|
RA. Fillingham, BA., CA. Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer and Secretary CTV Inc. P.O. Box 9, Station O Toronto, Ontario Canada M4A 2M9 Courier: 9 Channel Nine court Scarborough, Ontario Canada M1S 4B5 Tel.(416)332-5020 Fax (416) 332-5022 November 12, 1999 Delivered Via Facsimile Mr. John Keogh, Acting Secretary General Canadian Radi&television and Telecommunications Commission Central Building I Promenade du Portage Hull, Quebec KIAON2 Dear Mr. Keogh: Re Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 1999-10 Application 199812524 by Jan Pachul for a Low Power Television Programming Undertaking at Toronto lntroduction 1. This intervention is filed by CTV Television Inc. ("CTV"), the licensee of CFTO Toronto, with respect to the application by Jan Pachul for a new television programming undertaking licence. Mr. Pachul seeks authority to establish a low power television undertaking ("LPTV") operating via a transmitter located in Toronto's east end (the "Application"), 2. CTV opposes the Application on two grounds: a) The Application does not meet the criteria set by the Commission for licensing LPTV stations nor the objectives for community television and should not be approved on these bases. b) As such, the licence sought by Mr. Pachul must be considered as a new local conventional television station serving Toronto. In this context, CTV submits the Application fails to meet the objectives of the broadcasting Act. In particular, the local service and the benefits proposed are not commensurate with the privilege of access to Canada's largest market, both off-air and via mandatory cable carriage. The Proposal Does Not Qualify as a Low Power Television Station 3. First,. the undertaking proposed by Mr. Pachul fails to meet the licensing criteria established by the Commission for LPTV undertakings. In CRTC Public Notice 1987-8, Regulations Respecting Television Broadcasting the Commission stated that its policy with respect to LPTV undertakings was: "...designed to encourage off-air community television operations in remote or underserved communities which are not large enough to support a full range of Canadian over-the-air cable services." The Commission went on to specifically note that the LPTV policy was "not intended to apply to an off-air community television service adjacent to a major urban area". 4. Moreover, the following criteria were established as hallmarks of an LPTV station: - The community should have no competing local or regional television service; - There should be no community Cablee channel operating on a regular basis; - The undertaking should be delivered through a low power transmitter of less then 500 watts on UHF(50 watts VHF); and - The undertaking should be characterized by the local nature ownership, its programming and the market it is designed to serve. 5. Clearly, the undertaking proposed by Mr. Pachul fails to fully meet the criteria established by the Commission. In particular, Toronto is well served by local and regional television services. These stations, including CFTO, have significant commitments to local news and information programming and provide an incredible diversity of editorial perspectives. In addition, Toronto is home to community cable channels operated by both Shaw Cable and Rogers Cable. 6. Moreover, CTV submits the proposed station does little to further the objectives for community television detailed in Public Notice CRTC 1986-176. Therein, the Commission stated that a community television station is "characterizecd by the local nature of its' ownership, programming and the market it is designed to serve. 7. In terms of programming, the Commission expanded on the nature of community television by stating that such services should: - develop innovative and alternative forms of community-oriented programming; and - provide an alternative to that of existing services within the licensed service area. 8. CTV submits the Application fails to provide such diversity. In our view, the proposed schedule does not offer materially different programming from that already available in the market. For example, some coverage of Toronto City Council meetings is currently offered on Rogers Cable; educational children's programming is available from a range of off-air services including TVO, CBC, CTV and Global; public forum for discussion is provided by both conventional and community television; and feature films are carried by all the off-air broadcasters serving the community. CTV believes the Application does not represent a distinctive service which "reflects the interests and special needs of the audience it is licensed to serve" and as a result, should not be regarded as a community television operation licensable on that basis, 9, In summary, the undertaking proposed by Mr. Pachul does not meet the licensing criteria established for LPTV undertakings nor the objectives established with respect to community television. As such, CTV submits the Application should be denied. Licensing the Station Will Not Further the Objectives of the Broadcasting Act 10. Moreover, if the station fails to qualify as a LPTV undertaking. CTV submits it should be evaluated as an Application for a conventional local television service. In this regard, CTV submits the Application does not provide service or benefits commensurate with the significant privilege of operating a licensed undertaking in Toronto. It is therefore our view that approval of the Application is not in the public interest. 