TVO Wants Out of Broadcasting

... and why it's a bad move for everyone.

An editorial from your Average Joe

In a recent declaration, TVO (the public broadcaster of Ontario) seems to no longer be interested in, well,  … broadcasting … outside of Toronto. The publicly-funded organization has decided to close down eight transmitters, including the one in our nation’s capital Ottawa, leaving only it's only over-the-air broadcasting station operational in the 6ix.  What does this mean?

Well for starters, Ontarians are getting a raw deal as something that was available for free over-the-air to anyone with a TV and an antenna is now only available through a pay service (either TV or internet). So to get TVO, Ontarians outside Toronto are essentially being asked to pay a third party to provide them with something they already fund with their taxes.

The only good news here is the deal isn’t done: shutdown would be at the end of July and there is still time to intervene. In fact, here are a few reasons below on why you should pressure TVO, the Ontario government, the CRTC, consumer protection boards and anyone else who will listen to take a long hard look at this plan before it goes through and screens start going dark in ON: 

 

First of all, where did they get the numbers?

The aforementioned article states “this decision will impact less than 1% of Ontario households” with no citation or mention on how this number was derived. Does TVO actually know how many viewers watch their programming via an antenna? For example, a 2015 report shows about 8% of Canadians do not subscribe to a TV service (cable or streaming) and Ottawa as the 7^th largest TV market in Canada. I've combed whatever data I could find and could not reach this figure. Soooo TVO...  1%? Are you sure?

 

Also, what defines a “household” and why limit it only to that? How many cable households have secondary TVs attached to antennas on kitchen counters, kids’ playrooms? How about businesses like hair salons and waiting rooms at dentist offices? Daycares? Community centers?

 

Another question is whether any due diligence was done to assess the impact on the so-called “1%”? Did TVO survey or talk to any of the viewers that would be impacted? What about the elderly who aren’t technically savvy enough to use streaming internet options or those on fixed incomes that cannot afford a pay TV subscription?

The numbers just don’t add up. The 1% number is meaningless ... and faceless.

It sets a dangerous precedent for other broadcasting networks

Allowing TVO to close all but one transmitter (Toronto) and still allowing it to retain “must carry” status in cable packages has definitely raised eyebrows. If the CRTC allows this to go through (especially in a major urban area such as the Ottawa region) this could set jurisprudence that many Canadian broadcasters owned by cable / satellite parents may soon look to copy. What would prevent another broadcaster from closing all but one “symbolic” transmitter?

Sure TVO, it's big but I'm not sure the signal will reach the 7th largest TV market in Canada from there.

 

The shutdown hits the people who depend on it the most

With perhaps the exception of Ottawa, most of these transmitters serve areas like small communities and rural areas where there are actually little or few options for broadband internet. So you can understand the confusion when people see that “prevalent access to TVO’s high-quality educational video content either through … access to a broadband internet connection” is a reason for shutting down the transmitters.

Also, TV by antenna is free from recurring monthly charges and is most popular amongst people in socio-financial situations that do not allow them to pay a monthly cable bill full of service fees and equipment rental charges. The cost of cable has skyrocketed, whereas over-the-air TV programming has remained free of charge to the public.

TVO is leaving Canadians at the mercy of pay TV mega conglomerates to get their content

TVO states “TVO’s audiences overwhelmingly receive our content through cable, direct-to-home satellite … platforms”. Oh those guys. Yes, well that makes everything better.

 

So TVO is telling us to get their programming from the likes of corporate entities who just decided to raise prices on TV and broadband packages because ... you know ... that's life? The same companies who were mandated by the CRTC with the task of providing Canadians with a basic service at a reasonable price and instead decided to spit in the eye of the Canadian public? Well, I mean that’s when they weren’t trying to bamboozle potential customers out of picking said basic package ). So thank you TVO for leaving us in the capable, well-meaning hands of companies that garnered a thousand complaints in a six week period.

I can already hear the service rep at the Cable Co. now: “Yes sir, but if you cancel our service you won’t have access to our many channels of quality programming ... like TVO”  Oh, the irony.

