|
11/12/99 15:56 FAX 613 232 2137 CCTA CANADIAN CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DE TELEVISION PAR CABLE Suite 1010 360 rue Albert St. Ottawa Ontario Canada K1R 7X7 Tel: 613 232 2631 Fax: 613 232 2137 JANET YALE President/ Presidente November 12, 1999 Via Telecopier 994-0218 Mr. John Keogh, Acting Secretary General Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission 1 Promenade du Portage - Central Building HULL, Quebec K1A 0N2 Dear Mr. Keogh: Re: Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 1999-10. Item 15 - Application (199812524) by JAN PACHUL. for a broadcasting licence to carry on an English-language low power television programming undertaking at Toronto 1. The Canadian Cable Television Association ("CCTA" is pleased to provide comments in response to the above-referenced application for a broadcasting licence to carry on an English-language Low-Power Television ("LPTV") programming undertaking at Toronto. 2. CCTA submits that the application should be denied on the basis that the proposed undertaking does not comply with the Commission's policy on Low-Power Television undertakings. 3. The Commission's LPTV policy is set out in Public NoticeCRTC 1987-8. In that Public Notice, the Commission outlines four criteria that must be satisfied by an applicant before the Commission will issue a licence to operate a LPTV undertaking. The criteria are as follows: a) The undertaking should serve a community which has no competing local or regional television service. A competing local or regional off-air television service shall be considered to be a service which is currently providing television programming to the community in question, and is selling television advertisements in the community in question on a regular basis. b) The community should have no local community cable channel operating on a regular basis at the time of the application. c)The undertaking should be a service which is delivered through a low power transmitter (i.e. less than 50 watts on VHF or less than 500 watts on UHF). In exceptional circumstances, however, the Commission may consider applications for delivery by a higher power transmitter that uses a frequency allotted to the region. d) The undertaking should be characterized by the local nature of its ownership, its programming arid the market it is designed to serve. 4. Based on Public Notice CRTC 1987-8, it appears clear that the Commission did not intend to licence LPTV stations in major urban areas where television viewers are able to obtain a wide array of television services. Instead, the policy applies to undertakings in remote or undeserved communities which are not large enough to support a full range of Canadian over-the-air or cable services (i.e. operations that would exist in areas normally served by Part III, now Class 3, licensees). 5. CCTA notes that through criteria (a) and (b) the Commission restricts the licensing of LPTV stations to areas where there are no competing local' or regional television services and no community channel is available. 6. The applicant proposes to offer an LPTV service in a major urban market. According to the information contained in the application, the coverage area encompasses a portion of the Greater Toronto area with a total population of more than 1,227,000 people and 481,000 households. This coverage area is already served by nine local and regional television stations and several Class 1 cable systems owned by Rogers Cablesystems Limited ("Rogers") and Shaw Cablesystems G.P. ("Shaw"). These cable systems offer a wide array of programming options (including the relevant local and regional television stations, as well as the regional news specialty service, CP24) and each of them provides a 24 hour community channel its viewers. 7. On the present facts, it is evident that granting an LPTV licence to the applicant would be contrary to criteria (a) and (b) of the Commission's existing LPTV policy. The application should, therefore, be denied. 8. Notwithstanding the above comments, CCTA recognizes that the Commission may decide not to apply its LPTV policy in the present circumstances. In the event that the Commission decides to grant a broadcasting license to the applicant, CCTA submits that the affected cable operators should be relieved from the priority carriage rules set out under section 17 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations ("BDU Regulations"). 9. If licensed, the proposed LPTV station may be entitled to priority carriage under the BDU Regulations. Pursuant to the definition of "local television station" in section 1 of the BDU Regulations, an LPTV station would appear to be a "local station" and therefore must be carried on the basic band by broadcasting distribution undertakings that have any part of their service area located within 15 km of the station's transmitting antenna. 10. Assuming the Commission adopts this interpretation of theBDU Regulations, CCTA submits that providing mandatory basic cable carriage of the service would be appropriate for the following reasons. 11. First, based on the television antenna contour maps filed with the application, the proposed undertaking would be local to a number of cable systems providing service to over 800,000 subscribers in the greater Toronto area ("GTA"). Accordingly, mandatory carriage would transform the service from a marginal LPTV service to a full-scale television broadcasting service which is inconsistent with the Commission's policy objectives for licensing LPTV undertakings. CCTA is deeply concerned about the precedent that licensing of this service would set for other potential applicants in either the GTA or other urban area. 12. Second, CCTA is concerned about the impact of mandatory carriage of this service on cable customers. The priority status that the proposed service would obtain under section 17 of the Regulations would force channel realignments to accommodate the service on the basic band. This would cause significant disruption to customers arid existing services. Given the nature of the proposed service, it would be difficult to justify these changes to customers. 13. Third, the Commission has previously determined that Part III (now Class 3) licensees should be not be required to carry an LPTV undertaking if the licensee provides community programming. The Commission amended subsection 22(1) of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (currently subsection 32(1) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations), "primarily to allow a licensee providing such programming to be relieved by condition of licence, from The obligation to carry the programming services of local or regional low-power television stations in remote communities"2. Class 1 and 2 cable systems that offer community programming should be entitled to the same treatrnent. 14. Finally, in the event the Commission decides to review its existing LPTV policy, CCTA submits that a public process to solicit comments on a proposed policy framework for licensing and distributing LPTV stations in Larger markets should be established in advance of considering any new licence applications. 15. CCTA appreciates this opportunity to provide its comrnents Yours truly, Janet Yale President and CEO cc: Jan Pachul Fax: (416) 690-5997 JY/bk j:\personal\B Kirshenblatt\CAT\LPTV 1999-10 FINAL.WPD |