We would like to thank the following suppliers for their prompt response. It was essential to have budgetary prices for this study and we wish to thank them for allowing us to publicly disclose this information.

NOVANET - MSC

SBRF

R&S

LARCAN

TELESAT

ACURA TECHNOLOGY GROUP

Special thanks to the following friends and colleagues from the broadcast industry for their time and expertise:

Johanne Lebuis, Eric Pefau, Jim Adamson, Howard Tulloch, Jacques Létourneau, Normand Hubert and Michel Portugais.

Merci!

2. Executive Summary

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) has announced that, on August 31st 2011, the Over-the-Air (OTA) television stations must cease analog (NTSC) transmission. The Digital Television (DTV) post transition plan has been negotiated between Industry Canada (IC) and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and this plan was publicly released on December 23rd, 2008.

The purpose of this document is to provide budgetary estimates for the conversion of analog OTA television stations to DTV for the Canadian market. The basic assumption underlying the estimates is the duplication of the current analog service contour, while remaining limited to the maximum technical parameters in the DTV post transition plan in all cases (see section 4 and 5 for details). Three studies were commissioned:

Study 1 - Complete Service Replication¹ provides the most realistic DTV duplication of the analog service, which better accounts for the digital cliff effect and the current state of digital reception equipment.

Study 2 - Limited Service Replication² reproduces the analog service using the method proposed by Industry Canada and the FCC. This approach may result in a loss of coverage for households that were able to receive analog service, especially in the fringe area (limits of the coverage).

The above 2 studies assume that broadcasters implement DTV facilities on the channel identified in the DTV post transition plan.

Study 3 - Practical Service Replication is identical to Study 2, but assumes that all stations in markets where the population is less than 300,000 will re-use the same channel as the analog station in order to reduce costs. This represents mainly VHF stations (TV channels 2 to 13).

With regards to the estimates, it must be understood that all quotations provided by the different manufacturers used in these studies are budgetary estimates based upon the list price of their products. Product prices were based upon prevailing Canadian to US dollar exchange rate and as such may vary over time. Also, additional Supplier discounts at time of purchase are likely to reduce the final equipment cost.

Estimates assume a complete rebuild of transmitter and broadcast equipment (no retrofits were considered), regardless as to whether transitional DTV facilities have been constructed. When a station however, was using the same DTV channel as the NTSC channel, the antenna and transmission line were considered reusable. Cost for the provision of test equipment is not included in the summary table but is included as optional in individual budgetary estimates provided in the report Reference Data for DTV Costs Analysis³. Costs also include the engineering brief, factory compliance tests for antennas and for coverage measurements after implementation.

For all stations in markets where the population exceeded 300,000+, contour calculations were performed systematically⁴ to best match the existing analog service contour, according to each study case. Estimates for stations serving population less than 300 000 were based on typical scenarios based on the class of the stations.

The costs are broken down into the following station sub-categories:

Transmitters	Number of stations	Total cost for Study1	Total cost for Study 2	Total cost for Study 3
Serving populations greater than 300,000	95	$76,986,076	$65,228,574	$65,228,574
Serving populations lower than 300,000, with local programming	257	$139,174,668	$125,172,525	$48,800,844
Serving population lower than 300,000, without local programming	386	$208,762,002	$187,758,788	$73,200,665
Grand Total⁵	738	$424,922,746	$378,160,088	$187,229,883

Table 1 - Summary Cost for the DTV Conversion for Canada

The following table highlights the costs variations per frequency band:

Cost per Implementation	VHF	UHF
Cheapest	$209,231	$203,606
Median	$386,885	$302,455
Average	$246,718	$1,033,954
Maximum	$1,371,825	$4,327,838

Table 2 - Costs Variations per Frequency Band for study 2

3. Introduction

The objective of these studies is to provide a budgetary estimate to convert all OTA stations in Canada. The studies do not evaluate in detail, all different possible scenarios, but rather provide reasonable cost estimation within each defined category. The main focus of the preliminary studies is to initiate discussion regarding the DTV conversion within the broadcaster industry. Given the limited time to complete the studies, it was impossible to do an exhaustive analysis for each particular site. It is a known fact that each case is different, but in these studies, the approach was based on the most common scenarios.

In the NTSC database from IC (as of December 31^st, 2008), there are 738 protected analog stations and 1291 Low Power (LP) analog television transmitters. As of July 2008 in Canada, only 28 DTV transitional transmitters had been licensed. Based on these numbers, the CRTC has decided to retain the services of an independent broadcast engineering consulting firm (YRH/Spectrum Expert) to conduct a financial and technical analysis for the DTV conversion of all analog OTA stations in Canada.

Three (3) different studies were evaluated in this document. The first study provides realistic DTV coverage duplication of the analog service, which better accounts for the digital cliff effect and the current state of digital reception equipment (using F(90,90) model). The second study reproduces the analog service using the method proposed by Industry Canada and the FCC (using F(50,90) model). This approach will result in a loss of coverage for households that were able to receive analog service, especially in the fringe area (limits of the coverage). The above studies assume that broadcasters implement DTV facilities on the channel identified in the DTV post transition plan. The final study is identical to Study 2, but in order to reduce cost, assumes that all stations in markets where the population is less than 300,000 will re-use the same channel as the analog station in order to reduce costs. No evaluation of the spectrum availability of the channels considered in study 3 has been performed.

Most of the stations are VHF (TV channels 2 to 13). It represents 117 VHF stations.

Each study is based on the same five (5) scenarios. The first part of the document will be devoted to the presentation and description of the studies and scenarios, including our assumptions and exclusions. The second part we will present our methodology of calculation and evaluation of the NTSC and ATSC parameters. Thirdly, a technical description of the scenarios is presented, explaining all components selected to build the new DTV stations.

After the basic parameters will be defined, budgetary estimates are evaluated for each scenario. The detailed (individual) budgetary estimates are based on the document Reference Data for DTV Costs analysis, provided on the Spectrum Expert web site (www.spectrumexpert.ca), which could help most broadcasters with their specific needs. Because most of the broadcasters are still in the planning phase of the conversion to DTV, it is unknown at this time what type of program feed the stations will be using. Therefore a separate estimate is provided to install a satellite dish. This price is an average between the southern installation and the northern installation. Also, a separate budgetary estimate for off-air equipment and digital microwave is provided.

Additionally, a budgetary estimate is provided to retrofit NTSC transmitters in section 8.

As well as the budgetary estimates for the conversion to DTV for the above stated scenarios, a table representing the different power consumption of the new DTV transmitters, compared to the NTSC transmitters for an equivalent coverage, is provided.

A table representing the expected depreciation of the ATSC equipment is also presented in comparison to the NTSC equipment

Finally, a strategy is presented for a conversion of a typical station. This provides the time scale to be considered for the conversion to DTV.

4. Description of the scope of work

4.1 Studies Definition

Three (3) different studies are presented in this document. Each study is based on the same scenarios but the conversion parameters, and hence the costs differ.

Study 1 - Complete Service Replication: The first study is based on a complete service replication to provide the most realistic DTV coverage duplication of the analog service. This better accounts for the digital cliff effect and the current state of digital reception equipment. It is based on the propagation model F(90,90).

Study 2 - Limited Service Replication: The second study is based on a limited service replication to reproduce the analog service using the method proposed by Industry Canada and the FCC. This approach will result in a loss of service for households that were able to receive analog service, especially in the fringe area (limits of the coverage). It is based on the propagation model F(50,90).

The above 2 studies assume that broadcasters implement DTV facilities on the channel identified in the DTV post transition plan.

Study 3 - Practical Service Replication: The third study is identical to Study 2, but assumes that all stations in markets where the population is less than 300,000 will re-use the same channel as the analog station in order to reduce costs. This lowers the cost of conversion to DTV for those stations. It is also based on the propagation model F(50,90).

4.2 Scenarios Definition

The following is a general description of scenarios selected for the studies:

A. Transmitter category serving a population greater than 300,000 people

Conversion of all the stations in the Canadian markets serving populations greater than 300,000. The following list was sorted from 2006 Canada Census : Toronto (Mississauga, St-Catharines-Niagara), Montréal, Vancouver (Surrey), Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary, Edmonton, Québec city (Lévis), Winnipeg, Hamilton (Burlington), London, Kitchener (Cambridge, Waterloo), Halifax, Oshawa (Whitby, Clarington), Victoria,(Saanich), Windsor. In this scenario, budgetary estimates will be provided for each NTSC station. Two categories can be identified: A site that remains on the same channel after conversion to DTV and a site that will have a different channel in DTV.

B. Transmitter category other than category A with local programming(i.e. less than 300,000 people)

Conversion of all stations in small and medium markets where broadcasters are producing local programming. This is considering all other stations that are not covered in scenario A, with the exception of Low Power (LP) stations, with local programming.

C. Transmitter category other than category A without local programming

Conversion of all stations in small and medium markets where broadcasters are not producing local programming. This is considering all other stations that are not covered in scenario A, with the exception of Low Power (LP) stations, without local programming.

For sites that will continue to operate on the same channel after post-transition in scenarios B and C, a summary table in section 11 will presents the number of transmitters per category (ATSC transmitter power) multiplied by the cost estimate for this category. For sites that will operate on a different channel after post-transition period, a budgetary estimate was done according to the specific parameters of each station.

D. Typical Low Power transmitter site operating on the same channel in DTV

Conversion of a typical LP station operating on the same channel in DTV

E. Typical Low Power transmitter site operating on a different channel in DTV

Conversion of a typical LP station operating on a different channel in DTV. The cost provided will be for a station that will change from VHF to UHF, resulting in a complete new transmission system design (not re-using existing transmission equipment).

4.3 Assumptions and Exclusions

In order to derive more than 700 budgetary estimates in a short period of time, assumptions have to be made. Therefore, basic information was assumed and resulted in calculated parameters which may be different from the real operating parameters of the station. For example, the IC database does not provide the transmitter power, nor the antenna system gain. Those have to be calculated based on commonly known engineering design constraints. For this reason, antenna gains and transmitter power might differ from the real implementation, but the final ERP values will be the same.

It is also understood that some calculations will not be realistic (some higher, some lower) but the overall results should be accurate within 25% (budgetary estimate level of accuracy).

