|
9707 THE CHAIRPERSON: As you know, quite often policy is pushed and dragged and altered through application. You seem to be convinced that it is impossible to change the policy after this type of public process. 9708 But it has been a public process. We have had an intervention from you and have invited you to appear. CTV has filed an intervention, Rogers Cable, CHUM and the CAB. 9709 So why is it so difficult here to consider this application without interrupting this process and having a public process to hear those interested parties tell us more than what they told us in these interventions? 9710 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think the scope of the process is one that is focused on -- or initially focused on a local television service, low power local television service application. That was the initial scope, but it is clear that the implications are much broader. As you indicated, policy can change incrementally or it can change in larger steps. 9711 Mr. Pachul has indicated that he sees this as the start of a national movement and I think he may be right, that if it were to be approved the effect of the change in policy -- because at that point there would be a change in policy -- would have national implications. 9712 In those circumstances I believe it would be most appropriate to have a public notice that would indicate that it is a national policy that is being changed and not simply deal with a significant policy change in the context of one application. 9713 THE CHAIRPERSON: You, as a representative of the cable industry, have made the comments that you consider appropriate for your industry to fence in the effect of any change in policy that would flow from licensing, that is: Don't force cable operators to carry it. So you have made your point. 9714 Why couldn't the television broadcasters make their points as well as to what was necessary to protect them in this process? 9715 I'm curious about what is wrong with considering this application without having a full-scale process and why is it that the television broadcasters didn't come forward like you did and say "For my industry, if you license this this is what I want to protect me." 9716 MR. TAYLOR: You are correct that certainly we have made our initial point from the distributor's point of view, which is that we would look for an exemption from carriage. The two largest cable systems in Canada have taken a direct interest in this process because they happen to be situated in Toronto. 9717 Other cable systems haven't necessarily had exactly the same level of attention paid to it because it may not be affecting them directly, but as the Association -- 9718 THE CHAIRPERSON: I assumed you were representing them. 9719 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that's correct. I'm getting there. 9720 But as the Association we represent them and we certainly consult with our members. 9721 This is all a lead-in. I can't speak on behalf of the broadcasters, but the same issue would arise with respect to the broadcasters. 9722 The Association has intervened and had a -- on behalf of its members but, nonetheless, the specific members in Vancouver or wherever may have taken a little more interest if it had been happening in their area. 9723 The other points, though, that I would like to say is that, firstly, generally if there is to be a call for -- if there is to be an application for a new television station there is generally a call for competitive applications. Given the potential implications for this particular system where there is potentially mandatory carriage on cable, which would turn it effectively into the equivalent of a full-blown television station, that is also an important aspect of the process and so we would wonder whether that would be appropriate. 9724 Again, this is a broadcaster's argument or issue more than my own and I hesitate to speak for Mr. McCabe. 9725 I would also note that Mr. Pachul has introduced some additional information later in the process which might have affected other people's perceptions on the issue. Again, I can't speak for what exactly they might have said if they had seen other aspects of his application. 9726 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. My question was more generic as to the extent to which you are sure that in the way the Commission usually operates there has to be a full-scale public policy process before altering, perhaps, the policy we have when the issues were really made obvious through the application? 9727 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think it is fair to say that we have picked up on things because some large members would be affected by the application. 9728 I would return to the fact that a change in the policy has national implication and I think that to be fair to other participants in the broadcasting industry generally, to make a change in a policy with national implications in the context of an extremely local application is something that the Commission should be very, very cautious about doing because it is -- well, as a precedent I just don't know that it would be one that you would want to continue with. 9729 THE CHAIRPERSON: I only have one other question. I am asking it of you, although -- well, it is relevant to your members I guess. 9730 You make the point that it is obvious from reading the policy on low power television as it exists now, that it was intended to be used in what you call under-served communities in your presentation of a few minutes ago. 9731 What is your response to the proposition put forward by the Applicant and the intervenors that indeed those communities are under-served, not because there aren't many channels and many services reaching them, but because they are not of the type of television that they feel is still necessary to be received and perhaps more than ever? 9732 In that sense they may not be remote in the sense of they are in Nunavut, but that they are under-served in the sense that they are not getting the full panoply of what television can offer, that is at the very local level? 