WNYO RF16 Next Gen has WGRZ, WIVB, WKBW and WUTV as subchannels. The different subchannels have different power levels in ATSC 3.0 so some may not make it to Toronto. I receive them all in my location.
 

Last edited by canam2021 (January 23, 2023 4:25 pm)

Same programming as 1.0. Slightly better picture better colour more stable. The transmitter is in Grand Island NY from what I understand it is directional away from Canada. It is still in a testing phase.

Last edited by canam2021 (January 23, 2023 4:22 pm)

upload picture for free

RA as an earliest adopter of HDTV, I don’t disagree with you.  But ATSC 3.0 adoption  might take place when our Flatscreen HDTV’s eventually go to the recycling depot when they wear out.  But the problem seems that many manufactuerers haven’t upgraded their chipsets in the tuners of current product lines.  I bought an ATSC-1.0 decoder in 2008 in Glendale AZ, about 6 months before WIVB became the first OTA station in Buffalo to transmit HD.  I was in touch with the chief engineer at WIVB many times, before, during and after they turned on the HD transmitter (they simulcast on Ch. 4 and 32 for a fairly long time as I recall).  I guess I was one of their OTA viewers .  Even then there wasn't much HD content, a few hours a week.  My feeling is that sports and 16x9 feature films were the real drivers of HD adoption back then.  But it was the manufacture of low-cost high res flatscreens that revolutionized the market.  Everyone wanted a flatscreen, and they flew off the shelves.  The ATSC 1.0 tuners were irrelevant, because in those days a staggering 85% of Cdn households had cable, which meant few people ever used their tuners.  I suspect the same will occur, though OTA reception might nudge 15% in 5 years from now, in the GTA.  Streaming, and built-in apps that are downloadable will probably drive sales of the next generation of sets equipped with 3.0 tuners.  In my family all TV buying decisions seem to be based on the software and apps built into sets.  FAST channels which are accessible via downloadable apps, are going to be a massive business.  So you’re right, ATSC 3.0 really offers very littlle to very few people.  But for the % who receive OTA in the US it is still a very large market, so there could be major business opportunities to multiplex all sorts of content. I’m also told that broadcasters may be able to target ads geographically to users of 3.0 ATSC sets, but that raises some privacy issues too.

Last edited by tvguy (January 28, 2023 10:10 pm)

The way prices are plumetting on OLED and other display devices, I have no doubt in 5 or 10 years, everything that will be sold will have higher resolution capability, and an atsc 3.0 tuner.   It’s really about compression rates, and the ability to transmit higher quality video using less bandwith.  ATSC 3.0 is also far more robust, less prone to artifacts, multipath,  fading, etc.  Think of the transmission bottlenecks that were forecast for streaming content on the internet.  Compression algorithms have accorded much higher video quality, without collapsing the net.  There is a “night lite” obligation for stations that go to ATSC to continue providing ATSC 1 for a period of time.  But for that 15 or 20% of households who use OTA reception, retrofitting with a low cost dongle could be the solution once ATSC signals are switched off.  There is also a business case in the US for broadcasters to consolidate signals on a single transmission site.   Whether they eventually provide 8K resolution via ATSC 3.0, OTA or by way of fibre delivery to cable companies will be resolved over time.  In Canada, I don’t see broadcasters consolidating transnission operations the way they do in the U.S.  But in Canada, CTV and Global could care less about OTA service.   Today you can buy an ATSC 3,0 device for under $200 US in the states, and $250 here on Amazon.  I expect that cost will be 50-75% lower in a couple of years.  If you're not paying monthly for cable, that's a small price to pay, to keep receiving OTA HD without buying a new set.

Last edited by tvguy (January 29, 2023 12:32 am)

Canadian stations have basically given up on OTA - - they have obvious conflicts of interest, since bell, & rogers own BDUs, they still cannot see that OTA is a good way to repatriate their diminishing subscriber bases.  But of course, Rogers (Citytv) has a paid streaming game plan. Corus is also following a similar plan via its Stack TV and the CTV and Global TV apps, often require some form of user login - often linked to a cable or satellite account.  The only untainted broadcast groups who have OTA are Pattison in the west and Channel Zero (CHCH).  But I don’t think they spend much time planning for ATSC 1 let alone ATSC 3.  Unfortunately in most rural areas, OTA has been shut down.  I’m not even certain that the folks at TVO have any plans to promote/improve their OTA presence.  Sad isn’t it?  Canada was a leader in OTA coverage.  As for CBC, I think they’ve conceded that GEM is their future, and not OTA.   The CBC thinks there is a goldmine with GEM premium streaming accounts….I’m not that sure there is a viable business in GEM premium (which you require in order to stream some of the OTA content)

We've covered this ground before. I'm not saying Canada is inferior in its technology in any way. My point is that history proves that we're always behind on these innovations. 

