On their facebook site, ThisTV has confirmed that they are coming back to Buffalo NY, but have not announced when or on what station/channel.

Only thing I was able to find was this comment, which was posted 3 months ago. I think there's a better chance we'll see theCoolTV before we see This TV, of course this is just my opinion.

I'm always hopeful that these 'extra' channels come on the air, in Buffalo, so that we (Canadians) can get them too.

It just makes receiving free over the-air-signals more appealing.

Have you noticed that none of the Canadian broadcasters have any sub-channels? I'm sure the CRTC is to blame for that.

I think one or two do, but I think the major reason is that everyone here uses cable or sat. Plus you have the added issue that OTA stations could not charge the cable/sat companies while speciality could. An other issue is that many networks are connected to sat/cable providers so they don't want you to go OTA

I'm guessing the lack of Canadian subchannels it's because of the content rules perhaps?

I think the lack of sub-channels has more to do with channel density and logistics then CRTC requirements.  Take Toronto for example, there are about 10 stations, maybe you can pick up another 10 or 15 from the US, there are 53 channel positions running from 6-59 so less then half the potention is realised, and Toronto is one of the largest markets.   You could add some new content, for example CBC could piggyback newsworld on a number of stations or offer French as a subchannel in markets where it doesn't currently exist, but are those markets large enough to justfy the cost?

I can cook up a pile of reasons for the unfortunate lack of subchannel use by the Canadian broadcasters.

1) Fulfilling CanCon requirements is probably a concern, although anyone operating in Canada knows they either play by the rules or answer to the commissioners, and unless there's an odd quirk or gap in the regulations the licence holder should be ultimately responsible for everything carried on their signal. It's not as if there is a lack of content available to fill airtime, though if you want *quality* content, that may be a different issue :).

1b) Re: offering a digital specialty channel such as CBC News Net on a terrestrial subchannel, I wonder if there's a concern about the terms of the licences those channels operate under, and what may have to be changed - legally or content-wise - to offer specialty channels on OTA. The audio portion of CP24 is broadcast on AM 1010 in Toronto, but I'm inclined to dig through CRTC filings, looking for what (if any) applications had to be made. If the licence holder didn't deal with the commissiom at the time of the switch to the CP24 feed, I'm positive the issue will come up at the licence renewal for the AM channel.

2) Speaking of content... there's just not that much in terms of terrestrial content carriers aside from the big five (CBC/SRC, CTVglobemedia, Rogers, Canwest, Quebecor), and until someone new is willing to make the attempt, it just won't happen. I guess one of the independent stations could do something, but given their more limited resources it would be a serious gamble, particularly now.

3) The major terrestrial broadcasters are, except for CBC, owned wholly or in part by companies that have large, profitable broadcast distribution undertakings (aka cable and satellite). At the moment, they have no reason to offer even ad-supported specialty channels on OTA or otherwise spend money on broadcast channels they can't charge subscription fees for... yet.

Going off-topic here: Incidentally, that fee-for-carriage Kabuki theatre of months ago continues to tick me off, for precisely this reason. In several cases, entities on ostensibly opposing sides of that "debate" are owned by the same parent company. Even accounting for internal conflicts, the entire mess reeked of collusion; it's pure profit for the parent company, as the BDU owners will just pass the cost of the fees - which they get to decide upon, with CRTC blessing - to pay TV subscribers. As a final insult, CBC threw in with the openly pro-fee parties, and found itself excluded by the CRTC from being able to receive any fees that are imposed!

Back on topic (and off my soapbox...), I wouldn't expect any movement on the Canadian side until the digital switchover is completed, and even then I'm not holding my breath waiting for fresh content from the big players. It's too bad, as I've come to enjoy the American subchannels (in particular, Universal Sports on occasion and ThinkBright). I don't think much will happen until someone, government or industry, tries to take on the media oligopoly and shake things up.

rant mode off, finally.