9733 MR. TAYLOR: Well, the first comment would be I'm not sure that we would necessarily agree that they are under-served with respect to the particular types of programming that the Applicants are focusing on. I think Colette Watson could comment on that. 9734 On the more abstract issue of whether or not a particular area as well-served as Toronto could still be under-served in a particular area of program, that certainly is a possibility. 9735 But I would have thought -- and again I don't want to take on too much of the role of the CAB here, but I would have thought that if there was an under-served area the proper approach would be to have a call for applications rather than to have an ad hoc application that, shall we say -- and I don't want to impugn this too much, but sort of sneaks in under a policy that people didn't really think was the appropriate policy. 9736 So that you sort of get in through the door on the basis of a policy that appears to apply on its face to places that are situated in remote areas or rural areas of the country and once you are sort of in the door you then make the arguments that "Well, we are actually talking about programming, types of programming, not the total lack of services all together." 9737 MS WATSON: If I can contribute. 9738 If I look at the applicant's programming grid, the NASA feed, some of you may remember we used to apply for a temporary network licence to distribute the NASA feed every time there was a shuttle launch or when the Mars Explorer landed. We also have an application in to carry the channel full time on our digital service. 9739 There's lots of science fiction. The movies pre-1968, I don't see that as serving an under-served market. In terms of public affairs and local issues, city council is carried gavel to gavel. There were three times in 1999 that they went beyond 6:30. We did have an agreement with them that we would cut off at 6:30. 9740 To address their point that the city is unhappy with our coverage, well, it's gavel to gavel and they say we make them look bad. Well, it's gavel to gavel. I don't know any other way to make them look than who they are. You know, it's there. 9741 Where people are under-served, I guess, what I heard are people who are not cable subscribers who are looking for community information. If they want to have low powered operations that don't require cable carriage, then we as a cable company would not have an issue with that. 9742 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 9743 Commissioner McKendry. 9744 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Mr. Pachul made the point to us that in the United States the cable companies and low powered over the air television stations seem to work together. He indicated that it's common for them to be carried on cable systems and I think indicated that cable systems certainly weren't adverse. I don't know if he went so far as to say they welcomed them, but they were carrying them. 9745 What's the difference between the situation faced by American cable systems and your members? What accounts for the carriage in the United States? 9746 MR. TAYLOR: I don't know the situation in the States sufficiently to comment on that, but I would have thought that the preliminary issue here is the one that we have identified which is the capacity one and the realignment one, but I think Colette would be in a better position to address the specifics in this particular case. 9747 MS WATSON: One of the differences are the amount of off air priority signals we are required to carry versus what they are required to carry. In a busy off air market like Toronto, it takes up a lot of the dial. 9748 There are markets like Kitchener-Guelph in Toronto where the grade B contours of a lot of transmitters overlap. So you have this spirograph happening, you know, around your head end where we just have a lot of stations to squeeze into that spectrum. 9749 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So the essence of your objection to this application is a capacity problem. If you had an extra 20 channels that you didn't know what to do with in Toronto, you would be comfortable with this application. 9750 MS WATSON: I guess I don't want to go down that road because we will never have an extra 20 channels, right? We don't have -- 9751 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I don't mean 20, but if you had channel capacity available, you wouldn't have an objection I take it then. 9752 MS WATSON: As a cable carrier, we would not have an issue with mandatory carriage, but we are more and more wanting to deliver a product, an ensemble product that appeals to our subscribers. 9753 Just because someone has a great idea and says "Give me a licence, trust me, I will figure it out" doesn't mean we can say "Yes, we will give them six megahertz of spectrum". We need more than that. 9754 There's no market research that shows customers want this. Would we be required to pay for it? Rather than answering, there are a whole lot of questions I would need to ask before answering beyond that. 9755 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So your concern just isn't capacity, it's the nature of the content as well. 9756 MS WATSON: The viability of the service, you know. If we displace something to make room for it and then as they said, if it doesn't work we will shut it down and hand back the channel, that's disruptive. 9757 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I was putting to you a situation where you had capacity available. 9758 MS WATSON: If we had capacity available, that's one factor. 9759 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And the other factor is the content. 9760 MS WATSON: Yes, and the mix, and the application to the mix. 9761 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Yes. So before you would carry -- assuming you had the capacity available, you would look at their content and you would say "Well, w're not going to carry this because we don't think the content is appropriate". 9762 MS WATSON: Or this is great content, you know, why don't we go for this. 9763 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: But you might say "We don't like this content. It's not consistent with the package of services that we like to put out to our customers. We are not going to carry it". That would be a possibility even if you had the capacity. 