Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

OTA NETWORK Status: CTV & CTV2

132K views 325 replies 80 participants last post by  ExDilbert 
#1 ·
They don't mention it in the story, but aren't they talking about CHWI 16.1?

September 3, 2011
http://www.windsorstar.com/business/rocky+start/5349103/story.html

========
Mumford was told Cogeco was unable to get a clear standard definition (SD) signal from Windsor, so it switched over to London.

The HD signal, which is carried on Cogeco Channel 803, was unaffected by the switch.
========

Why couldn't (or why doesn't) Cogeco's head-end equipment generate the SD signal from the HD signal?

How many other broadcasters have to supply cable-co's with dedicated SD (480i) feeds now (using some other method other than OTA) ?
 
#116 ·
Since I pass that tower at least once weekly....

If you go up (south) on Centennial PKWY, up the "mountain" you'll see the tower looming off to the right, thus on the WEST side of Centennial PKWY. If you then greatly explode Google maps, you'll see that First Road West actually is on the west side of Centennial PKWY at the top of the escarpment. (First Road West actually runs N/S. (?!)

So, to make a short story long, yup, it does indeedee seem to be the CHCH tower. :)

Ahhh... Something else I won't be able to get...

Oh.... Someone made reference in either this thread or the CH thread about 1GW... Ummm... 1 Gigawatt installations for TV, or any broadcast OTA undertakings for that matter on any frequency here in Canada haven't quite gone that stretch in power output that I'm aware of... The current infrastructure isn't capable, not to mention the environmental impact.... :) Typo more likely....

Cameron
 
#119 ·
who says CHCJ is alloted for CKVR 'Hamilton'??

I could be wrong, but where does it say 'CHCJ' is assigned to Bell Media's recently approved expansion of CKVR? :confused:

Again, maybe I'm not as informed as some on this board, but from what I recall, Bell's original application to the CRTC showed they had Channel Zero's approval to use the CHCH tower, but then Channel Zero intervened and said "no way" since they didn't realize it was for CKVR and not CFTO. Bell's response was that they'd find a suitable tower, regardless -- and the CRTC rubber stamped, as usual. Since then, the only piece of information on public record is the CRTC's decision, which makes no reference to callsign 'CHCJ' (rarely, if ever, are callsigns for new undertakings assigned at this stage in the license approvals process) nor does it say anything about technical parameters like EHAAT, ERP, radiation patterns, etc.

It seems as though everybody's jumping on the information they thought only "just appeared" on TVFool and/or RabbitEars.

A full year ago, a bunch of DHCers were talking about "CHCJ", long before any CKVR expansion was proposed -- read the details from post #9 onward.

Hasn't it been long established, here, that the origin for this information is the FCC TV query database, that's full of reserved, but unused and often abandonned entries, especially for Canadian stations? I think this was also the source of misguided rumours back when people thought Citytv Toronto was going to be operating at 1MW.

I'd say unless someone can prove me wrong about 'CHCJ', then you're all speculating about nothing until you confirm with Industry Canada that it's the real deal. Heck, call CKVR/CTV Two Barrie, talk to engineering, and ask if there's even a firm choice for a transmitter site yet for their Hamilton repeater! (I bet there isn't...)

Hopefully I'm not in for a scolding for suggesting 'CHCJ' is not for CKVR... :(
 
#120 ·
I believe CHCJ that is in the FCC Database matches the same specifications as provided to the CRTC in Bell Media's application though it's quite possible to have a different call-sign afterwards as we don't see one for Fonthill.

CHCJ-DT ON HAMILTON Canada (Digital)

Service Designation: DT Digital television station
Transmit Channel: 35 596 - 602 MHz
Virtual Channel: (viewer sees this channel number)
File No.: BPFS-20110104AAX Facility ID number: 189105
CDBS Application ID No.: 1413391

43° 12' 27.00" N Latitude
79° 46' 27.00" W Longitude (NAD 27)

Polarization: Horizontal (H)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 25. kW ERP
Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 248.1 meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 396.3 meters AMSL
Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 0. meters AGL


NEW ON FONTHILL Canada (Digital)

Service Designation: DT Digital television station
Transmit Channel: 42 638 - 644 MHz
Virtual Channel: (viewer sees this channel number)
File No.: BPFS-20110712AAV Facility ID number: 189719
CDBS Application ID No.: 1435157

