|
|
 |
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
| Topic: | Local TV & BDU Misinformation Ad Campaigns This thread has 27 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 28. |
|
| OP | Post 16 made on Friday October 30, 2009 at 20:45 |
hd fan Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2006
425 |
|
|
I respectfully disagree with you on the 25% number. I beleive , note that I used the word beleive as I am not 100% sure that the number is around 1%, of course for a comparison between an NTSC transmition vs an ATSC signal on the same frecuency.
NTSC broadcasts need a 40 dB C/N ratio to be noise free. A 0 dBmV (1 mV @ 75 ohms) video signal is enough for a good picture without noise. The digital ATSC signal only needs 20 dB C/N or in other words the video carrier could go down to -20 dBmV. Less than that but above 15 dB C/N you see dropouts and problems. Below -25 dBmV or 15 dB C/N and the receiver is unable to decode and keep the lock.
So we know that there is a gap of 20 dB between both C/N values. Power levels go down by half for every -3 dB , therefore in -20 dB you have almost 7 , -3 dB's steps (7 times 3 dB equals 21 dB). If you divide 100 by 2 , seven times , you will get 0.78% and since it is acctually 20 dB not 21 dB then the exact value is actually 1.04%.
Therefore for CFTO who will eventually use the same frecuecy, CH 9, the EIRP level could go down to just 1% and theoretically still cover the same area. Other factors such as terrain will influence multipath and the final result will see some people loosing reception where before they use to have it. The actual value of 0.9% is very close to the theoretical limit.
Comparisons like in your list for the other Canadian TV stations is not fair since it does not take into consideration that the other stations are changing frecuencies therefore the 1% value does not apply. To cover the same area using higher frecuencies you requiere more power even when using the same modulation squeme or if you prefer TV standard.
For example City TV goes from 57 to 51 therefore inherently requieres less power when using the same format. The same applies to the rest of the pack. As a matter of fact since they are either staying on the same frecuency or going lower they could easily just broadcast 1% of the previous analog EIRP power value and still cover the same area.
CBLT goes from ch 5 to ch 20 therefore needs to increase power if using the same format but since it goes to digital it acctualy could reduce power.
As you can see on your list , except with CFTO , the rest are acctually planning to cover a larger area with the digital signal which is good news for potential viewers outside the previous analog coverage area.
When planning all this, engineers from Industry Canada, take into considerations other factors , such as protection from/with other services and to avoid interference with nearby stations either co-channel or adjacent channel located. But in general the number one rule is to still cover the same area that the analog NTSC service covered before.
From an engineering point of view the system has been planned well , in my opinion , it is just the CRTC's "let the market decide aproach" what bothers me.
As usual I could be wrong though.
|
|
| Post 17 made on Saturday October 31, 2009 at 01:43 |
Daniel Tonks Wrangler of Remotes |
Joined:
Posts: | October 1998
28,781 |
|
|
It's hard to find examples where stations reverted to their analog channel, but it does look like the figure is less than 25%.
Buffalo:
WNYB (26 -> 26) is covering a SLIGHTLY larger footprint than analog at 4.7% power, and will be somewhat larger at 20% power.
WNYO (49 -> 49) is covering a little larger footprint at 4.0% power (less severe directionality).
Rochester:
WHAM (13 -> 13) is covering the exact same footprint at 3.3%.
WHEC (10 -> 10) is covering a little larger at 5.7%.
Erie:
WICU (12 -> 12) is covering a moderately smaller footprint at 1.7%.
WJET (24 -> 24) is covering a significantly larger footprint at 47%.
Based on that I'd hazard that most of the Canadian stations will be increasing their official range by a moderate amount, however CFTO is definitely going smaller.
Intresting tidbit: WNED with 156kW digital on channel 43 is exactly the same effective broadcast radius as 2510kW analog on channel 17.