Looking at what you said in part 3, auditorydamage:

I might be mistaken here, but I think it was HD Net that wanted to launch a newtowrk of HD (digital) broadcast stations across Canada a few years back, when I thoguht HD Net was a web site and not a 'channel'.

It would have made it the first of its kind.

Obviously you all know the outcome..denied by the CRTC. The reason: it wouldn't make money, in fact it would probably hemmorage money.

There' a few reasons:

1) Channels like CBC Newsworld receive payment based on the number of cable satellite subscribers they reach. They wouldn't want to give it away for free. They want you to subscribe so they get money from you.

2) All specialty channels are not licensed for OTA distribution even if they wanted to.

3) I don't think any broadcaster has even though about how they could make money off of offering a subchannel. Most do OTA because they have to, not because they want to. I wouldn't be surprised if even the engineering staff at OTA stations themselves subscribe to cable.

I don't understand why sub channels are desirable?   One has to rationalize what they wish for.   I'd rather see the entire 19.39Mbps of the ATSC stream dedicated almost entirely to the single primary HD feed.

The presence of a sub channel does consume bandwidth that would normally be made available to the primary HD stream.  An SD sub would consume 4-6Mbps of the total 19.39.  The corresponding decrease in bandwidth for the primary HD channel would require higher compression rates and thus a corresponding decrease in quality.  It would be no different than what the cable companies do highly compressing multiple streams in a QAM channel.

I'll settle for the single HD feed without sub-channels any day!

cheers,
N

yes and no in my opinion. if properly done the human eye will notice no difference from normal viewing distances besides try to see the big picture and think, lets say ... , of the energy savings for instance. Rather than having 2 high power transmitters consuming a lot of several resources (including human ones) for lets say an NBC affiliate and their Universal Sports channel I would rather have only one with 2 TV channels. But well , like they say in Spanish, Para gustos se hicieron los colores y para escojer las flores so there will always be someone who likes a different color than one's choice.

I do not see any canadian OTA channel having a subchannel in the future either, lets face it , we are acctually loosing local TV stations across the country and being right next to the super media power the USA is, does not help either. On the contrary , it is the equivalent of trying to make a living out of lumber in the US when Canada produces lots of it and way cheaper.

two reasons

1) I don't think they end up using the full BW even when they don't use subs

2) in the end content is king. I like watching the cooking and construction shows on Create (33.3), I like that I get CW (44.2) some of those shows where on the local Fox affiliate before. The same would be true for Canada. For example V started off on CTV(12) but then it stopped and now it is on A (which is owned by CTV) but there is none here. I would love it if some of the more basic speciality channels where added to this. But like I said before I don’t see it happening because , for example, CBC gets $ for each cable/sat subscriber to newsnetwork (or RDI), so why would they move it to a sub of CBC which will then make it OTA and so free to cable/sat companies and the same for every speciality channel out there?

There is a reason for subchannels and I do see them in Canada the future, here is an example.  TVO decides to add service to Someplace, ON which has a population of 900 people, 400 of which are French speaking.  Now they need both English and French stations, they are allocated channel 14.  So they set up 14-1 as English and 14-2 as French. 

Well the Ontario Goverment TV service in its french version already exist (TFO) but since a few years ago it is a different crown corporation (it separated from TVO and has its own admin and budget) therefore it has its own OTA License and more likely will operate an independent transmitter in those cities where it exists, like Sudbury. I would rather have them as a subchannel but more likely they will stay analog OTA since those are small markets with low power repeaters. Out of 15 transmitter only 2 are above 100 kw and another one only 10 kw , the rest less than 1 kw. They already have an HD service though that is only available via cable or satellite. So for a population of 900 they both will likely stay analog for a long time.

Just curious if anyone is actually receiving ThisTV Buffalo from anywhere east of Toronto? A few miles north of Port Hope on a hill with a directional VHF/UHF antenna up 40 feet, and I can't get it.. or CHCH-DT either. CHCH analog comes in ok...