4.3.1 General Basic Assumption and Exclusions

The general assumptions in this section can be applied to the whole studies. These assumptions should be considered as guidelines in order to limit the scope of the studies. Following is a list of the basic general assumptions:

This document is only considering the scenarios where broadcasters are switching directly to post-transition parameters. There is no consideration of re-using equipment purchased for the transitional DTV plan.
The stated costs are budgetary estimates with a variance of ±25%.
This document covers the portion of the signal from the output of the studio to the transmitter. No cost associated with digital studio conversion is considered.
All prices in the budgetary estimates are based on actual budgetary quotes received by manufacturers and are included for reference in annex C of document entitled Reference Data for DTV Cost Analysis located on Spectrum Expert web site (www.spectrumexpert.ca).
It is unknown what type of program feed the stations will be using. Therefore, a separate budgetary estimate is provided for the provision and installation of a satellite dish. This price will be an average between the southern installation and the northern installation. Also, a separate budgetary estimate for off-air equipment and Studio-to-Transmitter Link (STL) is provided. Budgetary estimated can be found in annex B of document entitled Reference Data for DTV Cost Analysis located on Spectrum Expert web site.
All stations will remain at their existing transmission facilities using present average EHAAT parameters. There will be no cost associated for new land and/or building for the new DTV service. Therefore, it is assumed that there is enough space available for the installation of the new DTV service.
Tower strengthening and tower upgrades to meet CSA S37-01 ANTENNAS, TOWERS and ANTENNA-SUPPORTING STRUCTURES codes are not considered in the estimates. No cost has been allocated to upgrade towers to meet the code or for antenna installation. Therefore, an additional amount must be considered to our budgetary estimate when a new antenna is installed.
No cost associated with the analogue equipment being replaced before the end of its normal replacement cycle, due to the conversion to DTV, will be considered.
No cost associated to the depreciation related to existing DTV stations will be considered.
No cost associated to the depreciation related to the need to change channel of operation will be considered.
All start-up expenses and labour will be considered within each budgetary estimate.
The grade B coverage of existing NTSC stations will be replicated based on the three (3) different studies' approach. Systematic coverage analysis to find the ATSC replication parameters will be done only for the major markets (300,000+). See section 5 for details.
No frequency coordination has been verified from the IC DTV database for the study 1 and 2. For study 3 (stations in market less than 300,000 re-using the same channel as the analog channel), no verification on the spectrum availability of the channels selected has been performed.
No retrofit of any NTSC transmitter to DTV will be considered in this estimate report. Without knowing the details of the transmitter, a cost cannot be provided due to the risk of drastically underestimating the cost of conversion to DTV. Only a separate budgetary cost will be provided in section 8.

4.3.2 Assumptions Related to Specific Scenarios

A) Transmitter category serving population greater than 300,000

In this section, specific sites were selected based on the 2006 census. The following are the assumptions for this scenario:

In this scenario, we assume that 4 sites out of 5 are fed via a Studio-to-Transmitter Link. This link will have to be converted to digital. The remaining sites will be considered as using landline distribution. The costs for landline distribution will not be evaluated in this study.
Transmitter and monitoring equipment will be installed in parallel with the existing NTSC equipment to avoid disruption of service. Therefore, a budget provision for the electrical, mechanical and architectural modifications to the building will be considered. The on-site installation time will be higher due to the complexity of providing co-location of services.

B) Transmitter category other than section A with local programming

As explained earlier, categories B and C represent all the stations that service less than 300,000 people (excluding Low Power transmitters) and where local programming is being produced. The following are the assumptions for this category:

2 sites out of 5 are fed via a Studio-to-Transmitter Link (STL). This link will have to be converted to digital. All other sites will be considered as using landline distribution. The costs for landline distribution will not be evaluated in this study.
Transmitter and monitoring equipment will be installed in parallel with the existing NTSC equipment to avoid disruption of service. Therefore, a budget provision for the electrical, mechanical and architectural modifications to the building will be considered.
The scenario will present one budgetary estimate for each group of different transmitter power category (not station-specific) for stations that will operate on the same channel in DTV. Station-specific budgetary estimates will be provided for stations that will operate on a different channel in DTV.

C) Transmitter category other than category A without local programming

This section represents the same category as category B for sites where no local programming is being produced. The following are the assumptions for this category:

No STL is required in this configuration. All sites will be considered as using landline distribution. The costs for landline distribution will not be evaluated in this study.
Transmitter and monitoring equipment will be installed in parallel with the existing NTSC equipment to avoid disruption of service. Therefore, a budget provision for the electrical, mechanical and architectural modifications to the building will be considered.
This scenario will present one budgetary estimate for each group of different transmitter power category (not station-specific) for stations that will operate on the same channel in DTV. Station-specific budgetary estimates will be provided for stations that will operate on a different channel in DTV.

D) Typical Low Power transmitter sites operating on the same channel in DTV

Low Power stations would be allowed to continue broadcasting in NTSC after 2011, but will be considered a secondary allocation, as Industry Canada indicated. Therefore LP estimates are not as detailed as the previous categories. In this section, a budgetary estimate will be prepared for a typical low power transmitter site that will continue to operate on the same channel in DTV. The basic assumptions are as follows:

The distribution link that feeds the program to the station will not be considered in this estimate.
As explained in the 'General basic assumptions', a separate cost estimate will be provided for the installation of a satellite dish (and associated equipment) and another cost estimate for off-air reception. Appropriate scenarios can therefore be built with these estimates.
NTSC transmitter and monitoring equipment will be removed from their existing location and then the ATSC equipment will be installed. Due to the small dimension of LPTV building, it is preferable and less expensive to proceed this way. A disruption of service is anticipated. A small budgetary provision for electrical, mechanical and architectural modifications to the building will be considered.
A higher budgetary provision for the installation will be considered for this scenario due to the greater distance of the LPTV sites from major centers, and the mobilisation and the mobilization of demobilization of specialized workers.

E. Typical Low Power transmitter sites operating on a different channel in DTV

In this section, a cost estimate will be prepared for a typical low power transmitter site that will operate on a different channel in DTV. The assumptions are identical as those presented for the category D stations.

4.3.3 Source of information

The information for the NTSC stations was taken from the latest Industry Canada database released on December 31^st, 2008. The information on the DTV channel allocation was derived from the DTV allotment plan released on December 23^rd, 2008.

Budgetary prices used in the cost estimates are based upon recent official quotes from various suppliers and manufacturers. The quotes can be found in Annex C of document entitled Reference data for DTV costs analysis located on Spectrum Expert web site (www.spectrumexpert.ca).

5. Methodology and calculation

In order to evaluate the cost of the DTV implementation, one of the most critical components is the transmitter power. Unfortunately, the NTSC and DTV databases from Industry Canada (IC) only provide the Effective Radiated Power (ERP). The ERP value alone does not provide any information regarding the transmitter power nor the antenna gain, which therefore had to be estimated.

It is important to remember that one of our basic assumptions is that the grade B contour of existing NTSC stations will be replicated by the DTV stations (based on each studies' parameters) as opposed to implementing the maximum parameters permitted in the IC database. So to evaluate the DTV transmitter parameters, we firstly had to derive the NTSC parameters.

It should also be noted that the NTSC parameters are derived using engineering best practices rules of implementation and therefore might differ from reality. As per example, the antenna gain selected in our report might not be able to be implemented in some situation where tower spacing is limited. But, in all cases, the resulting ERP will always be the same as in the IC database (balance between antenna gain, transmitter power and other losses).

5.1 NTSC Parameters Evaluation

For scenarios where the DTV channel is identical to the NTSC channel, we considered that the new DTV implementation will use the same NTSC antenna system and transmission line (see section 5.2). To find the antenna gain of each service, we derived it from the average ERP in the database using the following formula:

The three (3) unknowns in this formula are: the antenna gain, the system losses and the transmitter power. Thus, the system losses and the transmitter power had to be assumed, based on industry standard implementations.

First, the easiest variable to establish was the system loss. The losses are based on the transmission line and an additional loss factor to account for all losses due to interconnecting hardware. The distance of the radiation center of the antenna system is used to obtain the length of the transmission line plus an additional 15 meters to cover the average distance between the tower and the entrance of the transmitter building. A loss of 0.35dB was factored in for the interconnecting hardware.

Before evaluating the transmission line size in relation to the transmitter power, it was essential to determine the line capacity based on a VSWR worst case. The following formula was used to determine the derating factor of the transmission line based on a VSWR 1.5:1 for worst case operation:

This formula is used to calculate the derating factor based on the worst case value of the voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) and the F1 factor.

Where F1 can be found on the following graph:

This graph is used to derive the F1 factor which is necessary to determine the derating factor. The intersection between the operational frequency, expressed in Megahertz on the x axis, and the transmission line size, shown by multiple curves, is used to determine the F1 value, expressed as values between 0 and 1 on the y axis.

Figure 1 - Derating Factor vs Frequency due to VSWR (Average Power)

The following transmission lines were selected in our assumption⁶:

	Transmission Line Derated Average Power for
Tx line size (air)	TV Channel 2-6 (50MHz)	TV Channel 7-13 (200MHz)	TV Channel 14-69 (600MHz)
7/8'' (foam)	7.6 kW	4.5 kW	2.6 kW
1-5/8''	17.5 kW	10.1 kW	5.8 kW
3''	46.7 kW	25.4 kW	13.5 kW
4''	71.6 kW	39.3 kW	21.4 kW
5''	93 kW	51.8 kW	29 kW

Table 3 - Derating Factor for Average Transmitted Power Based on VSWR 1.5:1

After we have determined the maximum power permitted for each transmission line size, a transmitter power range was derived from an ERP range. This exercise was essential to assign a line size to each station while respecting the line capacity and it was done for each frequency band. Using these results, the transmission line losses were then calculated for all stations ⁷.