So you say we can still get TVO from our friendly, reputable cable and satellite providers? Yeah, about that ...

 

Were any other options explored to maintain service?

Ok, so there is a budget crunch. Fine. Besides a complete shutdown of transmitters, were other options explored by TVO? How about joining forces with the federal government and using infrastructure funding to have TVO/CBC/SRC broadcast from the same transmitter using digital multicasting to serve communities that were already shunned by CBC and now TVO?  Again, very disappointing to see this lack of effort from a public broadcaster.

Why get out of broadcasting now?

The latest trends show that over-the-air TV is making a comeback. First of all, antenna-friendly devices have popped up everywhere in new tech from Xbox to Canada’s very own uber-hip antenna-friendly DVR TabloTV (which BTW is from a Canadian innovation company based in Ottawa employing many Ontarians … and ironically is also where TVO is shutting off its transmitter). In fact, TV antenna products were all the rage at CES last month.

Second, the future is bright with the advent of ATSC 3.0, the new over-the-air broadcasting standard that will allow OTA broadcasters to reach everything from rabbit ears to mobile phones and integrate content with the very same interactive platforms TVO is mentioning in its digital shift. If anything, why not hang on a bit longer and upgrade straight to ATSC3? Opportunity: missed.

Recent Canadian data shows traditional pay TV service is the medium in stagnation / decline. Graphic courtesy @MontrealOTA

Finally, the numbers show that pay TV is past its glory days: ratings for pay-only networks are tanking, cable companies are bleeding subscribers and conversely, over-the-air TV use is rising as antenna sales surge and a new generation of Canadians leaves pay TV to fade away with the era of baby boomers. Oh and those up-and-coming millennials? Well, they love antennas as can be seen from growing social media communities and on popular reddit threads.

 

So what can you do?

Well, for starters you can help TVO come to its senses by writing them directly via email at asktvo@tvo.org .

If you want to add your voice to the rest of the crowd, sign this online petition to ask for due diligence from the Ontario government (who funds TVO with your tax dollars) before this decision goes through in July 2017.

If you want to put your eggs in other baskets, contact the CRTC and file a complaint under TV accessibility if you will be losing TVO’s broadcast service. Feel free to ask some of the questions mentioned above.

Finally, you can also contact the Ontario Consumer Protection Board and file a complaint … but this one is a long shot.

Make your voice heard, and stay tuned…

How Rogers Is Ruining Hockey for an Entire Generation of Canadians

The only good news is it's not too late to fix it.

As we approach the end of the second year of the historic 12-year, 5.2 billion dollar deal between the NHL and Rogers/Quebecor for TV rights in Canada, one has to look back at how Rogers is stacking up compared to the good old days of hockey before “The Deal”. Long story short: unlike their fancy new set, it ain’t pretty.

First of all, "The Deal" didn’t start off well: many Canadians felt concern that hockey would move away from what has traditionally been successful: Saturday night and playoff games available on CBC (available to all) and move towards Rogers-based pay channels (available to some). Public opinion polls like the one below had about 50% of Canadians not supporting the new NHL-Rogers deal.

To appease the crowd, from the beginning Rogers and CBC embarked in a bizarre partnership: CBC would still showcase Saturday night games as before, but Rogers would choose the lineup, produce and reap any advertising revenue from the games. This arrangement is good for the first four years of the 12-year term of “The Deal”, and it’s not sure if it will be renewed. To be honest, it’s hard to see what was in this deal for the CBC besides not having to bother airing programming that competed against Saturday night hockey. It has yet to be seen whether this will be a long-term arrangement or a simple intermediate step to alleviate the transition to a soon-to-be full Rogers offering (similar to the Saturday night French language hockey simulcasts between RDS and the SRC from 2002 to 2004).

For Rogers, year one of “The Deal” ended with lower ratings than expected. Instead of increasing by 20% as projected, ratings stagnated, and then dwindled. Ad rates were dropped this year after Rogers failed to hit its audience targets last season, but there was hope of a bounceback. Yet as this month closes out and with no Canadian teams in the playoff picture, it’s hard to stay optimistic if you’re expecting a sophomore windfall of good news at the Rogers camp.

