|
9669 Madam Secretary. 9670 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 9671 The next intervention will be by the Canadian Cable Television Association. --- Pause 9672 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. INTERVENTION 9673 MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners. 9674 I have to get to the front page of my thing so I can remember my name. 9675 I'm Chris Taylor. I'm Senior Vice-President, Law and Regulatory, at the CCTA. With me is Colette Watson who is Vice-President, Programming and Public Relations of Rogers Cable Systems. 9676 We are here today to oppose Jan Pachul's application to establish a low-power over-the-air television service to serve parts of Toronto. 9677 As outlined in our written intervention, the CCTA has three concerns with respect to this application. 9678 First, we do not believe that the proposed service conforms with the Commission's policy and licensing criteria respecting low-power television undertakings. Therefore, for this reason alone we believe the application should be denied. 9679 Second, if the Commission is in any way disposed to deviate from its existing policy, we believe it should first hold a public process on whether its existing policy framework should be revised, and, if necessary, develop an appropriate licensing and distribution framework. Only after the completion of such a process should the Commission consider individual applications for low-powered television stations under the revised policy. 9680 Finally, in the event that the Commission approves the proposed service, we have concerns relating to the priority carriage requirements of this signal under the broadcasting distribution regulations. 9681 Now, as outlined in our intervention, as well as the interventions of the broadcasters and distributors who participated in the process in writing, it is clear that the proposed service does not meet either the policy or the licensing criteria established by the Commission on low-power television undertakings. 9682 The Commission's policy was specifically designed to encourage off-air community television operations in remote or under-served communities. The application, on the other hand, is seeking approval for a station to serve Toronto, the largest urban market in Canada. 9683 Second, the Commission's licensing criteria provides that the communities should have no competing local or regional television service. We believe that Toronto is already well served by local and regional television services, including seven private television stations, two CBC stations, a regional news and specialty service, and two provincial educational stations. 9684 Next, the Commission's licensing criteria also provide that there should be no community cable channel operating on a regular basis. 9685 As the Commission is well aware, Toronto is home to community channels operated by both Rogers and Shaw Cable Systems. 9686 Colette Watson would be pleased to discuss with the Commission the enormous success of Rogers Television and the diverse mix of programming it offers to subscribers. 9687 So it is for these three reasons we believe that the application should be denied. It does not come within the policy. 9688 We are also concerned, though, that the licensing of the proposed service would result in a clear departure from the existing policy, for granting approval to this application would have a significant precedential value and open the floodgates to other potential applicants to offer similar services in other urban markets, or even multiple low-power television services in some markets. 9689 Indeed, Mr. Pachul indicated today that is exactly what he would like to see happen. 9690 In light of the potential impact on distributors, broadcasters and television viewers everywhere, we believe that it would be premature to licence this service at this time. 9691 If the Commission is of the view that it should give serious consideration to this or any other application for a low-power television service in an urban area, we believe the Commission should first hold a public process on whether its existing policy framework for these types of services should be revised. 9692 If necessary, the Commission may develop a licensing and distribution framework for such services that sets out the expected role and contribution of low-power television services to the broadcasting system, as well as the carriage and access obligations of BDUs in relation to these services. 9693 The CCTA would be pleased to participate in such a proceeding, should the Commission decide to initiate one. 9694 Notwithstanding these concerns, in the event that the Commission decides to approve the proposed service, we are concerned about the carriage requirements of the signal under the broadcasting distribution regulations, in particular, in respect of: Rogers' Etobicoke, Mississauga, Toronto, Peel, York and Downsview cable systems, and Shaw's Scarborough and Richmond Hill cable systems. 9695 As has already been pointed out, it appears that the proposed service would be considered a priority signal on the basic service in those licensed areas, regardless of whether the applicant has requested or contemplated cable distribution of its service. 9696 Clearly, the applicant has contemplated cable distribution of its service. 9697 For the following reasons, we believe that if the Commission approves this application it should clearly state in its decision that the affected cable operators will be relieved from the obligation to distribute this service on a compulsory basis under the regulations. 9698 Mandatory carriage would transform the service from a marginal over-the-air service to a full scale television broadcasting service reaching over 950,000 households in the largest city in Canada. We believe that these type of carriage obligations in the Toronto market would be inconsistent with the role and contribution of low-power television services to the Canadian broadcasting system. 9699 It is also important for the Commission and others, including the applicant, to appreciate that the effective cable companies will not have sufficient analog capacity to accommodate the proposed service without significant disruption to their programming line-ups. 9700 In order to make room for the channel on the basic band, other services would have to be bumped from basic and moved to a tier, if there is room, or perhaps dropped completely if there is no room. We would be pleased to discuss specific examples with the Commission. 9701 In any event, the experience of our members is that channel realignments cause significant customer disruption. Given the nature of the proposed service, these changes would be difficult to justify to our customer. 9702 Further, as the Commission is aware, Rogers and Shaw have embarked on a digital strategy to increase channel capacity which involves converting existing analog channels and certain premium channels to digital. Therefore, new services for analog distribution cannot be easily accommodated and their introduction impairs the roll-out and transformation of the broadcasting system to digital. 9703 In conclusion, we believe the Commission should review this application against its existing policy and licensing framework for low power TV. 9704 If it does, then we submit there can be only one conclusion: The application does not meet the criteria established by the Commission for licensing low power television stations and cannot be approved on this basis. 9705 These are our comments and we welcome your questions. 9706 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. |