43° 03' 6.00 " N Latitude
79° 18' 3.00 " W Longitude (NAD 27)

Polarization: Horizontal (H)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 5. kW ERP
Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 146.2 meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 316. meters AMSL
Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 0. meters AGL


2. The transmitter serving Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville would operate on channel 35 with an average effective radiated power (ERP) of 10,500 watts (maximum ERP of 25,000 watts with an effective height of antenna above average terrain (EHAAT) of 248 metres). The transmitter serving Fonthill, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Welland would operate on channel 42 with an average ERP of 1,340 watts (maximum ERP of 5,000 watts with an EHAAT of 146 metres).

Sources:
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=189105
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-51.htm
 
#121 ·
My point was that relying on the FCC database as a snapshot of reality in Canada is not very reliable. This says TVO Paris is 885kW when it's actually 20kW, for example.

I think it's fair to stop all discussion about CHCJ since that station is allotted to the CHCH tower site, and its current owner is refusing to allow Bell to co-locate on it. Here is what Bell said to the CRTC:

The CHCH Tower

1. In paragraph 43 of their intervention, Channel Zero states the following:

While we note that Bell’s application materials includes letters of intent from Channel Zero agreeing, in principal, to Bell’s co-siting their rebroadcast transmitters on our existing tower in Stoney Creek, Ontario, this agreement was based on our understanding that the proposed transmitter would be used for Bell’s Toronto based OTA, CFTO-TV, an existing competitor. We would never have agreed to the use of our tower to establish CKVR as a new regional competitor in the centre of our viewing area.

2. In preparing our documents for filing with this Application, we always operated on the basis that this agreement was for CKVR-TV, not for CFTO-TV Toronto. We are not clear as to what led Channel Zero to come to this conclusion as CFTO-TV is widely available OTA in Hamilton and, consequently, no transmitter is required. That said, should the Applications be approved and Channel Zero continues to maintain this position, Bell Media will find an alternate site that is suitable and will file the necessary technical amendment application with the Commission.
Not all technical amendments are posted on the CRTC website, so this may happen in the background and suddenly, someday, they'll start transmitting from a location other than the CHCH tower, perhaps with completely different parameters than 'CHCJ', and unless someone wants to parse the Industry Canada database, we cannot just assume the FCC database is representative.
 
#125 ·
My point was that relying on the FCC database as a snapshot of reality in Canada is not very reliable. This says TVO Paris is 885kW when it's actually 20kW, for example.
In this case, the FCC database is quite reliable. You have to understand that entries in the FCC database for Canadian and Mexican stations are not there to reflect actual operating parameters, but for specifying the agreed to protection parameters from the appropriate treaty or letter of understanding. In this specific case, TVO is assigned 885 kW, under the current Letter of Understanding between Industry Canada and the FCC. Any American station wishing to make technical changes must assume that this maximum power is the power that TVO could be using.

By the same token, you will still find all the abandoned Canadian AM stations in the FCC database, since these frequencies must still be protected. (The same is not necessarily true within Canada -- Canadian station can apply for parameters that may interfere with a vacant allotment, especially if there are other vacant allotments in the same city as the to-be-interfered-with allotment.)

Thus, in terms of figuring out what a Canadian station is ACTUALLY using,the FCC database is not too useful. That is why TVFool uploads the IC database to use for Canadian stations.

Note that not all records in the Canadian database are marked "OK_TO_DUMP", and thus may not be available in the public version of the database. However, some of these records are available on the FCC database for some reason, probably because of notification requirements.
I think it's fair to stop all discussion about CHCJ since that station is allotted to the CHCH tower site
true enough.
 
#122 ·
Agreed--the FCC database could very well have the call letters and technical data wrong. I couldn't find a reference to CHCJ in the Industry Canada database either.

Either way, it could be that Bell and CHCH resolved their differences....
 
#123 ·
**Okay, I did some digging and will eat a few of my words; not all, but some. :)

In Bell's original application technical brief I mistakenly thought they were going to use the existing CTS antenna, which was formerly used for the CTS transitional channel 35 @ 10kW & 338.2m, but the technical brief does state the same parameters as 'CHCJ' @ 25kW & 248.1m so I guess Bell's original intent was to erect a new antenna, lower on the tower than CHCH and CTS, but higher than the old CKXT stuff.