|
|
| OP | Post 18 made on Saturday October 31, 2009 at 10:24 |
hd fan Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2006
425 |
|
|
My calculations only take into consideration free space losses and assume a flat perfect terrain for both services on the same frecuency. Real life scenarios, like the ones , IC and FCC engineers have to calculate , take into consideration other factos like the terrain that among other problems introduce multipath interference and therefore increase the noise level. The 1% is just the theoretical limit for ideal conditions. Therefore to match somehow the same coverage area the actual EIRP value is higher than 1%. I remember when FCC publicized the coverage area and data for their ATSC transmitters [Link: fcc.gov] as a general rule I noticed that the power level went down to less than 10% of what they were before but obviously not every station stays on the same frecuency and most go to a higher one. That is why I had 10% as a general rule for any station. This method of calculation (used by FCC) is theoretical and as such assume the viewer will use an outdoor antenna 10 m above ground level. But as you can see most stations acctually gain new viewers by expanding the coverage area a bit. We are off topic , but I remember there was a website linked or from Industry Canada that has the coverage maps and data for the canadian stations but I cant find it now. I remember it was posted in this forum. The FCC even mandated that stations loosing 2% or more of the population of the previous Analog coverage should inform their viwers daily via PSA's and created a list of 402 stations that are requiere to do so, out of a total of 1749 Full power Stations. So only 23% of all stations are going to loose 2% or more viewers. I would assume that similar rules are being used/implemented in Canada but we are still away from the August 2011 deadline.
|
|
| OP | Post 19 made on Sunday November 1, 2009 at 12:17 |
hd fan Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2006
425 |
|
|
Just a correction after reading more not only on the ATSC.org website but also from other online sources.
The ATSC on one of their guidelines papers says:
For the same approximate coverage as an analog transmitter (at the same frequency), the average power of the DTV signal is on the order of 12 dB less than the analog peak sync power (when operating on the same frequency).
In this case then the EIRP levels could be reduced to only 6.5% of the previous analog service using the same frecuency to still cover the same area. Maybe this 12 dB number from the ATSC takes into consideration average real life scenarios such as multipath , impulsive noise and some other types of interference. As a matter of fact 2 stations from Los Angeles (Ch 11 & 13) who like CTV went back to VHF reduced power from 161 to 13 kW, in other words 11 dB reduction or almost 8%. Some other stations in New York city are actually asking to increase power to 100 kW apparently after seeing the poor results due to heavy multipath probably (lots of high raise buildings)
After reading all this I beleive that CFTO with 2.4 kW (0.9%) will actually loose significant coverage when compared with the Analog coverage. I think I have found the calculation methods or propagation models for DTV signals in NA , although maybe an early version not currently updated, so I wll recalculate this and evaluate the results.
|
|
| Post 20 made on Sunday November 1, 2009 at 17:43 |
Daniel Tonks Wrangler of Remotes |
Joined:
Posts: | October 1998
28,781 |
|
|
Considering that CTV is pretty much the biggest national network (at least for popularity) it's rather surprising how they're dropping the ball on power in their largest market.
Or is it. :-)
|
|
| Post 21 made on Sunday November 1, 2009 at 18:21 |
Anthony Ultimate Member |
Joined:
Posts: | May 2001
28,879 |
|
|
don't know if anyone is interested but there will be something on this at Canada AM tomorrow morning.
|
... |
|
| OP | Post 22 made on Sunday November 1, 2009 at 19:02 |
hd fan Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2006
425 |
|
|
Thanks for the heads up Anthony. Will certainly record it tomorrow.
|
|
| Post 23 made on Sunday November 22, 2009 at 11:06 |
wogster Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2009
111 |
|
|
On October 24, 2009 at 13:41, hd fan said...
I am surprise that this forum being about Canadian OTA TV Stations has yet to comment on the ongoing PR Ad's Campaing. It reminds me of election time where instead of focusing on one's positive side the Ads are all about showing the rivals dark side and of course at the same time mislead the public.
To be honest I could care less If all Canadian Stations are shut down tomorrow, except for the CBC, since almost all the programming they show is US based anyways. But I feel for the non-metropolitan area TV viewer that has no access to US OTA signals and will also loose their local news.
I just finished reading about it on several online sources and have a few points to remark.
1- The LPIF Fund (1.5% of my Bell TV bill) was not mandated to be passed on to the subscribers by the BDU's. As a matter of fact the CRTC on Public Broadcasting Notice 2008-100, Section 357, stated that the Commission does not see a reason for the BDU to pass that fee to their subscribers and as such it does not mandate them to do it. Of course , being the CRTC a canadian personality (juridical in this case) as tipical canadian , it did not forbid the BDU to collect this fund from their subscribers , what a laywer will probably call a loophole. As such I will call Bell TV and discuss this with them , but I imagine the answer. (Within the 2 year contract we can screw you as much as we want , read the fine print ignorant?) Oh I forgot , canadians are very polite , they all add please at the end.
2. The LocalTVmatters.ca recently created campaing (its members are the major local OTA broadcasters) claims that Simultaneos Substitution is not a benefit for them but rather a necesity due to distribution rights. This is also misleading. It indeed benefits them.