The following table represents the ERP range associated with an estimated transmitter power with the resulting associated transmission line size. The estimated transmitter power must respect the upper limit of the maximum capacity of the de-rated transmission line, while not over-estimating the line size. The following table highlights the assumptions that were made to best match each transmitter power with an adequate transmission line:

ERP(KW)	Tx Power(KW) Refer to line derating power	BAND	ANDREW MODEL	LINE TYPE	ATT.(dB/100m)
600+	30-60KW	UHF	HJ9HP-50	5'' HP	0,737
280-600	20-30KW	UHF	HJ9-50	5''	0,695
250-280	10-20KW	UHF	HJ11-50	4''	1,04
6-250	5-10KW	UHF	HJ8-50	3''	1,33
6-325	15-30KW	L-VHF	HJ8-50	3''	0,316
6-325	10-20KW	H-VHF	HJ8-50	3''	0,688
1-6	2-5KW	UHF	HJ7-50A	1-5/8''	1,73
1-6	5-15KW	L-VHF	HJ7-50A	1-5/8''	0,465
1-6	2-10KW	H-VHF	HJ7-50A	1-5/8''	0,958
0,01-1	0,01-2KW	UHF	LDF5-50A	7/8'' foam	3,1
0,01-1	0,01-5KW	L-VHF	LDF5-50A	7/8'' foam	0,833
0,01-1	0,01-2KW	H-VHF	LDF5-50A	7/8'' foam	1,72

Table 4 - Transmission Line Size Associated with Range of ERP

The line attenuation was calculated as described earlier, based on the attenuation from the manufacturer. For each frequency band, when the data was available, it was referenced to the attenuation for the middle of the band. For Low VHF, the attenuation selected was for 50MHz. For High VHF, the attenuation selected was as for 200MHz. For UHF, the attenuation selected was for 600MHz. The line was selected from Andrew's catalogue and the attenuations are shown on the following graph⁸:

This graph is used to derive the typical attenuation of a particular line type based on the frequency. The intersection between the frequency, expressed in Megahertz on the x axis, and the line type, shown by multiple curves, is used to determine the attenuation, expressed in dB per 100 feet on the y axis.

Figure 2 - Transmission Line Attenuation vs Frequency

To estimate the transmitter power, we considered the various transmitters available on the market⁹. The following table represents the NTSC transmitter powers that were considered for this study:

Transmitter model	Transmitter Power (W)	Transmitter model	Transmitter Power (W)
VHF BAND		UHF BAND
MX series	1	MX series	1
MX series	10	MX series	20
MX series	30	MX series	100
Meridian series	250	Meridian/MX series	1000
Meridian series	500	Meridian/MX series	2000
Meridian/ M series	1000	Meridian series	2500
Meridian series	2000	Meridian series	5000
M series	3000	Eclipse Series	10000
Meridian series	5000	Eclipse Series	15000
M series	6000	Eclipse Series	20000
M series	16000	Eclipse Series	30000
M series	22000	Landmark IOT	40000
M series	30000

Table 5 - Transmitter Power Available on the Market

The transmitter power selection is the result of an iteration based on the probable antenna gain for the site. If the antenna gain was found to be too high, we increased the transmitter power to the next likely power increment. We tried to maintain a good balance between the transmitter power and the antenna system. For example, we did not consider a 16 bay antenna for a low power transmitter site, nor a 2 bay for a high power site. To be as realistic and practical as possible, the center of radiation of the antenna system was used for the location of the antenna on the tower. When selecting an antenna, the overall dimension of the antenna system was considered and validated with the available antenna aperture on the tower. To evaluate the available antenna aperture, we simply subtracted the radiation center from the vertical height of the proposed antenna. If the proposed antenna height was fitting, we considered that an antenna as such could fit into the tower. For example, we would not select a 4-bay L-VHF antenna system knowing that the tower is 20 meter high and the antenna system itself is 23 meters. There was no consideration of any other antennas on the tower. The following tables show the antenna gains (per bands) that were considered:

UHF model K72 31 4.. Based on KATHREIN Antenna Design
Number of bays	Panels per bay**	Gain in dBd (referred to half wave dipole)
*1	4	6,3
*2	4	9,3
4	4	12,3
6	4	14,1
12	4	17,1
16	4	18,3
Approximation of gain, not in catalog *Equal power splitting

Table 6 - UHF Antenna Selection

High-VHF model K 52 33 5.. Based on KATHREIN Antenna Design
Number of bays	Panels per bay**	Gain in dBd (referred to half wave dipole)
1	4	6,1
2	4	8,9
4	4	11,8
6	4	13,5
8	4	14,7
*12	4	16,9
Approximation of gain, not in catalog *Equal power splitting NOTE: IF ERP avg is < 1KW and band is H-VHF then use antenna gain of 1,7dB Kathrein model K 52 34 5.; if <500 then use antenna gain of 0dB, Kathrein TVO; if <250 then use antenna gain of -3dB, Kathrein TVO;

Table 7 - High-VHF Antenna Selection

Low-VHF model K 52 31 8.. Based on KATHREIN Antenna Design
Number of bays	Panels per bay**	Gain in dBd (referred to half wave dipole)
1	4	2
2	4	5
4	4	8,1
6	4	9,9
8	4	11,1
*12	4	12,9
Approximation of gain, not in catalog *Equal power splitting NOTE: IF ERP avg is < 55W and band is L-VHF then use antenna gain of -3dB, Kathrein TVO; if <250 then use antenna gain of 0dB, Kathrein TVO;

Table 8 - Low-VHF Antenna Selection

Kathrein antennas were used as reference for the studies. We considered panel antennas for medium and high power sites, arrays from 1 bay to 12 bays in VHF and from 1 bay to 16 bays in UHF. For lower ERP stations in the VHF band, other models were used. For low VHF, the TVO antenna was selected. For stations with ERP between 55W and 250W, the Kathrein TVO 2 bay antenna with a gain of 0dB was used and for ERP lower than 55W, the 1 bay TVO antenna with a gain of -3dB was used. For High VHF, when stations' ERP were between 500W and 1KW, the Kathrein antenna model K52 34 5. with a gain of 1,7dB was used. For stations with ERP between 250W and 500W, the TVO 2 bay antenna with a gain of 0dB was used and for stations lower than 55W, the TVO 1 bay with a gain of -3dB was used. The resulting NTSC parameter assumptions can be found in annex A.

5.2 Study 1 - ATSC Parameters Calculation (site staying on the same frequency)

For study 1, we evaluated the conversion of the analog coverage into DTV using the F(90,90) curves (see 5.6 for study ATSC Parameters). The selection of F(90,90) results from the experience gained from performing many off-air reception tests on consumer receivers. Empirical data demonstrated the difficulties of receiving a good ATSC signal associated with the F(50,90) contours under normal condition (receiving antenna at 9.1m). More information regarding this choice of parameters can also be found in the document Planning Factors for Fixed and Portable DTTV Reception¹⁰.

For scenarios where the DTV post transition channel was the same as the NTSC channel, we considered that the antenna system, transmission line and other equipment where the same as for the NTSC installation (or equivalent). Consequently, we used the antenna gain, cable losses and other losses computed using the methodology described in 5.1.

We used the following table (from Draft BPR 10 V2) to derive the equivalent DTV contours:

Channels	Defining field strength, dBu, to be predicted for 50% of locations, 90% of time
2 - 6	28
7 - 13	36
14 - 51	41 - 20 log[615/(channel mid-frequency in MHz)]

Table 9 - Field Strengths Defining Noise-limited Bounding Contours for Primary Assignments (DTV) F(50,90)

As mentioned in the introduction of this section, instead of using the F(50,90) for the targeted DTV contour, we used the same contour values (28, 36 and 41-log) but for F(90,90). We decided to take the prudent approach and applied the F(90,90).

For the NTSC equivalent, we used the following values:

Channels	Defining field strength, dBu, to be predicted for 50% of locations, 50% of time
2 - 6	47
7 - 13	56
14 - 51	64

Table 10 - Field Strengths Defining Noise-limited Bounding Contours for Primary Assignments (NTSC) F(50,50)

Also, since the difference in the statistics varies with the frequency band, EHAAT and the distance, we considered the following corrections:

Look-up EHAAT (90,90) -> (50,50)
Class/ EHAAT	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	450	500	550	600	650	700	750	800	850	900	950	1000
UHF A	8.3	8.1	8	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.8	7.8	7.7	7.7	7.7	7.6	7.7	7.7	7.7	7.7	7.7	7.7
UHF B	11.9	10.4	10.1	9.9	9.8	9.7	9.7	9.6	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.3	9.3	9.3	9.2	9.3	9.3	9.2	9.3	9.3
UHF C	18.3	16.1	15.1	14.3	13.8	13.4	12.9	12.6	12.2	12.1	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12
VHF L	15.7	14.1	13.2	11.3	11.3	11.3	11.2	11.1	12.4	12.4	12.3	12.3	12.1	12	11.9	11.9	12	11.9	12	12
VHF H	14.8	13	11.7	12.7	12.4	12.3	12.4	12.5	11	10.9	11.1	11.1	11.2	11.2	11.2	11.2	11.3	11.3	11.3	11.3

Table 11 - Differences Between F(90,90) and F(50,50)

Since we could not fully implement the F(90,90) and F(50,50) curves into our Excel database, we selected the three(3) classes for UHF (A, B and C extracted from the NTSC database) where the maximum distances of 25, 45 and 70 km were used. We used the maximum distances of 89 km and 82 km for the low and high VHF classes respectively. This approach provides more conservative values in terms of equivalent ERP required for the DTV channels.

Finally, for directional antenna sites, since we are considering the same parameters as for the NTSC sites (so the same antenna pattern), we simply calculated the peak-to-average ratio from the NTSC database (because the average ERP was not available in the DTV database).

So, in order to derive the ATSC transmitter power, we used the following formula:

For example, if we consider a class C UHF NTSC transmitter (of 21,500 W operating power) operating on channel 51, we computed the following:

NTSC TX Power: 10 * log (21500) = 43.32 dB

F(90,90) equivalence at EHAAT (for 286.50m) = 13.7 dB

NTSC Contour: 64 dB

ATSC Contour: 42.06 dB

ATSC Transmitter power = 43.32 + 13.7 - 64 + 42.06 = 35.08

ATSC Transmitter power = 3220 W

Once we evaluated the ATSC transmitter power, we recalculated the resulting ATSC ERP by considering the same antenna gain and system losses as for the NTSC system. If the total ATSC ERP was lower than the value specified in the Industry Canada DTV database, we used the newly found value for the study. If the ATSC ERP was greater than the Industry Canada database, we used the IC database value to derive the ATSC transmitter power (using again the NTSC antenna and cable parameters).

