They are hit and miss in Whitby and I have a clear shot at the CN tower from the roof.  50-60 kms tops, that said, I know they were on reduced power for a while.  Also, there is VHF and UHF for OTA.  My antenna is not both and for the life of me I can't remember what CFTO broadcasts on, but it sucks!!  Even the lowered powered Buffalo stations come in just fine and they are repacking if not already completed!

I live in east Mississauga, near Etobicoke border.
I have a Channel Master 4221 antenna with an amp.
Over the last year CTV (CFTO 9) is getting more problematic.
I spoke to CFTO and they tell me they broadcast at 4,200 watts, as per licence.
That is a very very low power transmission.
If BCE trying to sabotage "free" OTA so that people are forced to pay to watch commercials?

DanicaH wrote:

If BCE trying to sabotage "free" OTA so that people are forced to pay to watch commercials?

OTA is a severe dinosaur. If you use IPTV to watch instead, Bell gets none of the money, unless you are using Bell internet. lol 

 

Radiowiz wrote:

OTA is a severe dinosaur. If you use IPTV to watch instead, Bell gets none of the money, unless you are using Bell internet. lol 

Actually, OTA provides the best picture quality and therefore is not a dinosaur.
 

Radiowiz wrote:

DanicaH wrote:

If BCE trying to sabotage "free" OTA so that people are forced to pay to watch commercials?

OTA is a severe dinosaur. If you use IPTV to watch instead, Bell gets none of the money, unless you are using Bell internet. lol 

 

I would argue, that OTA has had a resurgence with cord cutting and digital.   I would say until the end of analog, perhaps it was heading for end of life, but the "dinosaur" is really seen a rebirth.   Sadly with the same people owning cable as over the air stations, there is for sure "less effort" being put towards OTA as it would be if the local station was owned by just a broadcaster.     Sadly with cable cutters, this is a poor move on their part, because no one who has cut their cable, is coming back because they can't get CTV.     As well, most of these IPTV services are not licensed and illegal.   They will only work until they get shut down.   

I think the real issue with CFTO in Toronto is that they broadcast at only 4,200 watts.
and apparently decreasing
 

I've never been able to receive even a hint of a signal from Channel 56. Not once in all these years and I've tried in good tropo conditions. Good for you if you can!

If I'm lucky the stations on 67 show up, usually during the summer, about five times a year. If there was one signal I'd like to pull in more than any other, it would be this one. The subcarriers - with a few exceptions - are great. Wish we could get Decades here, but alas, it's not to be. At least not in this decade!

Tim Brown 2016 wrote:

The FCC database show's the repacked CFTO licensed to operate at 13.8 kW.

My theory has always been that TV stations owned by Bell Media and to a lesser extent, Rogers, have no real incentive to maintain a good OTA signal. After all, every crippled OTA signal potentially brings in more Fibe TV or cable customers. Put another way, there's a negative business case for OTA because it's actually eroding their BDU business.

I think you're spot on.  OTA does erode the BDU business and the BDUs are trying find any angle they can to get people back in.

I remember in the 90s, it was around 93% BDU usage in Canada.  Apparently, as of 2018, that's down to 71%.  That number apparently only includes cable and satellite.  Broadcasters still haven't found a robust way to monetize their online offerings.

Keep in mind that the original intent of BDUs was to provide a clean television signal without having to fool around with antennas.  I remember back in 1970 when we moved to one of the newer suburban neighborhoods in Kitchener cable was in place and the price was $5/month or $50/year.  Then again, you only got 6 or 7 channels -- that's all there were.

Remember when there was a push to provide free "basic cable" satellite service to anyone?  I don't know whatever happened to them but didn't they effectively get squashed by Bell/Rogers et al?

I used to enjoy satellite hacking back in the day.  At one point, my backyard dish farm pointed to 6 satellites.  It was fun.  As crypto technology improved I stopped doing that but kept my Bell satellite subscription because the hardware was already in place.  As I got older, I got more annoyed by signal dropouts during storms and having to brush snow off the dish.  I thought about OTA but then the thought of going up on the roof or worse, paying someone to do it, didn't impress me.  When we moved in 2018, we abandoned the dish idea even though there was a dish properly mounted on the side of the new house.  Although I'm no fan of Roger's, I have to admit the service has been rock solid.

 

CFTO has even fallen off my channel selection options on OTA when scanning up and down lately.  Pointless.

mace wrote:

                                  Just out of curiosity, I have often wondered if any of the Toronto tv signals were ever available in Rochester under tropo conditions. I am sure Mr. Fybush would know.                    

The VHF signals didn't ever really come in here, thanks to the stronger WTVH Syracuse on 5 and the locals on 8 and 10 blocking out CFTO on 9.

On good days, back in the analog era, I could sometimes see the CN Tower UHF signals even with an indoor antenna. 41 always seemed to be the strongest once it went on the air. For a few years in the early 80s, the cable company here picked up 25 and 47 over the air and the signals were usually pretty clean. (47 I understand - it was a local Italian guy who leased the space on the cable system and sold local ad spots to reach the large local Italian community. I have no idea why the cable company thought there were Francophones here who wanted to see 25. We also had CJOH for a few years, thanks to the channel 6 relay in Deseronto showing up on cable.)

I don't usually get any of the Toronto signals over here on the southeast side of Rochester, especially where I live now in the shadow of Pinnacle Hill. But I have friends who live closer to the lakeshore on the west side who get good reception on outdoor antennas, yes, even of CFTO.

One important note: you can't directly compare power levels between VHF signals (CFTO, WBBZ) and UHF signals. It takes more power to get the same coverage at UHF. The FCC generally allows 1000 kW as the maximum power for UHF DTV, but VHF DTV is limited to 10 kW, though some VHF stations have been allowed higher power levels in order to match the coverage of the largest UHFs in their markets. 
 

markow202 wrote:

I heard back in the analog era that CITY TV which was the highest antenna (on the last piece with all the signatures) was directional more-so to the north.   

Correct.

The CITY-TV antenna occupied the highest position on the CN Tower and it was directional (nothing over the lake).  That antenna was decommissioned with the repack.  CITY-DT now shares an antenna with CIII-DT and CFMT-DT, which is located in the second highest aperture.

Tim Brown 2016 wrote:

In Phase wrote:

markow202 wrote:

I heard back in the analog era that CITY TV which was the highest antenna (on the last piece with all the signatures) was directional more-so to the north.   

Correct.

The CITY-TV antenna occupied the highest position on the CN Tower and it was directional (nothing over the lake).  That antenna was decommissioned with the repack.  CITY-DT now shares an antenna with CIII-DT and CFMT-DT, which is located in the second highest aperture.

Isn't CJMT also on that antenna?

Also, is the aperture that previously housed CITY-TV being reserved for ATSC 3.0?

I checked that not long ago but the height listings of antennas and I dont think its being used at all anymore.  
 

In Phase wrote:

Tim Brown 2016 wrote:

Isn't CJMT also on that antenna?

   Yes, I believe you are correct Tim

Tim Brown 2016 wrote:

Also, is the aperture that previously housed CITY-TV being reserved for ATSC 3.0?

I doubt if that antenna will ever be used again.  It was designed for the upper UHF band (originally on channel 79) and of course, that band has been reassigned.  It also only has a single feedline, unlike all the other antenna systems.  The outside diameter of the radome up there is very small (about 5 feet) and the space between the radome and the interior spine does not provide any means to physically access the antenna panels.

As for ATSC3.0, any future services could probably be added one, or more, of the other CN Tower antennas.
 

I find it also very difficult to imagine how they installed antennas on the tower AFTER the radome installation.