9764 MS WATSON: We would enter into a discussion with the provider, the service provider, to explore where the content ideas are coming from, to perhaps point out that some of that programming is duplicated elsewhere and do you have something else to build from to make it bigger, better? 9765 We wouldn't play the censor role that way, but we would on behalf of our customers and Canadian viewers want some assurances that there's content people want. 9766 MR. TAYLOR: Also, from the policy perspective, if you are going to be looking at a mandatory carriage arrangement for these low power TV situations and you are driving at whether or not you do any analysis or consideration of the content, that to my mind brings it right back to the "Why aren't you having a competitive call" so that the Commission itself can assess, you know, if there are going to be low power television stations in particular non-remote regions, you know, well then maybe it's appropriate to have a competitive call and say "Well, who gets in the door and who gets to have these?" 9767 I just think this is a first, shall we say, and it could set a precedent. I think in fairness for other potential applicants and for who wouldn't mind being in this situation. 9768 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: On page 4 you say, and I quote: "If the Commission has the view that it should give serious consideration to this or any other application for a low power television service in an urban area --" (As read) 9769 It goes on. I just want to make the point, and perhaps it's for the benefit of Mr. Pachul and the intervenors, we give serious consideration to any application that comes in front of us. I think that should be clear probably to CCTA and it should be clear to the applicant that we will give serious consideration to his application, as we do to any application. 9770 MR. TAYLOR: Rebuke noted. 9771 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Cram. 9772 COMMISSIONER CRAM: I just have a couple of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. 9773 Ms Watson, do you know the audience share that your community channel has, say in Rogers Toronto, Peel, Mississauga? 9774 MS WATSON: Yes, I do. I have to admit that Mr. -- I'm sorry. Could you tell me how to pronounce your name -- Mr. Pachul's interpretation of market share where he said 3 per cent, if I can just put that into context for you. 9775 TSN, which is the highest rated specialty service, A&E and TBS which are the highest rated specialty services, get 3 per cent market share. We get 1.1. In Toronto, in terms of weekly reach of all English, French and other TV stations, all persons 2 per cent in cable households. We got a 16 per cent reach the week of October 4. 9776 The week of October 25th to 31st, we had a 17 per cent reach. This compares to Headline Sports, Comedy Network, Vision, Country Music TV, Prime, Outdoor Life, and so on. 9777 COMMISSIONER CRAM: So they are about the same? 9778 MS WATSON: Yes. 9779 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. And regional audience share -- so actual share, though, is 1.1? 9780 MS WATSON: Yes. 9781 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Good. And on your community channel, in Rogers Toronto,Peel, Mississauga, I think, how much regular programming per week do you have that is specific to these -- the wards in question -- where this low-power television would propose to program? 9782 MS WATSON: Well, our Peel licence doesn't go to the Beaches, so. 9783 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Well, then I am sorry -- whatever area it is. 9784 MS WATSON: It would be our Toronto Centre. 9785 COMMISSIONER CRAM: York? 9786 MS WATSON: Not quite York. So that system did 143 original hours last month. We do an average of close to 36 hours a week, but it is not a divided in wards, right, it is general-specific. We go out into the community and if Carabana goes through, we will be there. 9787 I remember last year we did a documentary on the Danforth and the business on the Danforth. It was part of a Toronto.com program. So we profile different neighbourhoods, different areas of Toronto, and that is one of the neighbourhoods that we would provide. One of the things we just recently launched through the at-home link that we have, what we do is feed onto the at-home site local information in terms of whatever, city politics, you know, if there is a bylaw that our liaison with the Toronto City Council want to promote, they do that there, whether any kind of school closure notices or things like that. 9788 COMMISSIONER CRAM: So did I hear you say 36 hours a week? 9789 MS WATSON: Yes. 9790 COMMISSIONER CRAM: And how many wards would that actually cover? 9791 MS WATSON: You know, I have to admit, I live in Ottawa and I don't know how many wards there are in the City of Toronto. So it covers the geographic boundary for which we are licensed. 9792 COMMISSIONER CRAM: The whole area for which you are licensed, not just the specific licence in question that we are talking about? 9793 MS WATSON: The specific Rogers Toronto licence, not the Peel or the Mississauga licence. You are trying to compare apples to apples, is that it? 9794 COMMISSIONER CRAM: That's right. 9795 MS WATSON: So we'll have to take Peel out of the equation and Etobicoke because they are west and so this area is about three block east of where we actually work in Toronto, on the corner of Bloor and Jarvis. So just over that bridge starts the Danforth and then goes east to the Beaches. It also then goes into Shaw territory, so it kind of splits over. 9796 So in terms specific to that area, we do specific to our geographic boundary for that market which is Parkdale which is kind of more Bathurst to the Danforth. 9797 COMMISSIONER CRAM: So do I have it right then? The 36 hours may or may not have any specific programming on the wards in question that Mr. Pachul is trying to address? 9798 MS WATSON: Well, it has the City Council coverage. 9799 COMMISSIONER CRAM: No, no. I am not talking about that. 9800 MS WATSON: And it has public affairs programming. So if something is happening in terms of an election in that area, it will be there. 