ARCHIVED - Decision CRTC 84-915

Decision

Ottawa, 23 October 1984

Decision CRTC 84-915

Sascable Services Inc., on behalf of certain licensees of broadcasting receiving undertakings in Saskatchewan

For related documents: see Decisions CRTC 83-126 dated 8 March 1983 and CRTC 83-957 dated 15 November 1983.

Table of Contents

Pages

1. INTRODUCTION

 a) Description of Applications 1 

b) Decision CRTC 83-957   3

2. ISSUES 

a) Technical Quality of Signals 6 

b) Subscriber Survey    10 

c) Impact on Local Broadcasters  11

d) Financial Implications  14 

e) Other Issues    15

3. DECISION 

a) Commission Findings   16 

b) Conclusion     19

APPENDIX

1. INTRODUCTION

a) Description of Applications

At a Public Hearing in Regina on 19 June 1984, the Commission considered applications by Sascable Services Inc. ("Sascable" or "the Consortium"), on behalf of the seven cable television licensees serving 41 communities throughout Saskatchewan, shown in the attached appendix to this decision, to change the authorized distribution of their television services by deleting the distribution of the signals of WDAZ-TV (ABC) Devils Lake, KUMV-TV (NBC), KXMD-TV (ABC-CBS) and KWSE-TV (PBS) Williston, North Dakota, received via microwave; and by replacing them with the signals of KOMO-TV (ABC) Seattle, Washington, WDIV (NBC), WJBK-TV (CBS) and WTVS (PBS) Detroit, Michigan, received via satellite from the Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. (CANCOM) network.

These applications also involve amendments to the licences for these undertakings by deleting the distant head-ends at Oxbow and Outram, Saskatchewan and Tolstoi, Manitoba, as well as the back-up head-end at Drayton, North Dakota; and by increasing the authorized maximum monthly subscriber fees by $0.64 ($0.16 per signal) to cover the costs of adding the CANCOM 3+1 U.S. network signals.

With respect to the undertaking serving Prince Albert licensed to Saskatoon Telecable Ltd., which is already authorized to receive the ABC and PBS signals from CANCOM, the licensee proposes to delete the signals of KUMV-TV (NBC) and KXMD-TV (ABC-CBS) and the associated head-ends, to replace these with the CBS and NBC signals received from CANCOM, and to increase the authorized maximum monthly subscriber fee by $0.32 to cover the costs of adding these two CANCOM signals.

The Commission notes that the signals of the North Dakota stations currently distributed to subscribers in Saskatchewan are delivered from the distant head-ends to Regina by means of Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and, in the case of WDAZ-TV, Manitoba Telephone System (MTS) microwave facilities. In Regina, these signals are inserted into the SaskTel fibre-optics Broad Band Network (BBN) for delivery to approximately 50 cable systems throughout Saskatchewan.

Sascable's proposal to replace the North Dakota signals with the U.S. 3+1 signals received from CANCOM involves the reception of the satellite-delivered CANCOM signals at a central earth station in Regina, with subsequent delivery throughout Saskatchewan on the BBN. If this proposal were approved, microwave facilities now used to deliver the North Dakota signals from the distant head-ends to Regina would become redundant.

Applications for a change in U.S. signal feed by Cablenet Limited serving Estevan and Weyburn, and The Battlefords Community Cablevision Co-Operative serving nine other communities in Saskatchewan, were also considered at the 19 June 1984 public hearing. Since these licensees were not represented by Sascable Services Inc., their applications will be specifically dealt with in separate decisions.

b) Decision CRTC 83-957

This is the second time the Saskatchewan cable television licensees have applied to change the feed of the U.S. network signals received by microwave from North Dakota to those received by satellite from Detroit and Seattle.

The first applications submitted were on the basis of poor quality and unreliability of the U.S. signals received at the distant head-ends, and to improve the overall quality of service offered to subscribers in Saskatchewan.