5.3 Study 1 - Systematic ATSC Parameters Calculation (different frequency site, 300,000+)

For sites where both the ATSC channel was different than the NTSC channel and the population was above 300,000, we calculated the ATSC parameters using real F(50,50) vs F(90,90) simulations. We simulated the NTSC actual parameters on a map and best matched it to the ATSC simulation (depending on the channel band used). For the ATSC simulations, we considered the same radiation center and antenna pattern associated with the NTSC parameters.

We used the same ATSC equivalent contours as defined in section 5.2. When the calculated equivalent ATSC parameters were above those specified in the IC DTV database, we selected the smallest parameters of the two values, either the calculated or the maximum IC DTV database.

Once the ATSC ERP was evaluated to ensure that the best match with the NTSC contour had been established, a manual interpretation of the best antenna system, depending on the target ERP power, was selected. The ATSC transmitter power was then calculated using this antenna system along with the probable cable and system losses associated with this maximum power were determined as well as the band to be used (as describe in section 5.1).

The ATSC parameters calculated in this study for the stations servicing 300,000 and more people can be found in Annex D.

5.4 Study 1 - ATSC Parameters Calculation (different frequency site, less than 300,000)

In order to derive the ATSC parameters for stations servicing less than 300,000 people using a different ATSC channel than their actual NTSC channel in Study 1, we considered the following:

Site staying in the same band: For low-VHF to low-VHF implementation and high-VHF to high-VHF implementation we found that the best approximation for the ATSC parameters was, firstly, to derive the operating NTSC parameters as explained in 5.1. Then, we considered that the ATSC propagation will be the same in the new band so we applied the same criteria as in 5.2 (Tables 9, 10 and 11). We used the same logic for the UHF sites, but we did not correct the ATSC contour value differences when moving across the band. After some cross-checking, we found that, on average, this approach was providing very close values (within 2 dB of error) which was leading to similar hardware implementation (so similar costs). So for the budget estimates, we considered that we would keep the antenna system for sites that will continue to operate in the same band (i.e. L-VHF to L-VHF, H-VHF to H-VHF and UHF to UHF).
Site with channel changing band: Since most modifications were a transition from VHF to UHF band, or vice versa, it was found that the maximum parameters from the IC database provided the closest duplication of the coverage, because most simulation required higher parameters and that we could not exceed the IC database parameters. So, even for sites moving from low-VHF to high-VHF, it was found that using the IC database values was the best approach. The antenna system/transmitter power ratios have been manually entered based on common knowledge of the target ERP value. The cost estimates are based on a new antenna, new line and new transmitter.

5.5 Studies 2 and 3 - ATSC Parameters Calculation (all Scenarios)

The processes to compute the ATSC parameters for Study 2 and 3 were exactly the same as for study 1, with the exception that the F(50,90) curves have been used instead of the F(90,90). This resulted in the modification of the table 10 for the following new table:

Look-up EHAAT (50,90) -> (50,50)
Class/ EHAAT	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	450	500	550	600	650	700	750	800	850	900	950	1000
UHF A	1.2	1	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6
UHF B	4.8	3.3	3	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2
UHF C	11.2	9	8	7.2	6.7	6.3	5.8	5.5	5.1	5	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9	4.9
VHF L	9.6	8	7.1	6.6	6.3	6.2	6.3	6.4	6.3	6.3	6.2	6.2	6	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.9	5.8	5.9	5.9
VHF H	8.7	6.9	5.6	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.1	5	4.9	4.8	5	5	5.1	5.1	5.1	5.1	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2

Table 12 - Differences between F(50,90) and F(50,50)

All other rules described in section 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 apply for the study 2. Note that in the cases where the calculated equivalent contours (in F(50,90)) were greater than the IC database, we used the IC database parameters.

Finally, for the sites that were changing band (mainly from VHF to UHF) and that the population was less than 300,000 people, we used directly the IC database parameters, as in study 1. This will consequently lead to the same budgetary estimates values.

The only difference between study 3 and study 2 is that for the sites that were changing band and for which the population was less than 300,000 people, we considered that the DTV implementation will stay on the same channel as the current NTSC channel. Consequently, we applied the same rules as in section 5.2, but using the F(50,90) curves from Table 12. This generally resulted in a substantial budgetary estimate cost reduction.

5.6 Differences in ATSC contours between studies 1 and 2

The following map (see Annex C for a more detailed version) demonstrates the difference between the Industry Canada NTSC official contour (thick black line), the calculated NTSC contour (dashed red line), the calculated ATSC contour F(90,90) for study 1 (blue line), the calculated ATSC contour F(50,90) for study 2 (pink line) and the ATSC maximum contour F(50,90) (green line), when we applied the case for study 1:

Figure 3 - Coverage Map Presenting the Differences between NTSC and ATSC Contours

As one can see, the calculated NTSC parameters provide us the exact same contour as the IC database contour (black vs dashed red contours). The parameters calculated for the ATSC transmitter power in study 1, provides us a good duplication of the ATSC contour (blue line). The difference on this simulation is about 1.4 dB. This error comes from the interpolation between the F(50,50) curves and the F(90,90) curves for different EHAAT and distances. When we counter-verified some examples, the calculated error was always below 2 dB (plus or minus). Since we could not manually calculate all 732 transmitters, we found that our approach was close enough to approximate a probable service duplication.

In this example, the difference between the F(50,90) and F(90,90) is about 7 dB. This means that for study 2 when we calculated the required ATSC parameters, based on the F(50,90) curves, the total ERP considered was 7 dB less than the one considered in study 1. This 7 dB reduction has been balanced between the antenna gain and transmitter power, based on accepted engineering practices.

Finally, the maximum parameters that the station can implement are represented with the green contour. This, of course, leads to an exceedingly high transmitter power and/or antenna system gain values which very few broadcasters will elect to implement. This is why we only used the maximum IC DTV database parameters when the calculated ATSC parameters were greater than those of the IC database (we used the smallest parameters of the two values, either the calculated or the maximum IC DTV database). This scenario typically occurred for a station migrating from VHF band to the UHF band.

6. Technical Implementation of the Scenarios

This section of the document describes the technical design of the proposed DTV station based upon multiple scenarios with corresponding budgetary estimates. All designs are considering only the transmission aspect of the site. Therefore, the program feed is not considered within the technical implementation. It must be understood that the site design is not optimized due to a lack of site-specific information. Many aspects of the design can be changed resulting impact on the cost. This study is generic and should not be considered as final design.

6.1 Transmitter Category Serving a Population Greater than 300,000 People

For this category, since it represents all major cities in Canada, a full redundancy approach was used. From left to right, two (2) ASI Distribution Amplifiers (DA) were used; one (1) for the main feed and one (1) for the back-up feed. The type of feed can be either from fibre, STL or Satellite but the format must be DVB or ATSC ASI.

This block diagram is a visual representation of the detailed text in the preceding paragraph and following three paragraphs.

Figure 4 - Typical Schematic for Medium and High Power Station

The outputs of the DA's are feeding two (2) remultiplexers to insert the local PSIP table. The ATSC tables can be sent via a low bit rate channel. Each of the remultiplexer is feeding an exciter to ensure full redundancy. The output of the transmitter is fed through a mask filter sized for the output power of the transmitter. An RF digital Wattchman is used to monitor the forward and reflected power and to feed the demodulator. The demodulator is used to monitor the audio and video. A 4-port RF patch pane is used to sweep the antenna system and to put the transmitter into the dummy load. No patch panels were included on stations with transmitter output power less than 1KW. For monitoring the signal and for troubleshooting purposes, an ASI jackfield is included.

For higher transmitter power, a transmitter with dual exciter was selected. For lower power, a configuration with dual transmitter and transmitter switching control was selected.

For test purposes, a TV analyzer with ATSC module from Rohde & Schwarz model ETL including module for MPEG and Transport Stream analyzer is included as an option in the design.

6.2 Transmitter Category other than Scenario A

For all stations in small and medium markets (less than 300,000 of population), a similar approach was used. The design is identical as the one presented in the previous scenario. The main differences will be in regards to the implementation time and the program feed. In this category, it is considered to have less station feed via STL than in the previous category.

6.3 Typical Low Power Transmitter Station

In this category, the level of redundancy is maintained. The main difference is located at the output of the transmitter. There is no patch panel included in the design. The assumption is there will be less frequent access to the input antenna system and/or dummy load in a low power station. Also, it is easier to manually transfer a low power transmitter to a dummy load than a high power. Therefore, no allocation for RF patch panel was deemed necessary.

A configuration of main/alternate transmitter is used in this category. Due to the level of power involved and lower transmitter price, a full transmitter redundancy was preferred with switching control.

A less expensive and versatile test equipment was selected. This test equipment is also used as demodulator for audio and video monitoring. The RF demodulator/Analyzer AUDEMAT model Golden Eagle is included in lower power site design.

This block diagram is identical to the block diagram discussed in section 6.1, with exceptions as mentioned in detail in the preceding 3 paragraphs.

Figure 5 - Typical Schematic for Low Power station

7. Detailed cost estimates

All budgetary estimates have a confidence level of ±25%. This level of confidence is referred to as the reserve in the summary page of each estimate. All budgetary quotes from the various suppliers and manufacturers can be found in annex C of document entitled Reference Data for DTV Costs analysis located on Spectrum Expert web site (www.spectrumexpert.ca).

It must be noted that all engineering design for the technical brief, project management and field strength coverage is included in the estimates.

There is no cost associated for upgrade, replacement, installation or repairs of the building, tower and antenna.

Finally, all taxes are extra.

7.1 Transmitter Category Serving a Population Greater than 300,000 People

In this category, two (2) groups of stations are identified: stations that remain on the same channel in DTV and stations changing channel in DTV. For stations above 1KW of transmitter power, provision for hardline, patch panel, elbows and coupling was budgeted. When a station is changing channel, a new transmission line, connectors and dehydrator was budgeted.

A provision for air balancing of the existing ventilation system due to removal of the NTSC transmitter is included in all estimates. For stations above 1KW in UHF and 1,5KW in VHF, a liquid cooled transmitter type was selected.