So what’s that you say? NHL hockey ratings are down? In Canada?? It almost sounds unheard of…. Impossible! Yet it’s true. So besides the prospect of no Canadian teams in the playoffs for the first time in 40 years, how and what did Rogers do to screw up a Canadian golden goose of TV success so royally? Let’s take a look below at some key mishaps:

Dude, where’s my team?

The most maligned aspect of Rogers’ bungling treatment of Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday is the so-called flex-scheduling. Flex scheduling has caused some bizarre scenarios these past two seasons including hockey games being shown on non-sports channel FX, Citytv and CBC simulcasting the exact same game and prominent Canadian teams being used as bait on the subscription-only SportsNet family instead of CBC or Citytv, where most hockey fans expect to find a Saturday night game. What’s worse of all is fans have no idea on what channel their team is playing until they’ve scoured through the program guide and it usually involves subscribing to multiple Rogers pay channels to ensure you will see all games of your favorite team (hello Winnipeg Jets and Ottawa Senators fans). If getting more Rogers channels into the TV packages of Canadians was the plan, it’s backfiring miserably and at the expense of the NHL.

Ratings are down across the board for most NHL games, and Rogers seems oblivious as they blame everyone else: from (a) the way ratings are calculated to (z) the poor play of the hockey teams themselves. What is more alarming is that with this new flex schedule format the numbers are showing Canadians are watching less NHL hockey. What’s worse than just the numbers? It's what they mean is actually going on in the households of Canadians, namely: a whole new generation is following hockey rather than watching it.

When growing up, everyone would tune into CBC on Saturday night to watch their local team. It was automatic. The day after or on Monday morning at school/work, no matter who you talked to, they had seen the game and would discuss every highlight, lowlight and controversial call with you. That has changed drastically in the past two years. Looking at my own children this season and last, they simply have tuned out the Saturday night holy tradition of having HNIC on CBC tuned in on the TV. We don’t have all the necessary SportsNet channels in our household and have no plan on getting them. Instead, my children are learning to follow hockey live (on social media) rather than watch it on TV. They watch almost-live videos posted via their team’s websites and fanbase social media accounts of key plays. There are dozens of in-game commentaries being uploaded in discussion forums accessible from their smartphones. And for live-play-by-play, they’re happy having the radio on the background while they play Xbox. Rogers isn’t just ruining watching hockey for me and my old fogies, they’re changing it for an entire new generation of Canadians growing up.

How to fix it:

Rogers needs to realize that Canadian don’t simply like watching NHL hockey; they like watching their local NHL teams. So the first thing to do is ensure each local CBC TV affiliate shows their local team via a simulcast of the game's SportsNet feed. Canadians expect to tune into their local CBC station on Saturday night and see their local hockey team hitting the ice. People in Montreal have no interest in seeing the Leafs take on the Blue Jackets. Ottawa and Winnipeg have had hardly any exposure on the national networks this year. Asking fans to scour for their team on B-rate channels like SN360 is ridiculous for a Saturday night game. Simulcast the local teams on their respective CBC affiliate and people will tune in.

As for Citytv and their 7PM Saturday night game, there’s no clear answer on this one. Citytv could drop the game altogether and bring back the Sunday night game (see Hometown Hockey below), or they could show a national interest game that does not involve Canadian teams but would still be worthy to watch (think Stamkos, Crosby, Toews). At least this way if there is a blowout on CBC or if the local game isn’t interesting, the causal hockey fan has a channel to flip to.   

The Sunday Night Hockey Game

Hometown Hockey debuted on Citytv in the first season of the Rogers deal. A nationally televised Sunday night hockey game came as a pleasant surprise to many Canadians, especially given the community feel given to the night as the Rogers mobile broadcast studio visited communities from coast to coast, marked with festivities and much fanfare. Rogers finally got something right and many felt a new family and community-oriented Canadian hockey tradition was starting. Don't get me wrong; I liked it and watched it with my family - when it was on Citytv.

So for season two, what did Rogers do? Sunday night's Hometown Hockey was moved from Citytv to Sportsnet in hopes of boosting ratings and subscribers to the pay channel. Instead, the opposite occurred with a 30 percent drop in viewers from its inaugural year. Rumour is now the very concept of a Hometown Hockey game on Sunday nights is in jeopardy.