In my opinion both entities, TV Stations and BDU's, are the culprits on this problem and it does not bother me at all , since on this lands greed is the norm rather than the exception. What bothers me is the hooker-like actitude that the regulator, CRTC in this case, shows when dealing with this issues. It is them who are mostly responsible for all this. The, let the market fix it aproach or policy, is nothing but an excuse to do nothing and like a coward just step aside and enjoy the view.
The regulator was the one who over 60 years ago sold our (or should I say yours, lol) RF spectrum to the OTA broadcasters and ever since the broadcasters have been ripping off the benefits of it.
Since major Canadian markets has access to US OTA signals then we do not even need OTA canadian stations in those markets (CBC being the only one that shows more canadian content even on prime time), therefore it should be number one priority for the OTA broadcasters to guarantee a local station else where throught out the country and on that condition if I were the regulator then I would grant the spectrum licenses.
I am, as you can see, all for the Goverment not only to regulate but to control and decide what has to be done and how. Maybe because I was educated or "brain washed" on a communist regime, who knows , but the fact is , that nor the Regulator nor the OTA nor the BDU acctually care about the non-metropolitan TV viewer and its needs because if they did , we would not be watching this ads in the first place.
Enjoy your local TV station while you can, of course if you do not happen to live in Brandon, Manitoba. One can look at this 2 ways: 1) Cable/Satelite helps local stations by extending the capture area of a station. 2) Cable/Satelite hurts local stations by increasing the number of stations for a given area. For at least 40 years, cable companies have been able to include local stations basically for free, and for 39 of those years, everyone was happy with this. I had cable up until about 10 years ago, when I noticed an interesting trend. Every cable bill was higher then the last one, usually because they added some foreign language channel to the package that I received, and increased the cost of that package. They usually added these to all the tier 2 packages, so that if you wanted any of the extra channels, you had to get these too. When my initially $20 a month bill became a $50/month bill, I cancelled the service, slapped a set of rabbit ears on the TV with a UHF loop, and called it good. Local stations have 2 options at this point. 1) Increase their range with watts, and promote OTA television. Most people when they think of OTA don't think of a small UHF antenna screwed to the chimney, or in the attic or even hanging in a window, that brings in 7-20 glorious HD channels, they think of the old hulking and rusted tower that sat in the yard with the guy wires going everywhere, and that big antenna on top, that brought in a single snowy and ghosted station, and when the conditions were just right a second channel that had more snow then Moncton in February, and more ghosts then the US has lawyers. 2) Make a deal with the cable and satelite companies. The requirement is that the C&S companies must provide OTA stations to the customer free of charge, a basic package with a connection fee, that can not be increased by the provider without prior approval of the CRTC and the OTA stations in that package, would be acceptable. Right now, advertising revenues are down, I think this has more to do with specialty channels diluting the ad base then with the current economic situation, since those specialty channels (which usually just have American shows from 40 years ago) are not OTA, the more customers that are OTA, them more local stations can get for ad revenue. Therefore the first option is to a large degree better.
|
|
| Post 24 made on Sunday November 22, 2009 at 12:06 |
Anthony Ultimate Member |
Joined:
Posts: | May 2001
28,879 |
|
|
good points, but I think there are two issues with your analysis
1) Increasing power means greater cost. so even if we assume it is feasible (i.e. CRTSC allows the station to do it) the extra cost could far out way the benefits
2) different regions can mean different markets. Part of the ads are universal (buy Pepsi, wear Nike, drive a Honda....) but parts are local (eat at restaurant X, shop at Y....) will that "Local" guy care to advertise to a larger region? I consider Us stations (VT/NY) almost local, but any "local ads are lost on me because I won't cross the border to shop or eat there. The other side is that (if we remain in Canada) Montreal has stations and Sherbrook has stations as well. I can barely catch the Sherbrook equivalent stations and don't care to catch them, so even if added by mistake I remove them. But let's say that the region is expanded and the network says "in Sherbrook they can just watch the Montreal station (90% or more is exactly the same thing anyways) then yes the montreal station has now gotten Sherbrook as well and maybe it drives the ad revenue up but the revenue from the Sherbrok station and the Sherbrook local establishments are gone. So the revenue for the network could go down.
|
... |
|
| Post 25 made on Sunday November 22, 2009 at 20:24 |
wogster Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2009
111 |
|
|
On October 28, 2009 at 23:58, Daniel Tonks said...
I don't know about that. I know you get "more bang for your buck" with digital versus analog, but as I understand it 8VSB can have the same coverage as NTSC for as little as 25% of the power. In ideal situations.