11. If licensed, the station would enjoy significant coverage. Mr. Pachul estimates the Grade B contour will encompass approximately 1.2 million people in Metropolitan Toronto. Moreover, as a l icensed local television station the undertaking will be entitled to carriage on the basic service of broadcasting distribution undertakings throughout Toronto. 12. Section 17 of the Broadcasting Distribution ls:egulations (the "Regulations") establishes the carriage requirements for broad casting distribution Undertakings as follows: Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3) to (6) or under a condition of its licence, a licensee shall distribute the following as part of its basic service, in the following order of priorities: a) the. programming services of all local television stations owned and operated by the Corporation; b) the educational television programming services received over-the-air or by satellite or microwave relay. the operation of which is the responsibility' of an educational authority designated by the province in which the licensed area of the undertaking is located; c) the programming services of all other local television stations... 13. The Regulations define a local television station" as follows: "Local television station.", in relation to a distribution undertaking, means a licensed television station that, a) has a Grade A official contour that includes any part of the licensed area of the undertaking; or b) has, if there is no Grade A official contour, a transmitting antenna that is located within 15 kilometres of the licensed area of the undertaking. 14. Given the definition of a local television station and the carriage priorities established in section 17, Mr.Pachul's undertaking would qualify as a "local television station" on any cable system which had any part of its licensed service area within 15 kilometres of the station's transmitting antenna. It is our understanding that such systems would include Rogers Cable's Toronto, Downsview, York Etobicoke systems. Shaw Cable's Scarborough, Pickering and Richmond Hill systems, as well as the MDS system owned by Look Communications Inc. 15. Moreover. section 17(2) of the Regulations provides that services accorded priority carriage in 17(1) shall be distributed on the "basic band" of cable distribution undertakings. The "basic band" is defined as the "12 analog cable channels that are commonly identified by the numbers 2 to 13". 16. In summary, the Regulations will provide the proposed undertaking with mandatory carriage on basic throughout Toronto. Such carriage arrangments would cause significant disruption to channel placements for existing services and to cable lineups. to the detriment of viewers, broadcasters and distribution undertakings. 17. Moreover, off-air coverage over much of Toronto and mandatory carriage on the basic service of distribution undertakings serving Torontonians across the city represent tremendous privileges. Mowever, CTV submits the Application fails to propose commitments to local service and the broadcasting system commensurate with the opportunities related to such a licence. Consider the following: The Application provides no market study or evidence of demand for the service.As such, there is no available proof that the station will service an unmet need or deliver programming or perspectives sought by the community: - The Application proposes no local news Indeed, the majority of local programming is comprised of extended coverage of Toronto City Council meetings; - The Application contains no meaningful commitment to Canadian programming, particularly in the priority categories in Public Notice CRTC I 999-97 .Indeed programming expenditures are extremely modest, ranging from $135,000 in Year One to $587,000 in Year Seven: and - The Application dedicates no meaningful resources to Canadian Independent production end provides no budget for program development . Conclusion 18. CTV submits the Application does not meet the criteria established for licensing either LPTV undertakings or the objectives articulated for community television stations, Accordingly, we believe the licence sought should be denied. In the alternative. this application should be evaluated as a proposal for a new local television undertaking serving Toronto. CTV submits that considered in this light. Mr. Pachul seeks a licence which will provide his station with extensive coverage of Toronto, including on basic on many cable systems without proposing meaningful commitments commensurate with this privilege. Accordingly, we believe the Application does not further the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and is not in the best interest of the Canadian broadcasting system. CTV respectfully submits that the Application therefore be denied. Yours very truly. CTV TELVISION INC. Robin Fillingham |