FeedbackGot questions, comments or corrections? Email me at tvhatton@yahoo.ca. Please include a TV Hat related subject title in your email, to help me differentiate it from all junk mail that will get flushed out with the trash. Your comments may be posted on the site, unless you specify otherwise.
If you're submitting information, please mention your sources in order to allow for some verification. If you're contributing for the first time, you may be required to provide me with your full name and phone number, depending on the nature of the information. But don't worry; the phone number won't be published.
Looking for a Forum?Well TV Hat doesn't have one, but here are a couple external discussion groups worth visiting. |
Well not exactly... But below you'll find some of what I did receive.
Magic Tom's showPosted November 22nd. My sister and I were on the Magic Tom show sometime in the early1960s. I suspect it was 1961 or 1962. I remember we talked to him during the segment when he had kids on.... I would really like to get a copy of that show (I know it would take some digging to get the right time frame)...to give to my sister as a Christmas gift. Do you know if the show and its contents were ever catalogued? Thanks, Carol Ann Higgins AnswerCarol Ann, I'm sorry to inform you that there are no copies of Magic Tom's shows from the early 60's. Videotape recording (Invented In 1957) was a new medium in the early 60's and as such, videotape (2 inch wide) at the time was very expensive, approximately $500.00 for 1 hour of tape. At that time, CFCF 12 had only 2 Ampex VR1000 Videotape recorders, which were about $350,000 in 1961 / 62 dollars. Those first generation videotapes were also very abrasive and repeated use would often damage the video heads on the recorder. A new head assembly was over $5,000.00. As such, videotape recording was limited to higher-return network programming, in order to defray costs. Even though, those early videotapes had a very limited shelf life and often "fell apart or flaked" after 3 or 4 years. Prior to videotape recording, some programs were also archived on film, by shooting a Specially-Synchronized TV Monitor with a Film Camera. This method was also quite expensive and not used for local programming. It's sad, but there are no recordings from many old local TV shows. I too would love to see Magic Tom, Johnny Jellybean, BA Musical showcase, Carte Blanche and many of those memorable shows of the time. Too bad, but they're only memories now. Dan Kowal, |
Editor's note: It turns out that Carol Ann Higgins worked with Dan Kowal's wife over 25 years ago and over time they lost track of each other. Kowal says that thanks to TV Hat, the two women are now communicating again and that's a good thing. Yes it is a small world.
WMTW - various commentsReceived Mar 26., 2005. Posted April 10. Updated editor's note/response May 1st. "Under WMTW's agreement with the FCC, channel 8 should've built and powered up relay transmitters in Colebrook, NH... White River Jct., VT... and over in the Carrabasset Valley of Maine in order for them to bring down WMTW from the mountain. It's been 2 years and from what I can tell the White River Jct translator has yet to be built." ... "Until WMTW-TV either turns those relay transmitters on (I'd argue they need much more than what they agreed to.) or moves their analog transmitter back on up on the mountain, they are indeed in violation of their license."Interesting. I was about to type a note to the effect that the FCC does not mandate that translators be built before a station can move its transmitter - that it is only required to provide a signal across its "city of license", in this case Poland Spring, Maine. But I decided to look at WMTW's application on the FCC website. And was rather surprised to learn they have, in fact, been required to build translators. According to (svartifoss2.fcc.gov...) (WMTW's application for a permanent license to cover their permit to leave Mt. Washington) "Under the terms of the Permit, WMTW-LLC is to "apply for and provide television translator service to the white area and ABC loss areas" that might result from the modifications to the Station's facilities that are authorized by the Permit." (a "white area" is an area which is predicted to receive no over-the-air TV service. Foreign stations don't count, so an area in the U.S. that only receives Canadian stations is considered a "white area".) I can't say I recall any other station