Test equipment is referred as optional for all stations in this category for general information. The item is present in the estimates but not added to the total cost of conversion The TV analyzer with ATSC module from Rohde & Schwarz model ETL including modules for MPEG and Transport Stream analyzer was selected. This is left at the discretion of the broadcaster.

This category covers all major transmitter sites in Canada. It is understood that at many sites, multiple stations are co-located in the same building. A higher provision for engineering and installation time was factored in due to complexity of the work when multiple broadcasters are involved. This may involve all levels of the project from obtaining a release to shut down the site, to accessing the tower to install new hardware. A simulcast of both analog and digital signal will increase the labour time.

In the summary table located in section 11, the overall cost for the conversion to DTV consider that four (4) sites out of five (5) are fed via STL. For individual cost per station, please refer to section 11,1.

7.2 Transmitter Category other than Scenario A

In this category, the stations were divided in two (2) groups: stations staying in the same band and stations with a channel changing band.

The first group involves stations moving from UHF to UHF, Low VHF to Low VHF and High VHF to High VHF.

It is assumed that the continuity of operation within the same antenna and transmission line must be possible. In this category, the stations were divided by transmitter power range. The following transmitter powers were selected:

UHF Band:

1-40 Watts
41-150 Watts
151-450 Watts
451W-1,1kW
1,1-2,1kW
2,1-4kW

VHF Band:

1-40 Watts
1-150 Watts
151-500 Watts
501W-1,1kW
1,1-2,3kW
2,3 - 3,7KW

A typical budgetary estimate was created for each transmitter power range and the stations were sorted based on their transmitter power.

For stations that will operate on a different channel in DTV, an allocation for a new transmission line, connectors and dehydrator was considered. A budgetary estimate was done for each site.

Again, no patch panel is budgeted for stations with transmitter power less than 1KW. Also, for site stations above 1KW of transmitter power, allocation for hardline, elbows and coupling was budgeted.

Again the ETL test equipment is referred as optional in the estimates for general information. It is no added to the total cost of conversion.

In the summary table, the overall cost for the conversion of this category to DTV consider that two (2) sites out of five (5) are fed via STL. For individual cost per station, please refer to section 11.

7.3 Typical Low Power Transmitter Sites

This scenario refers to stations that are not entitled to protection from interference from primary assignments. Those stations are low power transmitters. In VHF, our budgetary estimate is based on a transmitter power of 40 Watts. In UHF, our budgetary estimate is based on a 8 Watts but prices for transmitter power varying from 3 to 40 Watts are shown as reference. For a detailed description, refer to the quotation attached in annex C of the document Reference Data for DTV Costs Analysis.

For low power stations, in order to keep the cost of conversion as low as possible, the demodulator AUDEMAT Golden Eagle was selected. This equipment can also be used as basic test equipment that better fits the needs of low power stations.

No patch panel or hardline is included in the budgetary estimate.

For the low power stations, it was decided to proceed with a hard cut over. This means that the NTSC transmitter and monitoring equipment will be removed from their existing location and then the ATSC equipment will be installed. Due to the small dimension of LPTV buildings, it is preferable and less expensive to proceed this way. A disruption of service will occur. A small provision for electrical, mechanical and architectural work for the building is considered.

On the other hand, a higher allocation for installation and travel is considered in this category due to a greater distance of the LPTV sites from major centers. Specialized manpower may often not be available locally.

7.4 Typical installation of a Studio to Transmitter Link

The STL configuration will most likely be used for major center and where local programming is produced. This budgetary estimate is based on a fully redundant digital microwave link from the studio to the transmitter in the 6 to 7GHz band. The following schematic represents a typical STL:

This figure shows a main and backup digital Studio to Transmitter Link (STL) which operates in the 6 GHz to 7 GHz band. The link originates at the TV studio and terminates at the transmitter site.

Figure 6 - Typical Schematic for STL

This STL can carry one (1) HD signal¹¹. The budgetary estimate comprises two (2) 6-foot microwave dishes at the studio and two (2) 6-foot dishes at the transmitter site. It includes typical installation material for 300 feet of waveguide runs and installation accessories.

The estimate also considers redundant modems at each end with an ASI input up to 20Mbps. The following is the block schematic of the STL:

This figure shows the typical block schematic for a studio to transmitter link (STL). The ASI or HD-SDI signal, at 19.39 Mbps, is modulated for transmission over a studio to transmitter link (STL) at 6-7 GHz. It is demodulated at the transmitter site, and is output as an ASI signal.

Figure 7 - Typical Block Schematic for STL Interconnection

Note that a Remultiplexer is required, and is already included in the budgetary estimated for the transmitter.

7.5 Typical Installation of a Satellite Antenna

This budgetary estimate is for the provision and installation of a 4.5-metre satellite dish. First of all, it is assumed to have line of sight to the satellite and available space for the location of the antenna exists. Following is a typical satellite installation:

This figure shows the typical block schematic for a satellite installation. After reception, the signal is transcoded to DVB ASI, at 19.39 Mbps, before ingress into the DTV over-the-air transmitter.

Figure 8 - Typical Block Schematic for a Satellite Installation

Included in the estimate is a 4.5-meter dish (C-band Receive Only from ASC or Andrew). This antenna is fixed on a tripod mount and fully equipped with a polarizer, anchor bolt and lightning rod kits, Interfacility Link (IFL) cable and two (2) Phase Lock Loop (PLL) LNB's.

This installation is based on an average price of a 4,5m C-band ASC satellite receive only dish. The installation costs are an average between Southern and Northern installation.

The technology used in the estimate is DVB-S2 and MPEG-2. The CISCO receiver model D9850 DVB-S2 MPEG 2 decoder was selected. The price for an MPEG-4 decoder is also provided and only the decoder needs to be added to the estimate. The CISCO Advanced Receiver model D9858 is equipped with a transcoder for conversion from MPEG-4 to MPEG-2.

Note that a remultiplexer is required and was included into the transmitter budgetary estimate.

7.6 Typical Installation of a Off-air Reception

In the event where a broadcaster elects to convert his station into a translator, he must be aware that the ATSC table at the translator will be identical as the main station. This may create confusion for the viewer (his receiver might not report the correct channel number). A typical installation is comprises an antenna, a band pass filter and a translator. The functionality of the translator is to receive the modulated 8-VSB signal on a specific channel, to transpose to Intermediate frequency (IF), then convert to the final broadcasting frequency and to provide the signal to the amplifier. This translation is entirely done on the modulated RF signal (no demodulation into bit-stream). The main advantage is that no exciter is required in the setup. See functional diagram below:

This figure shows the typical block schematic for a translator, as described above.

Figure 9 - Typical Block Schematic for a Translator

8. DTV Transmitter retrofit

In this study, the conversion of NTSC transmitter to ATSC is not covered exhaustively. The Larcan transmitter manufacturer was approached through NOVANET and has provided budgetary costs for conversion of some of their transmitters. It must be noted that the retrofit for UHF and VHF transmitters must be considered on a case by case basis. The budgetary range is as follows:

for a 1 KW analog to 350 W digital output transmitter = 35,000$
for a 11 KW analog to 3.5 KW digital output transmitter = 70,000$

Other manufacturers may also offer retrofit possibilities of their transmitter to ATSC. This needs to be confirmed with each individual manufacturer.

9. Depreciation of equipment

The following information was gathered from the annual reports of the three (3) major public broadcasters, with complementary information from one private broadcaster. No differentiation between DTV vs Analog equipment is made by the broadcasters. The following table highlights the depreciation figures used by these broadcasters.

	Public 1	Public 2	Public 3	Private 1
Buildings	33 years	Not Specified	30 years	Not Specified
Transmitters	20 years	20 years	17 years	20-25 Years
Antenna Tower	20 years	20 years (10 years for improvements)	Not Specified	20-25 years
Electrical Equipment	16 years	10 years	Not Specified	Not Specified
Transmitter Monitoring Equipment	10 years	10 years	7 years	5-7 Years
In House Technical Equipment	10 years	15 years	7 years	5-7 Years
Computer (Server)	5 years	5 years	5 years	Not Specified
Micro-Computer	3 years	5 years	5 years	Not Specified

Table 13 - Depreciation Figures

An outstanding question regarding the depreciation rate of the new DTV equipment still exists. How to calculate the depreciation rate of new DTV equipment that incorporates computer based control (such as exciters, monitoring equipment, etc). If this equipment falls into the computer category, then a depreciation rate of 5 to 10 years could be considered.

Again, this table is provided for information purposes only and could differ for broadcasters in the private sector.

10. Electrical cost comparison

It is a well known fact that the transition to DTV should generally reduce the overall electrical consumption per km² of coverage. For the same power output, to achieve a better linearity for DTV operation, the power consumption of an ATSC transmitter is slightly higher. On the other hand, the required DTV power to achieve the same coverage is generally from 7 to 12 dB lower than the NTSC power.

Since each case has its own parameters and since each transmitter manufacturer has different power efficiencies, the following table highlights possible values that could be achieved for Study 1 only, when randomly selecting 3 different transmitter powers for each band (when considering same channel replacement):

Band	NTSC Parameters		Equivalent ATSC Parameters.		Reduction from Analog
	TX Power	Electrical Pw	TX Power	Electrical Pw
Low-VHF	9600 W	20.5 kW	1740 W	10.7 kW	47%
Low-VHF	3500 W	7 kW	1208 W	7.1 kW	+1.42%
Low-VHF	9600 W	20.5 kW	650 W	3.56 kW	83%
High-VHF	1415 W	3.5 kW	287 W	1.53 kW	56%
High-VHF	20.2 kW	41 kW	2.4 kW	11.34 kW	72%
High-VHF	15.5 kW	31.7 kW	1.5 kW	14.17 kW	55%
UHF	925 W	4.6 kW	30 W	0.45 kW	90%
UHF	5400 W	23.4 kW	457 W	2.5 kW	91%
UHF	30 kW	36 kW (IOT)	2.8 kW	15.9 kW	56%
Average					61%

Table 14 - Electrical Consumption Comparison between NTSC and ATSC Transmitters (Study 1)

On the average, the conversion to digital television will result in a power consumption reduction of about 61%. For Study 2, since the reduction of about 7 dB in terms of ERP is generally balanced between the antenna gain and transmitter, the total required transmitter power will generally be reduced by 3-4 dB on the average. One could derive a new table using this value.