In denying those applications (Decision CRTC 83-957), the Commission stated that while it:

 ...recognizes that the applicants are encountering some quality of service problems in the distribution of the 3+1 signals from North Dakota, no clear evidence was provided to show that significant technical problems originate at the distant head-ends...

The Commission also stated that the applicants had not surveyed subscribers in the communities concerned in order to assess their views on the quality of services received in their communities, on the proposed replacement of the 3+1 signals and on the additional fee that would be charged for this purpose. It also noted that relatively few complaints had been documented relating to subscriber dissatisfaction with the quality of service. The Commission emphasized, however, that it would:

  ... continue to consider applications for the exhibition of the CANCOM 3+1 signals in markets other than "core", on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the market as well as the range and quality of services available in each market. Applicants claiming exceptional circumstances, such as poor quality of signals, will be required to substantiate such claims, based on clear evidence.

2. ISSUES

In presenting these new applications, the Consortium reiterated that the basic reasons for the proposed change in the feed of the U.S. network signals from a North Dakota to a Detroit/Seattle source are to improve the technical quality of the signals and to provide subscribers in Saskatchewan, at minimal additional cost, with a higher quality service, comparable to the services currently available in most other parts of the country. Sascable further stated that the applications contain documented evidence indicating that the technical quality of the North Dakota signals is highly unreliable because of factors such as distance, climate and topography, and that Saskatchewan subscribers are dissatisfied with the quality and reliability of the North Dakota signals.

More than 45 written interventions were submitted with regard to these applications, the large majority of which were in support of the proposals for a change in signal source. Interventions were also presented at the hearing by two subscribers, Mr. H.G. Wightman and Mr. D. Stevelman, and by representatives of CANCOM in support of the applications. In addition, the following interveners appeared at the hearing in opposition to these applications: representatives of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CTV Television Network Ltd., CFQC Television Saskatoon, and CKCK Television Regina, Meyer Broadcasting Company (KUMV-TV), Prairie Public Broadcasting (KWSE-TV), WDAY Inc. (WDAZ-TV) and Williston Enterprises Inc. (KXMD-TV).

Various areas of concern were raised by interveners and discussed at some length during the hearing. Among others, the following issues were discussed: the contention that the technical problems with the North Dakota signals originate at the distant head-ends; the validity of the findings of the subscriber survey undertaken on behalf of the Saskatchewan licensees; the potential audience fragmentation and economic impact on local broadcasters' revenues; the financial implications of the proposed change in method of delivery; as well as other issues such as community of interest concerns, simultaneous substitution, copyright and program acquisition arrangements. Representatives of the Canadian broadcasting industry were particularly concerned that approval of the Sascable applications would establish a precedent which could ultimately lead to the wholesale replacement by cable television licensees across the country of existing U.S. border television signals with those received from CANCOM.

a) Technical Quality of Signals

Sascable outlined nine basic factors which, when taken together, support its contention that the exceptional circumstances that exist in Saskatchewan justify the proposed change to the CANCOM signals:

1) the lengthy distances between the distant head-ends and the North Dakota transmitters;

2) the lack of a line-of-sight transmission path between the Outram head-end and the Williston transmitters which obstructs the received signals;

3) the flat prairie terrain in Saskatchewan which makes ducting and co-channel interference a much more significant problem than in other parts of Canada;

4) the frequency of electrical and wind storms on the prairies which severely affects reception;

5) the reliance of Saskatchewan cable operators on the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS) to deliver the ABC signal from North Dakota;

6) the 800 kilometre microwave transmission chain over which the ABC signal must travel;

7) the lack of ownership and control by the Sascable members over the head-end at Tolstoi, Manitoba;

8) the inaccessibility of the Outram head-end, located 240 kilometres from Regina, which makes it excessively difficult to carry out prompt emergency repairs; and

9) the fibre optics network through which the U.S. signals are fed to the various communities in Saskatchewan which requires high picture quality at source to function properly.