9801 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. But other than that, there is nothing specific that actually directs you to these individual wards? 9802 MS WATSON: No. 9803 COMMISSIONER CRAM: And maybe, Mr. Taylor, you can help me because I need help on Toronto. Toronto is not my area and I don't know the geographics. I have here sort of a map of the contour. 9804 Can you tell me what the primary cable licence where Mr. Pachul's licence would be -- the major licence area? 9805 MS WATSON: It would be the Downsview, York, Rogers Toronto. 9806 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Downsview, York? 9807 MR. TAYLOR: And Rogers Toronto. 9808 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. And that, if I have that right, that one has a population of 35,250 -- that particular licence? 9809 MS WATSON: Downsview? 9810 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. 9811 MS WATSON: Yes, that one, right. 9812 COMMISSIONER CRAM: That licence has 35,250? 9813 MS WATSON: That sounds about right, yes. 9814 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. It also touches on what other -- and is the totality then -- 9815 MS WATSON: Then there is York, and then there is Toronto. Those are other licences. 9816 COMMISSIONER CRAM: On air, would it cover the totality of Toronto, York also? 9817 MS WATSON: Off air? 9818 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Off air, sorry. 9819 MS WATSON: Is it 15 or 32 kilometres? Low power? 9820 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. 9821 MS WATSON: The low power policy is 15 kilometres. So it just touches the edge of -- it covers pretty much all of our Toronto Centre and then just briefly touches, barely touches our Toronto, Peel. 9822 COMMISSIONER CRAM: So when you say Toronto Centre, you mean Toronto, York, and Toronto, Downsview that it covers? 9823 MS WATSON: And then we also have a licence that is Toronto, Peel and it covers some of that territory. 9824 COMMISSIONER CRAM: It covers some of Toronto, Peel? 9825 MS WATSON: Yes. 9826 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. 9827 MS WATSON: See, I go back to this morning's regional application. 9828 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, but this is one of the repercussions of doing a regional application. 9829 MS WATSON: But the fact that it falls into the Toronto, Peel licence now, that means I have to put it on in Mississauga. 9830 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. So although there is no off-air coverage in Mississauga as a result of the mandatory nature of the BDU regs, there would be coverage in Mississauga. Is that correct? 9831 MS WATSON: Right, because it touches our head-in that feeds the Toronto, Peel licence. So the head-end which is at 855 York Mills Road is just at 401 and Leslie. It's in the east end of the city. The 15 kilometre radius touches that and then that means we have to deliver it to Brampton which is like 40 minutes away down the highway. 9832 COMMISSIONER CRAM: If on-air, if this was also carried in Toronto,York and Toronto, Downsview, would that approximate the coverage of the off-air? 9833 MS WATSON: All of our 1.1 million subscribers in the GTA are fed pretty much. We have broken them up into three kind of head-ends. So Newmarket would be excluded, Oshawa and Ajax which are on the other side of Shaw, and then everything else is fed out of 855 York Mills. So pretty much 900,000 of our customers would get this. 9834 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. What I am trying to do is fit your licences into the coverage of the off-air in an approximate way, and if I did that, would that only be the two licences Toronto, York and Toronto, Downsview? 9835 MS WATSON: No, Toronto, Peel as well. 9836 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Without Mississauga? 9837 MS WATSON: Well, as soon as it traces into the circle, it doesn't matter how deeply into the circle it goes, it has to go on. 9838 COMMISSIONER CRAM: And how deep does it go into the Peel-Mississauga circle? 9839 MS WATSON: It doesn't, but it hits the Toronto, Peel licence. So because it hits the Toronto end of it, it goes into Peel. 9840 COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you. 9841 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Taylor, you mentioned earlier that you had an apparent objection to Mr. Pachul having deposited information at the last minute. I am wondering what you are referring to? 9842 MR. TAYLOR: Well, he introduced his Bill of Viewers' Rights which I wasn't aware of. He also introduced a proposal for cable carriage which I wasn't aware of and still actually haven't seen. 9843 THE CHAIRPERSON: You mean his proposal on the basic band. 9844 MR. TAYLOR: On the basic band. I mean those are things that are coming in pretty late in the day. I don't know about the first, why it would have been available later, but the second clearly might have been in response at the interventions and I understand that Mr. Pachul is perhaps not as familiar with the procedures as others might be -- 9845 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, maybe he is very familiar with the procedure. Maybe he is actually a lawyer in disguise. --- Laughter He knows exactly what to do. 9848 Do you have any other comments you would like to make on those points at the moment? 9849 MR. TAYLOR: No, I believe between our written intervention and our current comments -- 9850 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are satisfied that you have spoken to this file, to this application to your satisfaction? 9851 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 9852 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are satisfied that you had an opportunity to speak to it? 9853 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, yes. 9854 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel? 9855 Thank you very much for your intervention. 9856 We will take -- is a five-minute break sufficient, Mr. Pachul, before hearing you in intervention? It sounds to me as if we are torturing your name, but we are doing our best. --- Upon recessing at 1808 |