It should be noted though that for broadcasters that will be migrating from a VHF channel to a UHF channel, the full service duplication will only be achieved at the cost of a very high power UHF system (transmitter and antenna). The UHF ATSC transmitter required power will be approximately 30 kW (with a consumption of about 180 kW for solid state and 90 kW for IOT transmitters). The equivalent low-VHF 30 kW transmitters will generally have a consumption of about 60 kW for solid state.

The following figure¹² provides additional information on DTV (ATSC) transmitter power output (TPO) vs electrical consumption:

This graph shows the typical power output (TPO) for tube and solid state transmitters. Solid state transmitters are able to handle more power than tuble transmitters, and are more versatile in low power situations.

Figure 10 - DTV Transmitter TPO vs Electrical Power Consumption

11. Cost summary table

This cost summary table represents a total cost of conversion per study considering replacement of analog STL with new digital STL. Also, the LPTV cost is presented. The costs are broken down into the following station sub-categories:

Category			Number of stations	Study#1	Study#2	Study#3
A	Transmitter category serving populations greater than 300,000 people Note:4 sites out of 5 are feed STL¹³	Same Channel	46	$22,468,438	$19,438,416	$19,438,416
A		New Channel	49	$71,484,668	$62,757,388	$62,757,388
B	Transmitter category other than section a) with local programming Note:2 sites out of 5 are feed STL¹	Same Channel	210	$70,782,876	$56,780,733	$56,780,733
B		New Channel	47	$91,341,933	$91,341,933	$14,969,852
C	Transmitter category other than section a) without local programming	Same Channel	315	$78,044,763	$57,041,549	$57,041,549
C		New Channel	71	$130,717,239	$130,717,239	$16,159,116
Grand Total¹⁴			738	$464,839,918	$418,077,260	$227,147,055
Budgetary variations (±25%)				$116,209,979	$104,519,315	$56,786,764
		Number of stations		Average cost per station¹⁵
D	Typical Low Power transmitter site operating on the same channel in DTV	1291 stations based on NTSC databases of January 2009	VHF	$189,690
D			UHF	$144,925
E	Typical Low Power transmitter site operating on a different channel in DTV		VHF-UHF	$163,825

Table 15 - Summary Cost for the DTV Conversion for Canada including STL's

11.1 Cost breakdown for Study 1 - Full or Ideal Service Replication

Qty 95 - Transmitter category serving population greater than 300,000 people
Province	City	Call sign	DTV channel	NTSC channel	Cost
AB	Calgary	CBRT	9	9	$377,681
AB	Calgary	CIAN-TV	13	13	$719,306
AB	Calgary	CBRFT	16	16	$226, 606
AB	Calgary	CKCS-TV	27	32	$344,650
AB	Calgary	CFCN-TV	29	4	$4,280,000
AB	Calgary	CJCO-TV	38	38	$463,894
AB	Calgary	CICT-TV	41	2	$4,297,469
AB	Calgary	CHCA-TV-1	44	44	$327,056
AB	Calgary	CKAL-TV	49	5	$4,291,018
AB	Edmonton	CBXT	11	5	$1,371 825
AB	Edmonton	CITV-TV	13	13	$437,963
AB	Edmonton	CHCA-TV-2	17	17	$327,056
AB	Edmonton	CKES-TV	23	45	$386,763
AB	Edmonton	CJAL-TV	26	9	$799,981
AB	Edmonton	CBXFT	42	11	$3,206,900
AB	Edmonton	CJEO-TV	44	56	$909,419
AB	Edmonton	CFRN-TV	47	3	$4,302,306
AB	Edmonton	CKEM-TV	51	51	$596,268
BC	Vancouver	CHAN-TV	8	8	$226,606
BC	Vancouver	CKVU-TV	10	10	$236,106
BC	Vancouver	CIVI-TV-2	17	17	$327,056
BC	Vancouver	CHNM-TV	20	42	$398,578
BC	Vancouver	CBUFT	26	26	$244,606
BC	Vancouver	CIVT-TV	32	32	$327,056
BC	Vancouver	CBUT	43	2	$725,744
BC	Victoria	CHNU-TV-1	21	21	$226,606
BC	Victoria	CIVI-TV	40	53	$288,150
BC	Victoria	CHEK-TV	49	6	$730,056
MB	Winnipeg	CKY-TV	7	7	$442,338
MB	Winnipeg	CKND-TV	9	9	$442,338
MB	Winnipeg	CBWT	27	6	$4,327,838
MB	Winnipeg	CIIT-TV	35	35	$235,594
MB	Winnipeg	CBWFT	51	3	$3,226,194

Province	City	Call sign	DTV channel	NTSC channel	Cost
NS	Halifax	CBHFT	13	13	$255,183
NS	Halifax	CIHF-TV	26	8	$979,506
NS	Halifax	CBHT	39	3	$4,298,006
NS	Halifax	CJCH-TV	48	5	$4,294,513
ON	Hamilton	CHCH-TV	11	11	$356,433
ON	Hamilton	CKXT-TV-1	15	45	$293,513
ON	Hamilton	CITS-TV	36	36	$465,300
ON	Kitchener	CKCO-TV	13	13	$440,619
ON	Kitchener	CBLFT-8	17	61	$609,994
ON	Kitchener	CICO-TV-28	28	28	$438,028
ON	Kitchener	CBLN-TV-1	29	56	$905,019
ON	London	CBLFT-9	7	53	$449,039
ON	London	CFPL-TV	10	10	$440,619
ON	London	CICO-TV-18	18	18	$209,231
ON	London	CJMT-TV-1	20	20	$226,606
ON	London	CHCH-TV-2	24	51	$786,056
ON	London	CITS-TV-2	38	14	$292,244
ON	London	CFMT-TV-1	48	69	$889,034
ON	London	CBLN-TV-1	49	40	$1,295,725
ON	Oshawa	CHEX-TV-2	22	22	$226,606
ON	Ottawa	CIII-TV-6	6	6	$365,808
ON	Ottawa	CBOFT	9	9	$214,388
ON	Ottawa	CJOH-TV	13	13	$362,683
ON	Ottawa	CJMT-TV-2	17	14	$664,238
ON	Ottawa	CITY-TV-3	20	65	$665,294
ON	Ottawa	CHCH-TV-1	22	11	$3,205,894
ON	Ottawa	CICO-TV-24	24	24	$357,878
ON	Ottawa	CBOT	25	4	$3,205,369
ON	Ottawa	CFMT-TV-2	27	60	$1,205,344
ON	Ottawa	CITS-TV-1	42	32	$389,200
ON	Ottawa	CHRO-TV-43	43	43	$528,088
ON	Toronto	CFTO-TV	9	9	$209,231
ON	Toronto	CICA-TV	19	19	$528,088
ON	Toronto	CBLT	20	5	$687,575
ON	Toronto	CBLFT	25	25	$438,028
ON	Toronto	CKXT-TV	40	52	$267,594
ON	Toronto	CIII-TV-41	41	41	$528,088
ON	Toronto	CJMT-TV	44	69	$651,950
ON	Toronto	CFMT-TV	47	47	$569,550
ON	Toronto	CITY-TV	51	57	$599,656
ON	Windsor	CBET	9	9	$465,300
ON	Windsor	CHWI-TV-60	25	60	$288,975

Province	City	Call sign	DTV channel	NTSC channel	Cost
ON	Windsor	CICO-TV-32	32	32	$463,894
ON	Windsor	CBEFT	35	54	$429,034
QC	Hull	CIVO-TV	30	30	$463,894
QC	Hull	CFGS-TV	34	34	$357,878
QC	Hull	CHOT-TV	40	40	$411,415
QC	Montreal	CFTM-TV	10	10	$440,619
QC	Montreal	CFCF-TV	12	12	$440,619
QC	Montreal	CBFT	19	2	$4,266,294
QC	Montreal	CBMT	21	6	$3,191,581
QC	Montreal	CIVM-TV	26	17	$676,519
QC	Montreal	CFTU-TV	29	29	$226,606
QC	Montreal	CFJP-TV	35	35	$463,894
QC	Montreal	CJNT-TV	49	62	$273,881
QC	Montreal	CKMI-TV-1	51	46	$380,994
QC	Quebec	CBVT	12	11	$793,050
QC	Quebec	CIVQ-TV	15	15	$528,088
QC	Quebec	CKMI-TV	20	20	$209,231
QC	Quebec	CBVE-TV	25	5	$806,484
QC	Quebec	CFAP-TV	39	2	$4,286,719
QC	Quebec	CFCM-TV	49	4	$3,208,781