But here's another example of where similar assumptions fail: the CHCH application to "reuse" channel 15 that was vacated by Sun TV. If you look at the CHCH engineering brief it says they want to use ERP 132kW & EHAAT 335m, which is not what CKXT formerly used, nor do any of the parameters match the only other "NEW-DT" record in the FCC database.
Remember this chart? The former CKXT-DT-1 was ERP 8.6kW & EHAAT 193.1m.

Anyway, I'd put money on Bell trying their hardest to relocate what will probably be called CKVR-2, onto one of their own cell/microwave towers (as they're going to do in Fonthill) since there's no ongoing lease expenses.
 
#124 ·
A cell tower wouldn't be high enough, and likely positioned too close to residences.

At the end of the day, it's cheaper to co-locate. The cost of establishing a broadcast tower are enormous. Obviously Bell has the capital to engage a new tower project. But why do so if facilities already exist?

CHCH (Channel Zero) likely realizes that one way or another, CTV2 will fire up in Hamilton. And revenue from co-location is still revenue.
 
#126 ·
The CHCJ callsign does appear in the Industry Canada database. Since there's no simple way to pull data directly from the IC server, I pull it into a hidden database on RabbitEars.

http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=canadadt&sort=date

All the way at the bottom of the list. If you want to dig through the IC database, here's the search page:

http://sd.ic.gc.ca/pls/engdoc_anon/web_search.frequency_range_input

Set 596-602 as the frequency range, choose "Tx," "Broadcasting," and "Ontario." Scroll down to the checkboxes and check "Call sign." Then click "Find" and you'll see CHCJ.

- Trip
 
#132 ·
Is there any possibility there will be a CTV2 broadcast in Manitoba? I find it strange that CTV didn't include it as a sub-channel on their CKY signal...
-C.
 
#134 ·
That's great news, OTA-London! It's great to hear and know that CTV will convert Oil Springs CKCO 42 to digital.
For me, reception of CKCO 13.1 is good most of the time, but on some days it will cut in and out, or be non-existant (perhaps tropo effects?!?).
Channel 42 comes in strong almost always, although it's analog, 4:3, and snowy all the time. ;)

Hopefully Shaw will upgrade 29 this spring/summer, and not closer to 2016, to satisfy most OTAers who cannot receive CIII 6.1 from Paris,
ON. :rolleyes:
 
#135 ·
Anyone notice that CFTO (RF9) power is way down? I was having issue way back after the transition until I replace my antenna. Since using a different antenna, I was getting great results - very strong/reliable signal. Lately though (since the weekend), the power is way down and I'm getting pixilation. Anyone with contacts at CFTO can determine if they are doing some maintenance?
 
#139 ·
Anyone notice that CFTO (RF9) power is way down?
Actually here in Buffalo at my location, CFTO has been quite strong (maybe clean is the better word). Around 20 dB C/N here. With CHCH RF 11 at ~ 18 dB.
I was gonna ask if anyone has noticed VHF Hi a little better than normal lately. CFTO has normally been barely receivable most of the winter here (50/50).
Maybe the improvement here has more to do with their recent maintenance than the weather?
 
#136 · (Edited)
^^^^
Just today, or recently?

I've monitored channel 9 CFTO Toronto for about a half hour, and haven't noticed any issues. SNR of about 28dB steady. Nor have I noted any issues with this station in recent days...
 
#140 ·
amusing "technical difficulties"

I know this is a little off-topic, but I had to laugh, while watching the 6 o'clock news on CTV Southwestern Ontario, this evening. Apparently Rogers Cable screwed up something with the audio part of their redistributed signal so viewers were mistakenly flooding the originating station with complaints. They (CTV) actually put a graphic up on-screen to explain the situation at least twice. Hmm, everything was perfectly fine for me and other OTA viewers! ;) :cool:

I know the majority of their viewers are cable TV subscribers, and I guess they don't want to badmouth their overarching competitor Rogers since it seems every second commercial they air is for a Rogers product (even though Bell owns CTV :rolleyes:) but a part of me really wanted the station to either tell viewers to complain to Rogers, not them, or casually mention that the majority of their viewers in the K-W area can pick up CKCO-DT over-the-air directly for free.
 
#144 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top