How to fix it:

Easy solution is to move the game back to Citytv where the formula worked before, or even CBC for that matter. If Rogers is serious about building a new hockey tradition, you don’t put something like that on a pay-only channel. The viewers have spoken, will Rogers listen?

Marquee Games like The Winter Classic

The Bridgestone Winter Classic this year was a marquee event for the NHL in Canada and for NHL Canadian sports coverage: it had a coveted timeslot at 1PM on New Year’s Day, when everybody is either together with family or nursing a hangover in front of the TV after lunch. On top of that, a perfect original six matchup for hockey fans north of the border: the Boston Bruins took on their dreaded rivals the Montreal Canadiens, teams with enormous history and a rabid fan base to match. The last time a Winter Classic US/Canada original six confrontation happened in 2014 with Toronto taking on Detroit, CBC set records with almost 4 million viewers, the highest ever for a non-playoff game. An easy ratings homerun for Rogers, right? Wrong.

So what exactly did Rogers do to bungle what should have been an easy Canadian ratings slam-dunk? Well, instead of broadcasting the outdoor game on CBC as done in the past (and as per Hockey Night in Canada tradition dating back to the first Heritage Classic outdoor game in Edmonton), for the first time ever it parked the game on Sportsnet. Problem is, not everybody has Sportsnet in their TV package and no one in their right mind would subscribe to watch for just one marquee game, meaning casual holiday-season TV sports viewers in Canada couldn’t just flip channels and tune in. On top of that, someone at Rogers head office failed to realize (or chose to ignore) that NBC in the US was broadcasting the game, meaning people with even the most basic of cable package (or people with an over-the-air antenna within range of the US border like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal) could watch the game anyways. The results were disastrous.

Sportsnet did not yet disclose its ratings for the 2016 Winter Classic but the silence and lack of this type of disclosure says a lot (had it been a large number it would have been plastered over every Rogers press release). Pundits are saying it was nowhere close to the record set in 2014 aired on CBC, perhaps as much as 40% lower than the 2014 figures, indicative by the numbers south of border for NBC which weren’t very encouraging to say the least. (Remember, ratings for Canadian viewers do not count in NBC totals).

Worse than failing to live up to the pre-hockey-deal 2014 ratings bonanza, Rogers missed a golden chance to showcase the Sportnet brand and its NHL broadcast team to a holiday-time national audience on CBC, full of casual viewers (and potential new customers). Instead, they drew harsh criticism on how an American network aired “Canada’s game” while Rogers failed to do the same using CBC or Citytv. *Facepalm*

How to fix it:

Rogers, what were you thinking??? This one was so easy we're even surprised you blew it. Marquee games belong on CBC where all of Canada can watch. The good news is by doing this, you get an invaluable chance to show off to casual and potential new hockey fans what makes you great for watching NHL hockey. Also, while people are tuned in on CBC, you get to plug any other Rogers programming or products, get in-game viewers to check out your website and social media accounts and then drive post-game viewers to your other networks. Duh!!!

French Language Coverage

While Rogers’ SportsNet covers English-language NHL programming, partner Quebecor’s TVA network took the reigns over from Bellmedia rival RDS … sort of. While Quebecor put all its eggs in the basket of making TVASports the official NHL francophone broadcaster, it made its first mistake by losing regional broadcast rights back to RDS in its primary market of Quebec for the only two teams with a considerable francophone backing, being the Montreal Canadiens and the Ottawa Senators. This meant the network would only air maximum one game per week of these teams, and would have to wait until the playoffs (if any) to gain a ratings monopoly. Oops.

At the launch of "The Deal", Francophone audience expectations were set sky high when it was shown that there would be hockey games on Francophone network TVA as well (see graphic below). However, with regional rights lost, the big-ticket Saturday game was forced to pay-only TVASports to drive subscribers to the sagging sports network, and two years later not a single NHL game has been shown on the TVA network. What was worse for fans was that although the Saturday night Francophone games were available nationally,  fans outside of the region trying to watch the weekday games lost out as the games were blacked out on the rival network (rights were only regional).