having this kind of requirement attached to its permit. Then again, it's also been a long time since a station has made such a major change in transmitter site, without leaving at least one other station at or near their old site. Anyway, WMTW's application for a "license to cover" also states that WMTW has "...acted diligently and devoted significant resources in furtherance of this condition." They indicate that they have filed applications for the required translators, but "All three applications remain pending. Two of the translators - which are to be assigned to Colebrook, New Hampshire and White River Junction, Vermont, respectively - await Canadian concurrence. The third - to be assigned to Carrabbassett, Maine - awaits auction, as the application is mutually exclusive with several other translator applications. (WMTW-LLC attempted to develop a technical solution to resolve the conflict with the other applications, but such a modification proved impossible without a major amendment, which is not permitted under the Commission's processing rules.)" It would appear the FCC has accepted WMTW's explanation, as the application has been granted and WMTW has a permanent license for its operation from the new site. "When the mandated translator for WMTW is built in White River Jct (a section of Hartford, VT) that town will basically have their ABC and NBC signals coming from the same company if the sale goes through. That is against the law." Multiple-ownership regulations in the U.S. are based on the coverage areas of the primary transmitters. Translators are not considered. In my hometown of Milwaukee, Weigel Broadcasting for years owned a translator of their WCIU-26 Chicago. They were not required to divest this translator when they acquired full-power WDJT-58. There are numerous other examples. From (TV Hat Feedback): "Mr. Martin has also said that they will have problems since they will have to change channel again after the transition since channel 53 is in the 51-69 area that the FCC wants to remove. The problem is that the spectrum is so crowded that it's almost impossible to get another allocation (2-6 are also to be eliminated)." Channels 2-6 are *not* to be eliminated. At least not in theory. The FCC considers "core spectrum" to be channels 2-51; the current plan is for all 49 of these channels (channel 37 remains unavailable) to continue to be available for TV. That said, there have been some well-publicized problems with digital operation on channels 2-6. WBBM in Chicago drew channel 3 and has had severe problems with impulse noise. Stations were required last month to specify which channel they intend to use for their permanent DTV operation; WBBM negotiated an agreement with WTTW (channel 11) to take over their channel 11 assignment when WTTW moves to digital channel 47. In New York City, WCBS's analog channel is 2, but their digital is 56 which is outside core. They can't keep 56. Rather than accept a permanent digital operation on channel 2, WCBS has chosen to wait for a later round of channel elections and take over a better channel abandoned by some other NYC-area station.
Doug Smith W9WI |
Updated editor's note (May 1st, 2005): Regarding the comment about channels 2 to 6 for DTV use, I've received an email response from Francis which reads as follows, "[Doug Smith] is correct that they are still considered in-core, but in an area like Burlington-Montreal where channels 2 and 6 cause so much interference, it is highly unlikely that anyone would want those allocations for DTV."
CJOH (Received Nov. 23 2004, Posted Dec. 3)I have found your site very interesting and enjoy checking for your frequent updates. For the 1988 shot of the Sportsline promo on CJOH, is that the late sportscaster Brian Smith? I wouldn't mind hearing audio versions of the CJOH promos and movie bumper from 1988. Jay |
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I don't know who the sportscaster is. If someone out there does, please send me an email. Hopefully I'll get some audio versions of those promos on the net eventually.
Oh! And I want to thank-you for your compliment about the frequent updates... Although it does seem kind of ironic that it took me a couple weeks to get around to it.
Enjoyed the site (Received Nov. 9 2004, Posted Dec. 3)I enjoyed your site on Montreal/Champlain Valley TV. I found it rather informative and interesting at the same time. Jason Bullett |
I'm glad you enjoyed the site. Thank-you.
