station that still doesn't have an HD OTA signal.
As for rural areas.. the relay transmitters that serve most of rural Canada have not been converted to digital. Rural viewers watching transmitters located in the major cities may not be much better off. Major city HD OTA transmitters are not very powerful. Right now there are only three digital stations in Canada operating at powers of more than 100 kilowatts ERP. Permits have been issued for permanent digital operation of Winnipeg's six stations - the most powerful UHF station there (CBC) will operate at only 42 kilowatts from an antenna less than 150m high. Similar powers elsewhere in Canada. Rural OTA HD reception is going to be spotty to non-existent.
Quite seriously, the CRTC and broadcasters gave serious consideration to the possibility of shutting down OTA television in Canada altogether.
w9wi said:
Though I think the only way that would happen is if the satellite companies (and maybe local cable companies) were forced to offer the local channels for free, with no obligation to subscribe. That's the way it's happening in Britain, though its terrestrial network remains in operation.
- Status