To support its arguments of technical unreliability, the applicant submitted several studies and reports, including a technical study undertaken by Caelum Technologies Ltd. (Caelum), two fault reports done by Regina Cablevision Co-operative and a subscriber survey by Canwest Opinion Results Group Ltd. The applicant also provided a short video presentation showing examples of the type of reception problems experienced at Regina and Saskatoon.

Caelum was commissioned by Sascable to study the quality and reliability of the North Dakota television signals delivered to cable subscribers in Saskatchewan. Included in the study was an assessment of the entire signal delivery chain, including the distant head-ends, microwave links, fibre-optics system, local head-ends and local distribution plants.

The Caelum study concluded that the North Dakota signals received in Saskatchewan are of poor quality and reliability. It further concluded that the majority of the problems are primarily due to propagation anomalies caused by the long distance between the North Dakota transmitters and the distant head-ends. The report found no fault with the signal delivery chain in Saskatchewan, other than routine random faults, but it did indicate there were certain unexplained problems associated with the long-haul MTS delivery system in Manitoba over which the ABC signal from Devils Lake must travel before reaching Saskatchewan. It emphasized that:

 SaskTel and Sascable Services are not able to improve the quality and reliability using the current delivery system, as the degradation is due mainly to natural propagation phenomena and to a lesser extent due to poor availability of the North Dakota stations.

While many interveners acknowledged there were problems with the signal quality and reliability of the North Dakota signals, they challenged the Consortium's findings regarding the severity of these problems, and disagreed with the contention that the addition of the CANCOM signals was the only viable solution available to rectify these problems.

As a possible alternative solution, the CAB suggested "space diversity" involving duplicate receiving antennae with automatic equipment to select the strongest signal from the Williston stations. The CAB also suggested an evaluation to determine if the antenna and receiving equipment at Outram could be upgraded to improve the signal quality or, alternatively, if a new receiving site could be established.

Interveners appearing on behalf of the North Dakota stations stated that certain changes were planned which would improve the technical quality of the signals received in Saskatchewan, including a satellite network feed of the CBS signal, and the establishment of a new ABC affiliate station at Williston to replace the signal of WDAZ-TV (ABC) Devils Lake. Meyer Broadcasting Company (KUMV-TV) informed the Commission that it was investigating the possibility of purchasing the cable system at Crosby, North Dakota and constructing a microwave system to deliver the Williston signals to the cable system at Crosby and to the Outram head-end.

The applicant's assertion that the satellite CANCOM signals would be more reliable than the signals currently being provided via microwave from North Dakota was also questioned by some interveners. For its part, CANCOM assured the Commission that measures, such as the addition of time base correctors and redundant processing equipment, will continue to be implemented on an on-going basis to ensure the delivery of signals of high quality and reliability.

Prior to the hearing the Commission had asked the Department of Communications (DOC) to report on the quality of the North Dakota signals as received at the distant head-ends, the SaskTel and MTS delivery systems, and the operation of the North Dakota stations. The DOC report dated 3 August 1984 was subsequently sent to all of the participants at the 19 June hearing for their comments.

In its report, the DOC indicated that the North Dakota signals are subject to co-channel and electrical interference as well as differential fading. The DOC also noted that the quality of the North Dakota signals was noticeably lower than that of the local signals in Regina and suggested that, short of relocating the remote head-ends closer to the U.S. stations, remedial measures to resolve the interference problems by the licensees would likely be largely ineffective. It further stated that it was unaware of any continuing technical problems with the MTS cable link and confirmed that the operation of the SaskTel fibre-optics network was essentially flawless although the interface hardware is susceptible to certain types of interference in the microwave signals.