CBC applies for digital licences for Montreal!It has just been announced on July 7th and the hearing will be on September 7th. CRTC info Originally, CBC was assigned channel 61* for CBMT and channel 64 for CBFT. The applications show CBMT requesting channel 20 and CBFT channel 19. Channel 20 was an unassigned Montreal reservation so I can understand it being requested by CBC. However, channel 19 was assigned to Sherbrooke for digital and an analog reservation still remains on channel 19 in Sorel, both would face severe interference from a Montreal DT operation on this channel. Obviously channel 19 would never be used in Sorel since no stations are needed there but for Sherbrooke... I'm not too sure if Industry Canada will allow this to go through. If it does, it will be funny to see three Montreal stations lined up together (CBFT-19, CBMT-20, CFCF-21). Anyhow, what happened with WFFF's transmitter for it to be so awful for the past couple of weeks? I was finding it weird to have Fox 44 come in with a signal strength about equivalent to PAX-27. I was on lake Champlain just south of St. Albans last week and noticed PAX being clearer than Fox there. That's when it was clear to me it was a station issue... Thanks and keep up the great site. *Editor's note: The HDTV channel numbers reffered to in the email are Industry Canada allotments. The CRTC applications for Montreal so far include CBFT-DT 19, CBMT-DT 20 and CFJP-DT 42. |
Ball four (Received May 25, Updated May 31)Hi, great site. Love those retro posters. With our local English newspapers and radio stations covering local TV so incompetently, it's good to have a source that's in the know. Last night I noticed that TBS had a ball game featuring Braves vs. Expos. Because the game was in Montreal, it was blacked out. I can't remember a superstation's broadcast being blacked out in the past. Normally, only the Blue Jays would be blacked out with the Expos playing in Montreal. Does this mean that if WGN or WPIX shows a Cubs or Mets game from Montreal, those games will also be blacked out? Our kindly friends at Videotron should know sports fans are not paying to see CNN Headline News on channel 141 and 115 as was the case last night. That being said, thanks for keeping us local folk informed. |
I watched the Expos play the Mets on WPIX a month ago and there was no blackout. But then again, those games were in San Juan.
Local games can be blacked out in order to convince people to come out to the game. But blackouts are determined primarily according to who has the rights to broadcast a given game in a given area. They are defined by the leagues and are applied even when the Expos don't have a local broadcaster. So it seems as though they can blackout any local game that comes from the opposing market's local station.
BTW: It's not Videotron's fault if the games are blacked out. The rules apply to all North American markets where there is an MLB team and also apply to satellite TV viewers.
Update: Here a link regarding TV blackouts. It's actually for DIRECTV subscribers but the information is relevant for Canadian viewers as well. Link courtesy of Randi A. Dertzo.
City-TV/New Net (Apr. 23, 2004)Hello, I am a new visitor to your site, and I want to tell you to keep up the good work. I am also a subscriber to Videotron's Illico TV service. I was wondering why CHUM Ltd., doesn't have a local TV station in Quebec, like a City-TV or a New Network. I watched a bit of City-TV and it was o.k., it had good movies, and I liked the news, but I would watch a channel like that more if there were a station in Montreal so there could be local news programs. In comparative size, Montreal's anglophone TV market is what 400,000 people? Victoria, BC has about 200,000 and it has an independent TV station. I was just wondering why there is no CHUM local station in Quebec, because right now there are only TV stations that are part of Networks. CHUM&NewNets have similar programming to what I heard is on UPN and WB, two stations that are difficult to receive in Montreal. Oh well, I guess until we get an independent TV station I will have to watch Toronto news. Sincerely, |
Interestingly, this is actually the second email I received on this subject since CHUM bought the Craig group.
The short answer to your question: CHUM isn't really interested in Quebec right now.
The long answer: CHUM's strategy is based on the idea that it is easier to build a media empire by focusing on one part of the country first (in this case Ontario) and then slowly move on to other provinces (B.C. and now the prairies) This meant that CHUM had to get rid of some of their other properties along the way. You may recall that they got a hold of the New Net stations (the New VR, New RO, etc...) in Ontario by trading away ATV in the Maritimes. Also Citytv Vancouver and the New VI Victoria started up at about the same time they were selling off CHOM-FM in Montreal.