Transmitter category serving population less than 300,000 people
Qty 85 -UHF STATIONS 1-40Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
Province	City	Call sign	DTV channel	NTSC channel	Cost
AB	Bow Island	CJIL-TV-1	39	39	$208,638 each station.
AB	Grande Prairie	CBXFT-8	19	19
AB	Grouard Mission	CFRN-TV-8	18	18
AB	Lethbridge	CBXFT-3	23	23
AB	Lethbridge	CJIL-TV	17	17
AB	Medicine Hat	CBXFT-11	34	34
AB	Red Deer	CBXFT-4	31	31
AB	Burmis	CBRT-8	32	47
AB	Burmis	CJIL-TV-2	51	55
AB	Plamondon/Lac Labiche	CBXFT-9	21	22
BC	Dawson Creek	CBUFT-5	33	33
BC	Chilliwack	CBUFT-6	15	14
BC	Enderby	CBUT-44	26	26
BC	Enderby	CHBC-TV-5	16	16
BC	Fernie	CBUBT-8	21	21
BC	Kamloops	CBUFT-2	50	50
BC	Kelowna	CBUFT-1	21	21
BC	New Denver	CBUCT-6	17	17
BC	Penticton	CBUT-40	17	17
BC	Radium Hot Springs	CBUBT-5	17	17
BC	Vernon	CBUT-41	18	18
BC	Wilson Creek	CHAN-TV-6	23	23
BC	Spillimacheen	CBUBT-6	39	69
MB	Manigotagan	CBWGT-3	22	22
NB	Fredericton	CBAFT-10	19	19
NB	St-Stephen	CIHF-TV-12	21	21
NS	Antigonish	CIHF-TV-15	21	21
NS	Mulgrave	CIHF-TV-16	28	28
NS	New Glasgow	CBHFT-7	15	15
NS	Truro	CIHF-TV-4	18	18
NS	Digby	CBHFT-6	17	58
ON	Maynooth	CBOT-4	48	51
ON	Barry's Bay	CBOT-2	19	19
ON	Fort Frances	CBWFT-11	15	15
ON	Hawkesbury	CHLF-TV-2	39	39
ON	Mcarthur's Mills	CBOT-5	33	33
ON	Nipigon	CBLK-TV	16	16
ON	Nipigon	CBLFT-19	26	26
ON	Sarnia	CBLN-TV-2	34	34
ON	Sault Ste Marie	CBLFT-20	26	26
ON	Sault Ste Marie	CHCH-TV-5	38	38
ON	Normandale	CBLN-TV-6	42	44
ON	Wawa	CBLFT-23	16	16
ON	North Bay	CHCH-TV-6	22	32
ON	Barrie	CBLFT-11	42	55
ON	Prescott	CKWS-TV-2	48	26
ON	Brighton	CKWS-TV-1	30	66
ON	Parry Sound	CICE-TV-11	31	42
ON	Chatham	CBLN-TV-3	42	64
ON	Smiths Falls	CKWS-TV-3	47	36
ON	Temagami	CBCQ-TV-1	18	15
ON	Mattawa	CBLFT-27	43	26
QC	Lac-Etchemin	CBVT-4	22	55
QC	Port-Daniel	CBVF-TV	19	16
QC	Thetford-Mines	CBVT-9	23	21
QC	Thetford-Mines	CBMT-4	42	32
QC	Alma	CBJET-1	32	32
QC	Baie-Comeau	CBMIT	28	28
QC	Chandler	CBVB-TV	23	23
QC	Chapeau	CIVP-TV	23	23
QC	Escuminac	CBVA-TV	18	18
QC	Gaspé	CBVG-TV	18	18
QC	Gaspé	CIVK-TV-3	35	35
QC	Ile du Havre Aubert	CBIMT-1	16	16
QC	Maniwaki	CBVU-TV	15	15
QC	Mont-Louis	CBGAT-10	19	19
QC	Mont-St-Michel	CBFT-9	16	16
QC	New-Richmond	CBVR-TV	27	27
QC	Percé	CBVP-TV	14	14
QC	Percé	CIVK-TV-2	40	40
QC	Rimouski	CJPC-TV	18	18
QC	Rivière-St-Paul	CBST-16	21	21
QC	St-Fulgence	CKTV-TV-1	27	27
QC	Stoneham	CBVT-8	44	44
QC	St-René-de-Matane	CBGAT-7	30	30
QC	Ste-Famille	CBVT-2	43	55
QC	Chicoutimi	CBJET	21	58
SK	Bellegarde	CBKFT-9	26	26
SK	Debden	CBKFT-3	22	22
SK	Gravelbourg	CBKFT-6	39	39
SK	Leoville	CBKFT-11	31	31
SK	Moose Jaw	CBKFT-10	16	16
SK	Ponteix	CBKFT-7	22	22
SK	Willow Bunch	CBKFT-8	21	21
SK	Zenon Park	CBKFT-5	21	21
Qty 24 - UHF STATIONS 41-150Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
AB	Forestburg	CBXT-12	35	52	$229,763 each station
BC	Kelowna	CBUT-38	45	45
MB	Brandon	CBWFT-10	21	21
MB	Oak Lake	CBWFT-12	32	32
NB	Miramichi City	CIHF-TV-13	40	40
NS	Digby	CBHT-7	19	52
NS	New Glasgow	CIHF-TV-8	34	34
NS	Yarmouth	CJCH-TV-7	40	40
NS	Yarmouth	CIHF-TV-10	45	45
NS	Truro	CBHT-8	42	55
ON	Hawkesbury	CICO-TV-96	48	48
ON	Fort Erie	CIII-TV-55	48	55
ON	Little Current	CBCE-TV	16	16
ON	Manitouwage	CBLFT-25	15	15
ON	Peterborough	CBLFT-12	42	44
ON	Penetanguishene	CBLFT-15	34	34
ON	Sault Ste Marie	CICO-TV-20	20	20
ON	Sudbury	CHCH-TV-4	41	41
ON	Sarnia-Oil Springs	CBLFT-17	17	68
PE	Charlottetown	CIHF-TV-14	42	42
QC	New-Carlisle	CBVN-TV	38	45
QC	Sherbrooke	CBMT-3	50	50
SK	Gravelbourg	CBKGT	45	45
SK	North Battleford	CBKFT-12	41	41
Qty 10 - UHF STATIONS 151-450Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
BC	Fraser Valley	CHNU-TV	47	66	$312 213 each station
MB	Piney	CBWT-3	29	29
NB	Woodstock	CIHF-TV-11	38	38
ON	Foymount	CBOT-1	14	59
ON	Chatham	CICO-TV-59	33	59
ON	Pembroke	CHLF-TV-13	16	17
ON	Cloyne	CICO-TV-92	44	55
QC	Trois-Rivières	CBMT-1	28	28
QC	Rivière-du-Loup	CFTF-TV	29	29
QC	Carleton	CFTF-TV-11	44	44
Qty 17 - UHF STATIONS 451W-1,1KW		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
AB	Red Deer	CBXT-13	22	22	$394,303 each station
NB	Moncton	CIHF-TV-3	27	27
NS	Middleton	CBHFT-5	46	46
NS	Wolfville	CIHF-TV-5	20	20
ON	Penetanguishene	CICA-TV-51	29	51
ON	Kingston	CBLFT-14	36	32
ON	Pembroke	CICE-TV-16	28	29
ON	Kenora	CICO-TV-91	44	44
ON	Belleville	CICO-TV-53	26	53
ON	Kingston	CICO-TV-38	38	38
ON	Barrie	CBLT-TV-1	16	16
PE	Charlottetown	CBAFT-5	32	31
QC	Sherbrooke	CFKS-TV	41	30
QC	Carleton	CIVK-TV	15	15
QC	Sherbrooke	CIVS-TV	24	24
QC	Val-d'Or	CFVS-TV	25	25
QC	Rouyn-Noranda	CFVS-TV-1	20	20
Qty 15- UHF STATIONS 1,1-2,1KW		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
ON	Wheatley	CHWI-TV	16	16	$446,550 each station
ON	Mcarthur's Mills	CICO-TV-93	46	42
ON	Belleville	CBLFT-13	15	15
ON	Sudbury	CICO-TV-19	19	19
ON	Sudbury	CHLF-TV-1	25	25
ON	Sarnia-Oil Springs	CIII-TV-29	29	29
ON	Peterborough	CICO-TV-74	18	18
ON	Orillia	CFTO-TV-21	21	21
ON	Stevenson	CIII-TV-22	22	22
ON	Sarnia	CKCO-TV-3	27	42
ON	Muskoka	CHCH-TV-3	23	67
ON	Wiarton	CBLN-TV-5	35	20
QC	Grand-Fonds	CIVB-TV-1	31	31
QC	Gascons	CIVK-TV-1	32	32
QC	Trois-Rivières	CFKM-TV	34	16
Qty 7- UHF STATIONS 2,1-4KW		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from UHF to UHF.
ON	Peterborough	CFTO-TV-54	35	54	$550,800 each station
ON	Pembroke	CJOH-TV-47	36	47
ON	Peterborough	CIII-TV-27	27	27
ON	Woodstock	CITY-TV-2	31	31
ON	Wingham	CBLN-TV-4	45	45
QC	Rimouski	CIVB-TV	22	22
QC	Trois-Rivières	CIVC-TV	46	45
Qty 61 - VHF STATIONS 1-40Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from L-VHF to L-VHF and H-VHF to H-VHF.
AB	Jean D'Or	CBXAT-9	13	13	$218,964 each station
BC	Bonnington Falls	CBUDT	13	13
BC	Burns Lake	CH4333	7	7
BC	Burns Lake	CKHS-TV	13	13
BC	Chetwynd	CBCD-TV-2	7	7
BC	Fernie	CBUBT-9	8	8
BC	Fraser Lake	CFFL-TV-1	9	9
BC	Golden	CBUBT-2	13	13
BC	Hazelton	CHHZ-TV	9	9
BC	Houston	CFHO-TV	8	8
BC	Nelson	CBUCT	9	9
BC	Ootsa Lake	CH4467	5	5
BC	Penticton	CHBC-TV-1	13	13
BC	Purden Lake	CBUHT-1	10	10
BC	Smithers	CBCY-TV-2	5	5
BC	Smithers	CFHO-TV-1	13	13
MB	Flin Flon	CKYF-TV	13	13
MB	Grand Rapids	CBWHT	8	8
MB	Pine Falls	CBWFT-6	11	11
MB	The Pas	CBWFT-1	6	6
MB	The Pas	CBWIT	7	7
MB	The Pas	CKYP-TV	12	12
MB	Thompson	CBWTT	7	7
NF	Clarenville	CJCV-TV	11	11
NF	Millertown	CBNAT-5	9	9