b) Subscriber Survey

In response to Decision CRTC 83-957 in which the Commission noted that Sascable had failed to survey subscribers in order to assess their views on the proposed changes, the Consortium commissioned Canwest Opinion Results Group Ltd. to undertake a survey of cable subscriber attitudes in Saskatchewan. According to Sascable, the results of the survey clearly indicate subscriber dissatisfaction with the quality of the North Dakota signals, evidence that subscribers favour their replacement with the CANCOM signals, and a willingness on the part of subscribers to pay an additional fee for an improvement in the quality of the services received. In addition, Dr. Angus Reid, an expert on public opinion surveys, appeared at the hearing on behalf of Sascable to offer an assessment of the Canwest study. While Dr. Reid questioned some of the wording used in the survey, he maintained that Sascable's interpretation of the results was valid and provided evidence of consumer dissatisfaction, attributable to the quality of the U.S. signals received from North Dakota.

Some interveners questioned the validity of Sascable's interpretation of the findings of the Canwest survey and were critical of the questions put to subscribers. They were supported in their views by Mr. Graham Peters, an expert witness who appeared at the hearing on behalf of the North Dakota stations.

c) Impact on Local Broadcasters

The interveners representing Canadian broadcasting interests also opposed these applications on the grounds their approval would open the way for the creation of Detroit and Seattle superstations which could have serious economic implications on Canadian broadcasters' potential commercial revenues, particularly from multi-national advertisers.

The interveners contended that the higher quality programs available from stations in a large market such as Detroit or Seattle, as opposed to the programming currently available from the much smaller North Dakota markets, would cause additional audience fragmentation, thus effectively further reducing potential revenues for local broadcasters.

In reply, Sascable suggested that a significant amount of commercial revenue is presently being siphoned from Saskatchewan broadcasters by the North Dakota stations, and that much of this revenue might be retrieved by local broadcasters if the North Dakota signals were replaced by CANCOM signals, thus minimizing any potential revenue loss.

Sascable also submitted a study by CMC Canadian Media Corporation, described as "a company specializing exclusively in media research, strategy planning and buying in Canada, the U.S. and abroad", to refute the interveners' claim that the addition of the CANCOM signals would limit the Canadian broadcasters' potential advertising revenues.

With respect to multi-national advertising, the CMC study conceded that multi-national advertisers will continue to purchase Detroit "simply because it is a major U.S. market." The study indicated, however, that it would be cost-prohibitive for other advertisers to buy advertising time on the Detroit stations in order to reach subscribers in Saskatchewan due to the very high cost of broadcasting commercials on the Detroit stations, as opposed to buying time on Saskatchewan stations. It also supported Sascable's claim that the addition of the CANCOM signals might indeed help local broadcasters attract additional commercial revenue by retrieving Canadian advertising dollars currently being spent in North Dakota and possibly eliminating the risk of multi-national advertisers buying time on the lower-priced North Dakota stations.

The CAB noted that its principal concern was that "approval of these applications would be the first step towards the creation of three commercial U.S. superstations in Canada ... (which) would lead inevitably to access to at least 2.5 million Canadian homes for the three commercial CANCOM U.S. stations." The CAB argued that cable television licensees that now receive U.S. signals from border stations, as is the case in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba, would inevitably wish to have access to the higher quality CANCOM signals.

To counter these assertions, CANCOM emphatically stated at the hearing that it was not its intention to seek to replace the 3+1 services with its own CANCOM signals in all border communities across Canada. However, CANCOM stated that, in its opinion, there are specific markets such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Newfoundland where, based on technical, geographic and other considerations, the "provision of reliable 3+1 signals of good quality could be a valuable and appropriate contribution to the system ....and would not bestow on the Detroit stations any greater status than that enjoyed by the Seattle, Burlington and Buffalo stations." CANCOM estimated that, at most, the potential subscribers in these three provinces combined would not exceed 500,000, about 10% of the total cable subscribers in Canada.

d) Financial Implications

In denying the previous Sascable applications, the Commission indicated that:

 In examining similar proposals involving the replacement of existing microwave facilities in the future, when an increase in subscriber fees is also applied for, the Commission intends to discuss with the applicants whether and to what extent subscribers should pay for unused microwave capacity.