CFTO is dropping from 269kW to 2.4kW on 9. That's 0.9%.
CITY is dropping from 280kW on 57 to 23kW on 51. That's 8%.
CIII is dropping from 1475kW to 100kW on 41. That's 7%.
CBLFT is dropping from 1760kW to 99kW on 25. That's 6%.
CFMT is dropping from 1138kW to 99kW on 47. That's 9%.
For a comparison, WUTV went from 3890kW to 1000kW on 29, or 26%. WNLO went from 955kW on 23 to 1000kW on 32, about the same. Are these new numbers the actual numbers currently being used for the digital transmissions, or are they using the existing higher power and then reducing at a later date. All of these stations come in fine for me now, just wondering if they are reducing power later on, will some go away? There is an issue, and that is are the antennas being used for broadcast the same, or are they changing the directionality of some of them. For example if a station currently broadcasts in all directions, and after the power reduction points in a more directed manner, that could account for some of the reduction. For example CTV has a station in Kitchener, so they may be redirection CFTO away from there. Another thing, antennas used in the CN Tower are roughly 35 years old, receiver technology has led to newer antenna designs in that time, I would assume the same for transmitter antennas, newer antennas may be more efficient at getting the signal out. Some may also be using different antenna configurations. There may also be more efficient transmitters now, that can use less power to provide the same coverage. Some stations may also be licenced for more power then they actually use, for example if a statton went on the air in 1969, then moved to the CN tower later on, the licence may not have been changed, even though they actually use less power to get the same amount of signal. The digital licence assumes the current antenna location, so it's quite a bit less. For example CFTO went on the air in 1960, so would have been licenced then for a certain amount of power. One would need to know if that was changed after May, 1976 when it moved it's transmitter to the CN Tower. I wonder about your numbers for CFTO, according to a list that I have that should be fairly accurate they are currently licenced for 325KW on analog, they currently are licenced for 17.4KW for digital on channel 40. I can't really see them using less then this when they move Channel 9 to digital. Unless you need less power on a lower channel. Providing they ever do move back to 9, with so many people using digital having only a UHF antenna, they may elect to stay on 40 and drop 9.
|
|
| OP | Post 26 made on Sunday November 22, 2009 at 21:46 |
hd fan Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2006
425 |
|
|
at wogster: those numbers are the change from analog to the new digital signal.
Also you said " Another thing, antennas used in the CN Tower are roughly 35 years old, receiver technology has led to newer antenna designs in that time, I would assume the same for transmitter antennas, newer antennas may be more efficient at getting the signal out".
Even if they change the antennas , they have to request a permit for that and engineers will take that into consideration, any cvhanges at any level will always keep the coverage area roughly the same basically to also protect other services from interference.
BTW , I have not been able to read or listen to the actual hearings but as per some US radio talk show I heard apparently the head off the CRTC was very dissapointed with both the OTA and the BDU for their current approach to the problem , instead of working on a potential solution they have been attacking each other with expensive ads and so on.
|
|
| Post 27 made on Sunday November 22, 2009 at 22:57 |
wogster Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2009
111 |
|
|
On November 22, 2009 at 21:46, hd fan said...
at wogster: those numbers are the change from analog to the new digital signal.
Also you said " Another thing, antennas used in the CN Tower are roughly 35 years old, receiver technology has led to newer antenna designs in that time, I would assume the same for transmitter antennas, newer antennas may be more efficient at getting the signal out".
Even if they change the antennas , they have to request a permit for that and engineers will take that into consideration, any cvhanges at any level will always keep the coverage area roughly the same basically to also protect other services from interference.
BTW , I have not been able to read or listen to the actual hearings but as per some US radio talk show I heard apparently the head off the CRTC was very dissapointed with both the OTA and the BDU for their current approach to the problem , instead of working on a potential solution they have been attacking each other with expensive ads and so on. I think this really is the BDU's fault, when the noise first started, they should have called for a meeting between the various BDU's and the networks, and hammered out some kind of deal. Would have cost a lot less, and saved everyone a bundle of cash. The CRTC, in it's infinite wisdome, should have requested this shortly thereafter and offered to host such a meeting.
|
|
| Post 28 made on Monday November 23, 2009 at 12:12 |
donnyjaguar Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2008
352 |
|
|
I receive ALL Rochester channels less frequently since the DTV switchover. :( I'm more likely to get Erie DTV12 now though.
|
Donny Jaguar |
|
 |
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|