As the final part of this bungling hat-trick of TVASports’ new reign as an NHL broadcaster, it assembled a team of B-list TV personalities from the incumbent RDS network and brought in less-known former hockey players as colour commentators. It then tried to pass this lacklustre and inexperienced team off as a high end sports commentary crew, and then brought rival TV service providers such as Bell to arbitration (such as below in May 2015) to raise retransmission fees or face having the network pulled from their subscribers. 

The results so far have not been encouraging. TVASports’ growing pains continued well into its second season of “The Deal” and an unimpressed and impatient paying public poked cruel fun at the network’s hockey coverage, making it an inside joke in many Quebec homes. The culmination of this perception happened during the most-watched New Year’s Eve francophone comedy show “Bye-Bye 2015” which referred to the network as a “type of RDS that had its oxygen supply cut off during birth” and seared the network’s credibility with the following imitation skit:

To this day, TVASports continues to fall short of its rating targets. What’s more troublesome is it is unable to convert its captive Saturday night hockey audience into a solid viewer base for its pre and post-game shows. As for the quality of the broadcast, the network has yet to land a bona fide renown broadcasting personality and remains plagued with everything from amateurish spelling mistakes to embarrassing graphical errors...

How to fix it:

A TVA simulcast on Saturday nights (as originally proposed) may have been the missed opportunity here for TVASports. By putting Saturday night hockey games back on network TV, Quebecor would have probably been hailed as heroes by the general francophone public, returning Saturday night hockey to the people after years of a cable-only RDS monopoly. True, due to the bad negotiating for regional nights of weekday games, the Saturday night TVA showcase would have severely dented any ratings TVAsports would have had, but those ratings were up for debate anyways as many Francophones have shown that rather than sign up for TVAsports they have resorted to watch the game in English while muted with Francophone radio commentary.

The missed opportunity lies in what could have been: the exposure the network would have had. A captive audience for DVR-proof programing on a nationally broadcast TV network for three hours is a priceless self-promotion prospect that could have driven traffic to Quebecor websites, social media, discussion forums, and showcased other TVAsports programming to an audience of potential customers. Also, by being available freely, people would have been more forgiving to any growing pains as they would not be directly paying for the product. With Quebecor eventually looking to bring another NHL team to francophone Quebec City, one Saturday night regular season game on TVA would have been laying the foundation for a whole new generation of Francophones nationwide to become accustomed to the TVAsports product.

Will NHL hockey ever be shown on TVA? Je ne retiendrais pas mon souffle.

Conclusion

Rogers (and to a certain extent Quebecor) has assumed and taken for granted that the NHL is a cash cow in Canada. They overpaid for hockey in a badly-advised long-term deal, and now will hold hockey ransom and expect Canadians to pay for it through their cable bill. But will they really learn through these first two years that people aren’t fools; and can they make the changes to return NHL hockey to all Canadians?

Besides fixing “The Deal”, there is one final area of concern and that is the future popularity of hockey in this country. As a new generation grows up learning to “follow” hockey rather than watch it due to the bungling of Rogers, the questions must be asked: how long will the NHL let this go on? Ratings are down in Canada for two years straight. Will the decline and drought last another year? Two years? Five years? How much longer before a growing number of Canadians switch from being rabid fans that watch every game from pre-season onwards to casual viewers that only watch the playoffs and a handful of regular season games? How long can TV ratings slump until this starts affecting NHL merchandising and ticket sales?

Now remember this final point: whoever tells you the business case for hockey on CBC (or any other national network) doesn’t work anymore in today’s economy is a pure fool. The NHL is to Canada what the NFL is to the United States. It’s interesting to see the success and profitability of the NFL isn’t related to cable-only TV access. 

-An editorial from Your Average Joe

Reaching for The Sky

Mohu's Sky outdoor antenna aims high.



North-Carolina based Mohu is arguably one of the more cutting-edge antenna manufacturers since the digital over-the-air TV revolution. Already popular or its paper-thin Leaf antenna and the recent indoor Mohu Curve 30 which we reviewed, Mohu has sets its sights high (literally) with the Sky: its first attempt at an outdoor model and the longest range antenna has to date in its product line.