But the good news is that CHUM will eventually run out of TV stations to purchase in the west and then they will likely try to start something up in the east, probably here in Montreal. But don't expect it to happen tomorrow.
BTW: I like the point you raised about the comparative size of Montreal's anglophone market of 400,000 people versus Victoria's 200,000 (although I feel I should add a disclaimer mentioning that the New VI can also easily be seen in Vancouver). There is definitely some politics involved with getting an English station license in Quebec, more than what you would normally find in a CRTC application.
WBVT relay station 52 is out again from what I can see! (Received Apr. 13, Posted Apr. 18)Hi, I'm happy that you try to keep us in touch about the only UPN station that broadcast all the way north of the US/Canadian border. I live in a small village along the Richelieu river called Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu, about 15 minutes from Lacolle and the US Border. We get the UPN 39 signal from the relay station 52 UHF. And like you stated, I'm surprised to see again the "Alarm mode" displayed on channel 52. Again I'm missing my favorite show Star Trek Enterprise. Each time I'm about to see the shows that I've missed the relay station is down. Maybe all the fan base of UPN 39 should ask that the programming from UPN be moved to the WFFF Fox 44 station. They have a WB hour. Maybe they could have a UPN hour. If I recall they did in the pass broadcast Star Trek Voyager at midnight. Well try to keep us informed about the WBVT saga. Maybe one day we will have an uninterrupted broadcast from UPN. Hey that would make the UPN fan base in our region very happy. Maybe some one in the Vermont state and the NY State and from Quebec should propose the idea to WFFF Fox 44 to add a UPN hour. Please give us a miracle. Sincerely yours, Noel Richard |
Speaking of WBVT, you may have noticed that some of its technical problems related to the purchase by Equity Broadcasting are not all that different than the technical problems which had occurred just before we learned of the sale. That is simply because Equity actually took over control of the station before the sale was official.
BTW: Ever notice how people still call it the WB Hour, even though it is now a two-hour block?
And while we're still on WBVT and its technical problems, I also received the following email March 14:
|
WBVT is working very hard to replace WVNY as the TV joke of Lake Champlain. Anonymous |
Digital TV (Posted Mar. 18)Hi. I thought I could give you a little update on the status of DTV for Montreal's cross border stations. I spoke with WCFE's engineer last week and he informed me that they will begin broadcasting on channel 38 from Lyon Mountain between March 22-26!* This will be the first DTV station in the Montreal area (excluding the test transmitter on channel 64 on the CBC building). (I don't know if I will be able to pick up the signal since all I have right now is an amplified indoor antenna in St-Hubert. I'll soon be putting up my new outdoor one at my new house in Longueuil. I think I should still be able to know if something is up since my tuner takes more time to write "no signal" when a signal is there but coming in too weak.) As for the other stations in Burlington Plattsburgh, more delays have occurred. I spoke with Peter Martin last week about this. Originally, the delays were caused by environmentalists that didn't want the new towers going up on Mt. Mansfield because they would have an impact on the "scenic beauty". The issue finally got cleared up recently and construction was expected to begin this summer. Unfortunately, they cannot start yet because Industry Canada is holding back the applications of WFFF-43 and WETK-32! Some believe they have not been approved because these were the only two who didn't specify "directional antenna" in their applications. Mr. Martin has also said that they will have problems since they will have to change channel again after the transition since channel 53 is in the 51-69 area that the FCC wants to remove. The problem is that the spectrum is so crowded that it's almost impossible to get another allocation (2-6 are also to be eliminated). There are apparently a whole bunch of Industry Canada reservations that will never end up being used which are blocking requests for channel changes from U.S. broadcasters. Even though the currently approved stations will have directional antennas, they should still be able to reach Montreal, thanks to the flat terrain from the border to here. A WVNY engineer told me a few months ago that even though they will have to suppress their signal towards Trois-Rivieres (because of channel 13), their antenna pattern is designed to reach Montreal (although it won't be as strong as their blazing channel 