In response to the above-noted concern, Sascable informed the Commission that the charge to terminate its agreement with MTS for the delivery of the ABC signal from Tolstoi, Manitoba to the Saskatchewan border would amount to $141,248. It noted that it would proceed immediately to terminate its agreement with MTS should the applications be approved. Sascable further undertook to ensure that the "full benefit of the related cost savings are credited to subscribers following recovery of the termination charge" estimating that, as a minimum, such savings, per subscriber, "appears to be about four cents per month."

With regard to the proposed renegotiation of the Saskatchewan cable television licensees' contract with SaskTel, Sascable stated that this is "complicated by the fact that the SaskTel price per subscriber to each operator combines both the local distribution cost and the cost of delivering the signals to the systems via microwave and fibre-optics." It indicated, however, that "SaskTel has agreed in principle to unbundle the cost of the microwave links from Outram to Regina and to decrease the subscriber rate accordingly." Any resultant decrease, Sascable assured the Commission, "will also be passed on directly to our subscribers by way of rate reduction upon recovery of any termination costs, if any are levied by SaskTel."

e) Other Issues

A number of interveners, including the representatives of the North Dakota stations at the hearing, and the Government of Saskatchewan in its written submission, opposed the applications on the ground that a "community of interest" exists between North Dakota and Saskatchewan, which would be lost should the applications be approved.

In replying to this argument, the applicant stated:

 As to this alleged North Dakota/Saskatchewan relationship ... let me say that I believe this is a completely one-sided relationship. On a recent visit to North Dakota ... I was totally shocked to find out that on their cable systems not one Canadian TV station is shown ...

Some of the interveners also commented on the possibility that the addition of the CANCOM signals would eliminate some "simultaneous substitution" opportunities for the local broadcasters. Mr. Cowie of CKCK-TV acknowledged, however, that these concerns were primarily with the ABC signal from Seattle, noting that "... if all signals were from Detroit, we should have as many simulcast opportunities as we do now."

With respect to the concerns raised by some interveners concerning the issue of copyright infringement and the associated issue of broadcaster consent, it was noted that these concerns were already discussed at some length in the context of CANCOM's original applications for the distribution of the Canadian and 3+1 U.S. network signals (Decisions CRTC 81-252 and CRTC 83-126, respectively).

3. DECISION

a) Commission Findings

After a careful examination of all the technical evidence presented by the Consortium and all other parties to this proceeding, including that contained in the DOC report, the Commission is convinced that there are serious problems with the quality and reliability of the North Dakota signals currently distributed by the Saskatchewan cable television licensees. Based on such evidence, the Commission has further determined that these problems are due, in large part, to the long distances the signals have to travel from the Williston and Devils Lake transmitters to the head-ends at Outram and Tolstoi respectively.

The Commission notes that most interveners acknowledged the existence of signal quality problems. Representatives of the Canadian broadcasting industry proposed various remedial measures. They did not provide evidence, however, to satisfy the Commission that such measures would be feasible and would result in significant improvements in the services offered to subscribers.

The North Dakota broadcasters proposed a transborder microwave system which would deliver their signals from Williston to the Outram headend, to eliminate interference and fading problems. In the Commission's opinion, this proposal, which relies on future initiatives beyond the licensees' control and the jurisdiction of the CRTC and the DOC, is fraught with uncertainties, both with regard to its implementation and effectiveness.

Furthermore, on the basis of the large number of interventions submitted at this hearing in support of the applications, supplemented by the evidence provided in the Canwest study, the Commission is convinced that a significant number of cable subscribers in Saskatchewan are dissatisfied with the quality of service currently provided by the North Dakota stations, and that they support the proposed change in signal source.

In assessing these applications, the Commission has also considered the interveners' concerns with regard to the impact that the addition of the CANCOM signals in Saskatchewan might have on the potential commercial revenues of Canadian broadcasters, as a result of potential audience fragmentation or loss of multi-national advertising.