While Mohu has proven it can design attractive antennas known mostly for their “cool” factor, how well does the Sky deliver on it advertised 60 mile reception range performance? We tested it out in our Canadian skies and here is what we found.

Model: Mohu SkyHDTV Attic/Outdoor Muti-directional HDTV Antenna

Size (main antenna element): 28cm H x 54.5cm W x 2.5cm D (11” x 21 1/2” x 1”)

Package includes: Mohu SkyHDTV antenna, J-Mount (unassembled), amplifier, USB power adapter, 30ft terminated coax cable with weather boot on one end, all assembly hardware, mounting hardware for 2 types of substrates, English / Spanish instructions

Output: One F-type connector (cable coax) on the antenna for RG-59 or RG-6 cable, amplifier is F-Type in-line with USB power input.

Pros: Compact aesthetic appearance, good performance when used outdoors, performs well within advertised range, versatile mounting positions, complete package for the consumer right down to the last little bits of hardware, extremely user friendly, clear instructions

Cons: Price point may seem elevated when compared to other antennas of this range, compact size is a trade-off in terms of performance when brought outside its advertised range, the antenna will not mount to larger diameter antenna masts / rotator without some sort of adapter

Build Quality

Mohu continues to provide the best product packaging in the business. Items are enclosed in a well thought-out custom-made box with each component held securely in place and smaller hardware items clearly labelled.  It would be difficult for items to arrive damaged or scratched from transit or handling.

 

The components themselves show the same level of professional build quality. The main antenna is made of two halves of a high quality thick-walled plastic that is sealed closed with a well-compressed rubber gasket. It is rigid, solid and appears very well sealed in terms of weatherproofing. With no exposed elements or wires, the Sky is definitely ready to withstand the snow and ice that Canada’s winters are ready to throw at it.

The included J-mount is of good quality as well and is covered in a shiny (sparkly?) silver powdercoat . The finish is of good quality, and does not scratch as easily as other commercial J-mounts when the hardware is adjusted and re-tightened. Please note the tube diameter is much smaller than standard J-mounts used for satellite dish installations.

The details of the other components were well engineered as well: the amplifier is compact and completely silent when operating, generating only very little heat even during prolonged use (absolutely no concerns on our part for its lifespan). The pre-terminated 30 ft cable makes this antenna ready to go right out of the box, and features a good quality weather boot (below) at one end for a safe and reliable outdoor installation.

 

Assembling the Antenna

The antenna comes with some assembly required when using the J-mount. (If desired, the antenna can be simply hung off two hooks if used indoors or in an attic, so in that case no assembly required)

The instructions are well-written and show detailed steps to install the J-mount base and attaching the arm and cable to the antenna body. The entire antenna can be assembled and ready for installation using a standard screwdriver and small wrench / pliers / key in about 5 minutes.

Appearance

The Sky is definitely a lot easier on the eyes than some other antennas within this reception range. The antenna is completely enclosed in its cosmetic cover and there are no exposed reflectors, elements or wires. Its grey colour and silver mount makes it easy to blend in on any roof or balcony, although some neighbours may ask you what’s up with the inverted Batman symbol hanging off your house. This antenna scores just as big in the size-to-power ratio as it does in the appearance (dare I say “wife”?) factor.

 Installation

The best part of the Sky is that it really comes as a complete kit, right down to two types of mounting hardware being provided in the box. Threadforming hardware is provided to install the J-mount securely into wood / aluminium siding or on a shingled roof. A nut and bolt combination is also given for other thru-hole applications, for example if installing in thin walled applications like a shed. The hardware appears anodized for weatherproofing, but also works inside. Installation is made easy by a lot of the hardware being captive in the mating parts through carriage bolt features and embossed hex counterbores. Everything you need is basically in the box; the only extra we recommend are UV-resistant ty-wraps for securing the cable run and caulking to seal any penetration points when installing the mount outdoors.

When you purchase the Mohu Sky you aren’t just getting an antenna; you’re getting a complete kit right down to the screws to bolt the mount into the wall.