The First TV Stations - WBEN was on in 1948, the very first in this area. We didn't get the CBC putting out a signal until 1952. That's a four-year gap. Why did it take so long? Because our government dithered on what our TV should be like here, leaving Canadians to tune in and get used to Buffalo for their viewing entertainment. 

Colour TV - The U.S. was testing colour shows as early as 1953, with almost every program on television there in "living colour" by 1965. Canada didn't get the tint hint officially sanctioned until July 1, 1966. It wasn't that they didn't want to broadcast in colour. They weren't allowed to. You've argued before that many shows were not in colour, so what's the big deal? It's this: why did our government need to give the go-ahead for this "innovation," meaning no TV stations north of the border were allowed to "Colourcast" as TV Guide used to put it in their listings, for so very long? The technology was there. Why did it take a government mandate to launch it?

UHF Stations - There were UHF stations on in the U.S. almost right from the beginning. WBUF, Channel 17, now an educational station, was an owned and operated NBC property for a few years. It signed on in 1953. A lack of UHF on sets meant it did not last long. But a mandate from the American government forcing all sets to come with UHF goes all the way back to 1962. Canada's first UHF station was CICA, Channel 19. It didn't get permission to go on air until September 1972 - decades after the U.S. was filled with such signals.

Cable TV Channels - The U.S. began having satellite distribution of signals as early as 1975, when HBO went on the air - or rather, the satellite. The Canadian government didn't licence the first Canuck cable-only entities until between 1982 and 1984, almost a decade later. They were ostensibly trying to protect over-the-air stations. Again, we were far, far behind. 

HDTV - Likely the biggest change to TV itself since the invention of the boob tube. All major U.S. analogue channels were ordered off the air by June 12, 2009. While some stations (notably City TV) were testing the new transmission method early on, we didn't shut off most of our old-fashioned transmitters until August 31, 2011, more than two years later. Again, what was the delay? The answer: Ottawa's dithering. 

In each case, government interference played a role in keeping us behind our southern neighbours. That's not the fault of Canadian TV operators. I know someone who was at City TV when the rush for Canadian cable stations began, and Moses Znaimer jumped in with both feet, trying to grab as many stations as possible. Whereas in the U.S. it was a case of "can you get coverage? Then go!" And you didn't need big government to tell you that you could or couldn't. If you wanted to take the risk and the technology made it possible, go for it.

And that, I maintain, is why Canada is always behind our southern neighbour. Yes, they have a bigger population and bigger markets. But we have big cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal with potentially huge audiences (far bigger than Buffalo) that were denied the things they could see across the border. This is just more proof that the CRTC and the Industry Ministry should let those in the biz who know what they're doing, do it. They don't have to stick their nose in everything.

Why can't we lead just for once? Because governments love red tape, hearings, rules and regs. But the audience isn't watching that. They only want quality programming on the latest technology. Lead or get out of the way. But as we all know, that's just not in their DNA. It's not about quality control. It's all about Control, period. And those in this country are the poorer for it. 

Well, that, plus they really gave you no choice. When they turned off analogue transmissions in both countries, if you got your TV OTA, you really had to upgrade to a new set in order to keep watching. Those so-called "night lights" were only there for a few months and a drop-dead date meant you had no real choice. Otherwise, you'd see what we saw outside in Toronto on Sunday - a ton of snow! 

What's interesting about your response is that you seemed to - again - miss my main point. I'm not arguing that Canadian TV is inferior or that we're not different in size and scope, per se. I'm complaining that we're always behind in innovations, regardless of who got what on cable. (And on that point, I was talking about original cable stations, not over the air imports, which is a different animal. As for HD, I'm clearly referring to the date when analogue night lights were turned off for good. They did it two years before we did, for no especially good reason other than CRTC dithering.)

