FreeHD Canada proposed this last friday to the CRTC. Licence hearing tomorrow monday. you can watch the CRTC presentation video on [Link: cpac.ca]. their website at [Link: freehdcanada.ca].

It all sounds good , like every word from every canadian I ran into but in my opinion it does not help the consumer at all. 300 cad equipment cost for the first TV and 100 to 150 cad for any other TV in the household seems to me too expensive even with the 75$ mentioned coupon program . Not to mention that probably they will be using the Ka band (this is all especulation since there is not published info) on the recently launched Nimiqs (again there is no info indicating those birds have even spot beam ka band capability but there is no future birds planned to be built/launch either) which inherently has even more rain/snow fade problems than Ku (although apparently they say they will broadcast with more power). But this is not the issue , the issue is an affordable solution for a consumer who either has an old Analog TV or a new ATSC capable tuner to watch the new digital TV signals OTA and either does not want to nor can afford pay tv services .

Picture yourself living in the outskirts of the GTA or even in Barrie, ON. Would you spend 30O cad plus at leats 100 per TV after August 2011 to continue watching free local OTA digital or would you just keep using the same outdoor antenna system and just buy a converter box for 50 cad or even better just use the ATSC tuner that came with the new TV.

They also claim better picture quality? , better than what? Bell and Shaw? or the cable BDU's?. That is not the issue but rather Is is going to be better than the OTA 19.43 Mbsp signal I already get for free? and the answer is no (and it does not have to be better than 19.43 anyways). Listen to when David says that they will collect the signal OTA or in some cases maybe a direct fiber from the broadcaster master control. In any case in my opinion it is misleading as it is targeting the OTA user and at the same time talking about better picture quality but we know they are comparing it to BDU's signals.

This is not a solution to the digital OTA transition problem either. It is true that small broadcasters could save on transmitter facilities costs but then they will end up paying FreeHD Canada to carry their signal and of course will have to cover the cost to bring their signal from their studios to the FreeHD uplink facility. I wonder what is more expensive or a single transmitter site that you own/mantain/operate or either a fiber or microwave or even a satelite link to send their signal from their studios to the uplink center.

Do not get me wrong, I like the idea , since it represents a competition or choice to the current BDU incumbents but it is only good for the one of us who already have pay tv services not for the OTA TV viewer.

IMHO The OTA viewer does not benefit at all on the contrary will incurr in higher upfront/maintnance costs and the PQ will not get better at all but rather has the potential to degrade.

That's all for now folks! lol

There are a couple of things, the first is how they plan on funding the free service, if they don't have a method of funding the costs, then a free service usually doesn't last long.  Satellite space has a limited supply and a good demand, that tends to make it expensive.  If they are not charging the user that means they are charging the provider.  Most OTA stations have transmitters and equipment, they are not going to want to spend even more on a satellite process. 

Pay channel subscribers are not going to want to subsidize the free users, especially when most of the users only want the free service. 

Now for a place like the GTA where you can often get 7-15 stations over the air, such a service is unlikely to get many subscribers.  In places like Thompson, MB where, the next nearest place large enough for a TV station is likely 300km away, and there is only 1 channel or 2 in town, you will probably find nearly 100% existing cable/satellite provider coverage already.  Few people will want to change providers, especially when they need to spend 6 months or more of the service cost for the priviledge on an untried new system.