22 analog signal that comes in the clearest for me). Since all stations will be using the same tower and facilities on Mt. Mansfield, construction cannot begin until all of them have been approved. WCAX's Mr. Martin told me the earliest they can be up is summer 2006! D'oh! I was expecting testing in late 2004 or at least in 2005 :( I also spoke with an engineer at WPTZ. He said that the May 2004 target mentioned on antennaweb.org and TitanTV for broadcasting DTV from Mt. Terry is false. They still plan on being on Mt. Mansfield with all the others, meaning not before summer 2006. Also, TQS told me that they have a target of late 2005 for channel 42 Montreal. On the antenna issue that someone else mentioned, I wanted to future-proof myself and I bought the biggest one available from Radio Shack: the Techcessories 15-8227. It's 16 feet long and has a range of 340km for VHF and 220km for UHF. I'm anxious to have it put up. The price is $200 but it was on sale the past few weeks for only $120, which was when I bought it. I'll try to get a used tower from someone who isn't using theirs. With that I should have no problem picking up the digitals. Thanks for all the other info and keep up the great site! |
Thanks for the additional info. Let us know how that new antenna works out.
BTW: VPT is currently airing a digital signal on channel 24, from Mt. Ascutney near Windsor, which can be seen in southeastern Vermont and bordering areas of New Hampshire. Unfortunately, that is in the opposite corner of Vermont, away from Montreal.
*Note: the March 22-26 broadcasts are a test and this doesn't necessarily mean that they will be on the air from then on.
USA TV Stations (Posted Mar. 13)Hi. I just found your TV Hat page and found it very informative. Some things I already knew of while others were news to me. I appreciate that someone has the same interest that I do about different stations in our area. You also seem to be irritated about sometimes not being able to get stations from across the border. Which brings me to my questions. I have had Star Choice for about a year and a half. Love having all new channels and shows that I couldn't watch before. However, as you know, satellite systems rarely carry your local US network stations. I've been using a rather lousy "flying saucer" type of antenna to get those Plattsburgh and Burlington stations but have recently given up on my so-called antenna. What I would like to know is which kind of rooftop antenna should I be looking for? I am not too familiar with terms like decibel gain or what the range really means. Does it have to have a range all the way to the tower itself or just enough range to get into the general area? I have a chance to purchase a "real" rooftop antenna for a very low price but it's range is 60 miles VHF and 35 UHF. Somehow I don't think this would work as I live in the north end of the city. In addition, with the new dtv signals on the way would this type of antenna be capable of picking up these signals at all? Is it even worth it to get one? Even if I can't get all of them Fox 44 is a MUST. I'm a huge football fan as is my father. As as you may or may not know, Fox 44 doesn't always air the same games that the gazillion global stations I get nor the two Fox affiliates from Detroit and Seattle. So having said all of this, what is your opinion? Any recommendations or at least a short list as to what I need to look for? I would love to hear anything you have to say and will definitely be revisiting your site. Great work. very informative as I said earlier. Thank you for you time, Chris |
Ironically while I may know a lot about TV, I know very little about outdoor antennas. It's a curse that can blamed on me living in apartment buildings my entire life.
However, I will refer you to the UHF TV Resources page on the Vermont Public Television web site which probably tells you everything you need to know.
If Fox 44 is a must then you're in luck. Fox 44 is often the easiest one to pick up.
If you're annoyed by satellite companies who don't carry your favourite local channels, then I suggest writing to them. Public demand can be a key factor in what they decide to carry.
Star Choice Communications
Attn: Programming Request
2924 11th Street, NE
Calgary, AB
T2E 7L7
Bell ExpressVu
Attn: Correspondence
100 Wynford Drive, Suite 300
Toronto, ON
M3C 4B4
info@expressvu.com
While I have watched many of the nearby local US channels in Montreal, without cable, at some point (including the low power WWBI and WBVT stations, believe it or not), part of that mainly has to do with the luck of living in areas with great reception. In the case of WBVT, it is only because I once brought a battery-powered portable TV (with an ordinary antenna) to the look-out on top of Mount-Royal just to see what I could get. WBVT came in perfectly clear.