On the colour TV thing, for example, it is beyond my comprehension why stations here were forbidden - by law! - to broadcast anything in colour for years. It's completely insane and makes no sense. It might have not only encouraged sales of colour TVs in this country, but also given us reruns of Canadian-made shows in varied hues. They'd be worth a lot more in rerun value if they'd been made that way. 
 
We can stand on our own and be on the forefront of technology, if the idiots in Ottawa, who don't know broadcasting from a hole in the wall, would get out of the way and let us lead. But this endless and seemingly insatiable need to control every aspect of a broadcaster's life is incessantly tiring and ultimately unproductive. 

So this is not an anti-Canadian TV rant. More like an anti-red tape one. And you know who holds the key to loosening that. But, of course, they never will. I admire the American "we'll give it a try and see if it works" ethos. In Canada, it's more like "we'd love to give it a try but they won't let us." And that's why I often seem to be siding with our American cousins. Canadian broadcasters need the freedom to fail - and learn from those mistakes. And, just possibly also, succeed. They need to loosen the vice grip on regulating EVERYTHING and then maybe we can be first at something for a change. Instead of always being followers, years late, with bureaucratic strings attached.  

RadioActive wrote:

Well, that, plus they really gave you no choice. When they turned off analogue transmissions in both countries, if you got your TV OTA, you really had to upgrade to a new set in order to keep watching. Those so-called "night lights" were only there for a few months and a drop-dead date meant you had no real choice. Otherwise, you'd see what we saw outside in Toronto on Sunday - a ton of snow! 

HD was the majority way before they turned off analog.

paterson1 wrote:

We are not set up or regulated the same way, and as the great Walter Cronkite would say..."that's the way it is.."

And that's exactly the problem. Too much regulation, not enough freedom or imagination. Frankly, given the restraints, I'm surprised how good Canadian radio has been all these years despite the incessant meddling of the federal government.

I know a large number of people who have gone before the CRTC in a variety of hearings and almost every one of them has told me a) it was a miserable experience and b) they felt they were trying to explain their business to children who had no idea what they were talking about. And that the children were in charge, resulting in ridiculously illogical decisions that barely made sense. Yet they had to live with them and work around them.

I've never been to a hearing, but these are people I respect, who have a ton of radio management experience and I'll take their word for it.  

It is not up to the CRTC to instill freedom and imagination for broadcasters. Broadcasters are the creative ones, and the business professionals, remember?  

I have been to CRTC hearings a few times and for the most part they were interesting, and what I saw didn't resemble what you are talking about.  Did this large number of people that you referred to have the same viewpoint as you?  If so, then yes they likely didn't enjoy the hearing, since some may have already decided it was going to be a miserable experience. 

According to a previous poster (Aaron) the funding for innovation in the US is largely because local TV and cable have MORE regulation, carriage fee revenue and restricted coverage.  Many of our regs and guidelines are different than what the FCC views as being important.  You obviously don't agree with our broadcast situation and I don't always do either, but to have constant temper tantrums and rehashing decades old grievances and tired arguments doesn't help your cause. 
 
 Also your opinion is always from the point of view of the non cable OTA viewer which is what you are. Since you have a biased hate for everything Rogers, Bell, and cable in general this gives a very one sided, self serving and somewhat unbalanced viewpoint.  Like it or not most people still deal with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, Cogeco etc. 

 

paterson1 wrote:

It is not up to the CRTC to instill freedom and imagination for broadcasters. Broadcasters are the creative ones, and the business professionals, remember? 

Yes and I noted they somehow are still able to do their jobs despite the CRTC meddling, not because of it.   

paterson1 wrote:

I have been to CRTC hearings a few times and for the most part they were interesting, and what I saw didn't resemble what you are talking about.  Did this large number of people that you referred to have the same viewpoint as you?  If so, then yes they likely didn't enjoy the hearing, since some may have already decided it was going to be a miserable experience.

One of the people I'm referring to was a very prominent news director of a huge Toronto radio station. He said he didn't feel like the Commissioners were well briefed on the subject of the hearing, they'd made up their minds well in advance and they wouldn't listen to the very broadcasters who had to implement their rules - some of which were contradictions in the way radio generally works. So of course it was a miserable experience. How would you like to know as much as you do about the area of the business you work in, only to have to sit in front of people who don't have that knowledge and tell you you're wrong about everything you know to be true? I'd call that frustrating and yes, miserable. 

paterson1 wrote:

According to a previous poster (Aaron) the funding for innovation in the US is largely because local TV and cable have MORE regulation, carriage fee revenue and restricted coverage.  Many of our regs and guidelines are different than what the FCC views as being important.  You obviously don't agree with our broadcast situation and I don't always do either, but to have constant temper tantrums and rehashing decades old grievances and tired arguments doesn't help your cause. 