Given its compact size, the Sky is perfect for attics. We’ve had issues where larger antennas need to be disassembled or brought up in pieces to fit through small attic openings; at the size of a laptop, the Sky is compact and lightweight enough to fit anywhere, even if your best reception spot in the house is inside the office closet.

Aiming the Antenna

The Mohu Sky can be pivoted on its mount for azimuth alignment as well the mount for elevation adjustments. The foot of the J-mount provides infinite adjustment points and once tightened the hardware locks the position of the antenna firmly in place.

 

We found the best orientation was having the flat face of the Sky antenna facing the transmitter. Although the reception angle is quite wide, we found the side reception lobes were a bit unpredictable and dependent on the vertical adjustment of the antenna. In any case, we were able to find a reception sweet spot for our test location, but be forewarned it may take time. We highly suggest taking your time in really finding the best spot for the antenna and to not only look at the signal strength but the sound-to-noise-ratio (SNR on most TV sets) since it is an amplified antenna.

 

Performance

The antenna was tested head-to-head against a baseline main brand outdoor VHF/UHF antenna with similar range characteristics. As the Sky is amplified, we added a standard amplifier (Antennas Direct CPA-19) as well to the baseline antenna and factored the cost of the cable and mount as well, rendering it essentially equivalent in cost. The antennas were tuned based on obtaining the most possible channels and were not rotated during testing.

Station (RF)	Distance (mi)	Baseline Antenna ($160) Strength / SNR	Mohu Sky ($160) Strength / SNR
10	12	100 / 68	98 / 78
13	81	99 / 71	90 / 52
14	81	100 / 100	100 / 84
21	12	100 / 100	100 / 91
22	81	100 / 92	99 / 81
29	10	81 / 60	90 / 69
32	81	100 / 96	88 / 67
35	12	100 / 100	100 / 93
38	52	92 / 77	88 / 65
43	81	89 / 75	78 / 52

Based on our test results, the Mohu Sky performed fairly well compared to the larger baseline antenna. In particular we were surprised by the respectable VHF performance given that the antenna is so compact. The beamwidth also allowed it to receive multiple signals from various incident angles without needing to be rotated. Our tests show that the antenna definitely maintains its advertised 60 mile range and can reasonably go further than that if the conditions are right (i.e. LOS to distant signals, etc)

Prices and Where to Buy

As mentioned in our other Mohu reviews, what’s somewhat prohibitive to Canadians is that Mohu products are not sold by the usual cast of retailers north of the border. Mohu will ship to Canada from their US website at extra cost, and duties are to be expected upon delivery. However, Mohu does recommend buying off amazon.ca.

Promotions are few and far in between, with most of the promos being around free shipping in continental US. If you are interested in the Sky are able to wait, we suggest to follow Mohu on Facebook and Twitter to know when sales or other promo are underway on their products.

Overall, prices in Canada are fairly offsetting. Canadian online retail prices will range over $200. If you live within driving distance of the US border, it may be more advantageous to buy directly form Mohu.com and drop-ship to a border holding point (like The UPS Store).

Although the cost may seem a bit steep at first, if you can get the Sky within the $160-170 ballpark, it is a fairly good deal. Consider the following: excluding junk clone antennas, most name brand antennas in that reception range will cost around $100, and you will have to add a mount, an amplifier and RG-6 cabling to get what the Sky antenna kit delivers.

Although it may seem like you're paying a premium price for the Sky, you have to realize you're not just getting an antenna in the box.

 

Conclusion

The Mohu Sky is a good quality, user-friendly (and neighbour friendly) antenna that can deliver the goods when mounted outdoors. We found it works well inside its advertised range and can yield some surprises with stations technically beyond its reach.

Although some sites citizen Mohu products as being gimmicks or overprices, the value is there when bought at the right price. It is an excellent antenna for the “condo crowd” or people that are willing to pay slightly more to have something that looks as sharp on their roof as what they see from uncompressed OTA HD on their TVs screens.

Final Score: 8.5/10

For more information and to purchase the Mohu Sky, please visit the Mohu Website