CBC in HDTV (Received Feb. 1, Posted Feb. 21)Hello, I found your website extremely interesting. Congratulations. Do you know whether the CBC French and English networks have any project for HDTV ? In my opinion, it is unacceptable that our public broadcaster is behind everybody else when it comes to HDTV. Please keep me posted. Regards, Guy Bertrand* |
*Not Guy Bertrand the lawyer but rather the linguistic consultant for CBC French Radio
The CBC is taking steps to convert to HDTV, albeit slowly. The CBC has already televised at least one sporting event, that I know of, in HDTV, although the signal was not available over-the-air. The Nov 22nd broadcast of the outdoor alumni hockey game in Edmonton was available in HDTV TV to Videotron and satellite TV subscribers. (Note: The recent NHL All-Star Game was also seen in HDTV)
Also CBC TV does have an application for an HDTV license in Toronto, which I know doesn't really help us here in Montreal, but I bring it up anyway just to let you know that the CBC isn't really that far behind.
On the other hand, where the CBC is behind (about 20 years in fact), is in the conversion to Stereo. (The CBC is still a mono-only TV network and will finally be in stereo when they make the conversion to HDTV)
Citytv Toronto is the only over-the-air HDTV station in Canada right now.
I hope that answers your question.
For more info on Canadian HDTV, I recommend you check out: www.cdtv.ca
About those personal comments (Jan 5th 2004)I like your comments, if they weren't there the site would be kinda boring... it adds life to it. -Andros Di Morino |
The above email was, of course, a response to this one below.
Not certain about personal comments (Received Dec. 11, Posted Dec. 29)I have enjoyed perusing your site. You have an amazing wealth of information. I am not certain why you considered it necessary to add personal comments of opinions however. You may want to revisit that side of the page because it discourages individuals from taking the rest of it at face value. In fact, it almost encouraged me to dismiss this site altogether. Anecdotally, your beliefs are amusing and I enjoyed reading them, I just fear that an unqualified web reader will not be so "tuned in" (excuse the pun). Good luck, -Bernard |
Do you agree or disagree? tvhatton@yahoo.ca
WB on extended basic cable (Posted May 22, 2003)Just wanted to let you know that Montreal is not the first market in Canada to receive the WB on extended basic cable. Windsor, Ontario and many surrounding cities (Leamington, Sarnia) have WDWB from Detroit. The station was formally an independent station and has been available on cablesystems in these areas since its existence. ... Kind Regards, Sean |
Yes, I had a funny feeling someone might bring up the Windsor situation. I was aware that the WB had already been available in Windsor and surrounding cities before WFFF's WB agreement. But let's be honest, Windsor is an exceptional case. It is technically a suburb of Detroit and considered part of that American market. If you want to watch the WB in Windsor, you don't need to have cable or even a decent antenna. All you really need is a TV. Windsor notwithstanding, Montreal is the first major market in Canada to receive a WB affiliate on extended basic cable.
Sim-subs completely foreign (Posted May 22, 2003)Cool web site! I was just up in Montreal and, I must say, I found the TV landscape interesting. Although I stayed at a hotel, the line-up they carried (which was a portion of the local cable line-up) was impressive. As for what was stated on your site (regarding simulcast-substitution): you are absolutely correct. I saw it first-hand while watching the channel carrying CBS. It went from Global to CTV within a two-hour period in prime-time. It's completely foreign to this American *lol*. Thankfully, I ran into your site. Thanks for the info. Keep up the good work. Jay Rodriguez |
It's still completely foreign to many Canadians as well. Thanks and I hope you enjoyed your stay in Montreal.