NF	Sunnyside	CBNT-41	9	9
NS	Aspen	CBHT-14	5	5
NS	Dingwall	CBIT-16	12	12
NT	Fort Providence	CBEBT-3	13	13
NT	Hay River	CBEBT-1	7	7
NT	Inuvik	CHAK-TV	6	6
NT	Rae-Edzo	CFYK-TV-1	10	10
NT	Yellowknife	CFYK-TV	8	8
NT	Yellowknife	CHTY-TV	11	11
NT	Yellowknife	CH4127	13	13
ON	Dryden	CBWDT	9	9
ON	Sioux Lookout	CBWDT-1	12	12
PE	Elmira	CBCT-2	11	11
QC	Chandler	CHAU-TV-4	6	6
QC	Fermont	CBFT-13	7	7
QC	Fermont	CBMRT	9	9
QC	Grande-Vallée	CBGAT-3	6	6
QC	Havre-St-Pierre	CBST-1	12	12
QC	La Tabatière	CBMLT	10	10
QC	La Tuque	CBMET	9	9
QC	L'Anse-à-Valleau	CHAU-TV-9	12	12
QC	Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan	CBST-18	6	6
QC	Matagami	CJDG-TV-4	9	9
QC	Radisson	CFBJ-TV	10	10
QC	Radisson	CJBJ-TV	13	13
QC	Rivière-St-Paul	CBMPT	11	11
QC	Schefferville	CBSET-1	7	7
QC	Schefferville	CBFT-8	9	9
QC	Waskaganish	CBFHT	9	9
SK	Big River	CIPA-TV-2	7	7
SK	Ile-A-La-Crosse	CBKCT	9	9
SK	Palmbere Lake	CBKDT-1	8	8
SK	Southend	CBKST-8	13	13
SK	Uranium City	CBKAT	8	8
YT	Dawson	CBDDT	7	7
YT	Watson Lake	CBDAT	8	8
Qty 127 - VHF STATIONS 41-150Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from L-VHF to L-VHF and H-VHF to H-VHF.
AB	Burmis	CFCN-TV-4	5	5	$237,214 each station
AB	Chateh	CBXAT-7	5	5
AB	High Level	CBXAT-4	8	8
AB	Hinton	CBXT-3	8	8
AB	Lac La Biche	CBXT-5	10	10
AB	Peace River	CBXFT-5	9	9
AB	Rocky Mountain House	CFRN-TV-10	12	12
AB	Slave Lake	CBXAT-11	11	11
AB	Whitecourt	CFRN-TV-3	12	12
AB	Slave Lake	CFRN-TV-9	5	4
BC	100 Mile House	CFJC-TV-6	5	5
BC	Alert Bay	CBUT-16	11	11
BC	Canal Flats	CBUBT-1	12	12
BC	Clinton	CFJC-TV-4	9	9
BC	Courtenay	CBUT-1	9	9
BC	Cranbrook	CFCN-TV-9	5	5
BC	Cranbrook	CBUBT-7	10	10
BC	Fort Fraser	CBCB-TV-2	13	13
BC	Fort Nelson	CBUGT	8	8
BC	Fort St John	CBCD-TV-3	9	9
BC	Oliver	CHBC-TV-3	8	8
BC	Oliver	CBUT-42	6	6
BC	Ootsa Lake	CHBL-TV	11	11
BC	Ootsa Lake	CHHH-TV	10	10
BC	Penticton	CHKL-TV-1	10	10
BC	Salmon Arm	CHBC-TV-4	9	9
BC	Sparwood	CBUBT-10	11	11
BC	Terrace	CBUFT-3	11	11
BC	Valemount	CBUHT-5	12	12
BC	Vernon	CHBC-TV-2	7	7
BC	Vernon	CHKL-TV-2	12	12
BC	Whistler	CBUWT	13	13
BC	Woss Camp	CBUT-13	12	12
MB	Flin Flon	CBWBT	10	10
MB	Jackhead	CBWGT-1	5	5
MB	Leaf Rapids	CBWQT	13	13
MB	Little Grand Rapids	CBWZT	9	9
MB	Mccusker Lake	CBWUT	10	10
MB	Melita	CKX-TV-2	9	9
MB	Thompson	CKYT-TV	9	9
NF	Carmanville	CBNAT-7	7	7
NF	Clarenville	CBNT-10	7	7
NF	Conche	CBNAT-8	12	12
NF	Corner Brook	CJWN-TV	10	10
NF	Deer Lake	CBYAT	12	12
NF	Deer Lake	CJLW-TV	8	8
NF	Goose Bay	CHTG-TV	12	12
NF	Hampden	CBNAT-23	13	13
NF	Labrador City	CBFT-12	11	11
NF	Labrador City	CBNLT	13	13
NF	Marystown	CJMA-TV	11	11
NF	Portland Creek	CBYT-8	13	13
NF	Ramea	CBNT-25	13	13
NF	Red Rocks	CJRR-TV	11	11
NF	Rose Blanche	CBYT-11	9	9
NF	Springdale	CBNAT-13	13	13
NF	St Alban's	CBNT-4	9	9
NF	St Mary's	CBNT-6	10	10
NF	St Vincent's	CBNT-26	7	7
NS	Bridgewater	CIHF-TV-6	9	9
NS	Cheticamp	CBHFT-4	10	10
NS	Inverness	CBIT-19	8	8
NS	Isle Madame	CIMC-TV	10	10
NS	Liverpool	CBHT-1	12	12
NU	Cape Dorset	CBEJT	9	9
ON	Chapleau	CITO-TV-4	8	9
ON	Atikokan	CBWCT-1	7	7
ON	Chapleau	CBCU-TV	7	7
ON	Fort Albany	CBLDT	8	8
ON	Geraldton	CBLFT-26	7	7
ON	Gogama	CBLFT-21	12	12
ON	Hearst	CBLFT-5	7	7
ON	Kapuskasing	CITO-TV-1	10	10
ON	Kenora	CJBN-TV	13	13
ON	Kenora	CBWAT	8	8
ON	Marathon	CBLAT-4	11	11
ON	Red Lake	CBWET	10	10
ON	Timmins	CHCH-TV-7	11	11
ON	White River	CBLAT-2	12	12
PE	St Edward	CBAFT-6	9	9
PE	St Edward	CKCW-TV-2	5	5
QC	Baie-Comeau	CBST-19	10	7
QC	Aguanish	CBST-7	8	8
QC	Baie-Comeau	CFTF-TV-5	9	9
QC	Beauceville	CBVT-6	6	6
QC	Blanc-Sablon	CBMST	5	5
QC	Carleton	CHAU-TV	5	5
QC	Chandler	CBGAT-15	8	8
QC	Chapeau	CBOFT-1	11	11
QC	Chibougamau	CBFAT	5	5
QC	Cloridorme	CBGAT-16	8	8
QC	Gaspé	CBGAT-17	9	9
QC	Gaspé	CHAU-TV-6	7	7
QC	Harrington-Harbour	CBST-11	8	8
QC	Harrington-Harbour	CBMUT	13	13
QC	Jonquière	CKTV-TV	12	12
QC	Joutel	CJDG-TV-3	11	11
QC	Lac-Mégantic	CBVT-3	12	12
QC	Mont-Climont	CBGAT-1	13	13
QC	Port-Daniel	CBGAT-21	7	7
QC	Radisson	CBFRT	8	8
QC	Rimouski	CFER-TV	11	11
QC	Rivière-au-Renard	CHAU-TV-7	4	4
QC	Sept-Îles	CFTF-TV-7	7	7
QC	Sept-Îles	CBST	13	13
QC	Sept-Îles	CFER-TV-2	5	5
QC	Sherbrooke	CKMI-TV-2	11	11
QC	Sherbrooke	CKSH-TV	9	9
QC	St-Fabien-de-Panet	CBVT-5	13	13
QC	Temiscaming	CBFST-2	12	12
SK	Beauval	CBKBT	7	7
SK	Buffalo Narrows	CBKDT	11	11
SK	Fond Du Lac	CBKAT-2	10	10
SK	Hudson Bay	CICC-TV-3	11	11
SK	Hudson Bay	CBKT-10	9	9
SK	Island Falls	CBWBT-2	7	7
SK	La Ronge	CBKST-2	12	12
SK	Montreal Lake	CBKST-5	11	11
SK	Nipawin	CBKST-15	10	10
SK	Pelican Narrows	CBWBT-3	5	5
SK	Riverhurst	CBKT-5	10	10
SK	St Brieux	CBKFT-4	7	7
SK	Stanley Mission	CBKST-4	8	8
SK	Stony Rapids	CBKAT-3	7	7
YT	Whitehorse	CBFT-15	7	7
YT	Whitehorse	CHWT-TV	11	11
Qty 91 - VHF STATIONS 151-500Watts		NOTE: including station operating on the same channel NTSC in DTV and stations moving from L-VHF to L-VHF and H-VHF to H-VHF.
AB	Athabasca	CFRN-TV-12	13	13	$338,464 each station
AB	Athabasca	CBXT-1	8	8
AB	Bonnyville	CKSA-TV-2	9	9
AB	Etzikom	CBCA-TV-1	12	12
AB	Fort Mcmurray	CBXT-6	9	9
AB	Fort Mcmurray	CBXFT-6	12	12
AB	Fort Vermilion	CBXAT-5	11	11
AB	Grande Prairie	CFRN-TV-1	13	13
AB	Lougheed	CFRN-TV-7	7	7
AB	Manning	CBXAT-3	12	12
AB	Medicine Hat	CFCN-TV-8	8	8
AB	Peace River	CBXAT-1	7	7
AB	Red Deer	CFRN-TV-6	8	8
AB	Whitecourt	CBXT-2	7	9
BC	Campbell River	CHEK-TV-5	13	13
BC	Courtenay	CHAN-TV-4	11	11
BC	Crawford Bay	CBUCT-1	5	5
BC	Dawson Creek	CJDC-TV	5	5
BC	Mcbride	CBUHT-3	6	6
BC	Port Hardy	CBUT-19	6	6
MB	Dauphin	CKYD-TV	12	12
MB	Fairford	CBWGT-2	7	7
MB	Fisher Branch	CBWGT	10	10
MB	Gods Lake Narrow	CBWXT	13	13
MB	Waasagomach	CBWWT	9	9
MB	Dauphin	CBWST	9	8
NB	Bon Accord	CBAT-TV-1	6	6
NB	Chatham	CBAT-TV-3	6	6
NB	Edmundston	CBAFT-2	13	13
NB	Edmundston	CIMT-TV-1	4	4
NB	Moncton

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Quick Links

Information For:

Resources

Cost Estimate of Digital Television (DTV) Conversion for Canada

Cost Estimate of Digital Television (DTV) Conversion for Canada Presented to Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunication Commission (CRTC)

Signatures

This report has been completed by the undersigned:

Patrice Lemée, ing., P. Eng OIQ # 127143 Spectrum Expert Inc.

François O. Gauthier, ing., P. Eng OIQ # 116334 Spectrum Expert Inc.

Table of Content

1. Acknowledgement