What you call "temper tantrums" I call reality. And it doesn't change if you ignore what's going on. But then, you're in favour of Bill C-11, which experts around the world have deemed one of the most misguided if not dangerous pieces of legislation ever seen in North America. I hope my VPN will protect me from this horrendous government interference, because after all, the great government gargoyles know what's best for us!
 

paterson1 wrote:

 Also your opinion is always from the point of view of the non cable OTA viewer which is what you are. Since you have a biased hate for everything Rogers, Bell, and cable in general this gives a very one sided, self serving and somewhat unbalanced viewpoint.  Likeit or not most people still deal with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, Cogeco etc. 

Yes, because they have no real choice. And whose fault is that? I think you know the answer. And because of that answer, I refuse to do business with these bloated, onerous, monopolistic greed mongers. That's my choice and I invite you to pay more and more and more endlessly into eternity if that's your wish. Mine is that we get the competition we so desperately need in this country. But despite what the feds say they want to do, (encourage competition and therefore cheaper prices) it somehow never happens. Why do you suppose that is?

And just because I don't have Canadian cable does not mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion on it - or that, after all those years working in TV, I don't know anything about how it works. I don't have to be a surgeon to know that an operation can be good for what ails you. Especially when these guys keep making everybody sick!

When I was at the CRTC hearings I recall a few radio stations that were not very well prepared.  Some had problems answering fairly basic questions from the commission and seemed unsure in their answers.  These were smaller stations and companies, and the  individuals had plenty of time to get ready for their hearing.  If anything the CRTC went easy on them in my opinion.

 With larger stations and their owners the commission rightly expects a lot more.  Bureaucrats will also test individuals to see how much they know and if they have done their homework.  Also years ago there would be a review of any areas of the "promise of performance" that were not being fulfilled.  Most of the organizations that were professionals sailed through the hearings unscathed.  Those that were lacking, especially larger stations could be in for a rough ride.  If the CRTC wasn't prepared for the hearing that your friend was at, was this brought up with the commission?  A hearing is a two way street, you are free to question and criticize them.  

Nothing wrong with having an opinion but at least present all the facts rather than just the ones that fit your argument. Temper tantrums are not reality, sorry. 

What do you mean people have no real choice?  Sure they do.  Don't support the big three, and go with one of the smaller providers or do what you do.   Most choose not to go this route and as you know cable penetration rates here and in the US have been shrinking.  However I have noticed that many people who have cut cable often still have the basic package since they want local news and channels. 

As far as Bill C-11 goes and whatever it ends up being, the over the top fear mongering and half truths are there to scare the average person with misinformation.   Here we go again with all of these experts around the world who don't like C-11.  I have read two articles in the National Post from individuals elsewhere that don't agree with C-11.  Sure there is lots of opposition here at home, and that is good and right.  If Bill C-11 is passed and it is in fact as dreadful and dangerous as some like to push, then it will be dropped or altered.  But those that don't like the idea of C-11 are hurting their cause with the over the top "sky is falling" attitude. 

Getting back to the basic question of should the internet be regulated, most governments here and elsewhere seem to be saying yes. 

mace wrote:

I am one of many who doesn't have access to OTA television because I live in an apartment, without a balcony and my apartment faces north. So Rogers was my only option until about five years ago when our building was wired for Bell Fibe. People forget that originally the ONLY reason to have cable in the GTA was to get better reception of the U.S. networks.

Sorry mace, it was not the only reason.  It was a big reason and for many people I agree  the most important. However cable also gave you more channels, all with clear signals, no interference and no need of an ugly antenna on the roof. When our family first got cable this is how it was sold to us.   Also in time some people really enjoyed the local cable channel that covered local sports, politics, events etc.  And the only way you would get the community tv was with cable.  I know of people here in Kitchener who eventually dropped Bell or went back to cable because they missed the local Rogers community channel, especially Rangers and Guelph Storm hockey.