Based on the CMC study and the evidence presented, the Commission considers that any net loss in revenues resulting from the addition of the CANCOM signals would be minimal.

With respect to the concerns raised by certain interveners that the Detroit and Seattle television stations might develop into superstations, the Commission has considered the very substantial audience size of these stations in relation to the much smaller size of the Saskatchewan market and is satisfied that approval of these applications would not unduly alter the present status of these stations.

As noted in earlier decisions, the issue of the potential creation of superstations will continue to be given particular consideration by the Commission in examining applications for the exhibition of the CANCOM 3+1 signals in markets other than core. Careful examination will continue to be given to any such applications, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the size of the market as well as the range and quality of services available in each market. The Commission further reiterates that applicants claiming exceptional circumstances, such as poor quality of signals, will be required to substantiate such claims, based on clear evidence.

Following the discussions at the hearing on the possibility of a subscriber rate reduction to reflect unused microwave capacity, the Commission has taken note of Sascable's undertaking to ensure that any resultan decrease in the SaskTel charges or any cost savings as a result of the termination of its agreement with MTS will be passed on directly to subscribers by way of rate reduction following recovery of any termination costs. The Commission will follow closely the implementation of this commitment and will expect to be kept advised of any developments in this area.

In its consideration of these applications, the Commission has also taken into account the views raised by some interveners with regard to the community of interest between Saskatchewan and North Dakota and notes that, to a degree, there is some community of interest in the non-urban areas, particularly with regard to farm and weather reports, which are of common interest to the residents of the rural communities on both sides of the border.

With respect to balance, the Commission reiterates that the guidelines regarding balance between Canadian and U.S. services require that all CANCOM affiliates ensure that, subject to the availability of services, the number of Canadian television services, exclusive of discretionary pay television services, should be at least equal to the number of U.S. television services offered by them.

b) Conclusion

After assessing all the evidence before it, and taking into consideration all of the above-noted areas of concern, the Commission is satisfied that the particular circumstances that exist in the Province of Saskatchewan warrant approval of the Sascable applications. The Commission is convinced that it is clear from the evidence provided that there are serious and continuing problems with the technical quality and reliability of the North Dakota signals received at the distant head-ends. Under the circumstances, the Commission is satisfied that CANCOM offers a reliable and cost effective solution, and will provide subscribers in Saskatchewan with higher quality signals.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the applications to delete the four U.S. signals from North Dakota and to replace them with the carriage of the four U.S. signals from CANCOM on the broadcasting receiving undertakings shown in the appendix to this decision. With respect to the undertaking serving Prince Albert, which is already authorized to carry the ABC and PBS signals from CANCOM, the licensee is hereby authorized to delete the two North Dakota signals and to replace them with the CBS and NBC CANCOM signals.

The Commission also approves the proposed amendments to the licences for the undertakings noted above by deleting the distant head-ends at Oxbow (where applicable) and Outram, Saskatchewan and Tolstoi, Manitoba, as well as the back-up head-end at Drayton, North Dakota.

In addition, with the exception of Prince Albert, the Commission approves the proposed licence amendments to increase the maximum monthly subscriber fees by $0.64, to cover the costs of adding the four CANCOM signals. In the case of Prince Albert, the Commission approves a $0.32 increase in the maximum monthly fee to cover the costs of adding the two CANCOM signals. The new authorized maximum monthly fee for each undertaking is set out in the appendix.

The Commission considers that the above-noted increases are justified based on the charges to be paid by the licensees to CANCOM for the new services and to cover direct incremental costs related to the exhibition of the CANCOM signals. Accordingly, the licensees may only implement the authorized fee increases, on a prorata basis, of $0.16 per signal as each of the CANCOM services is made available to subscribers.

Further, as the signal of KOMO-TV (ABC) Seattle is not yet available from CANCOM, the licensees are authorized to continue to carry the signal of WDAZ-TV (ABC) Devils Lake via microwave from the Tolstoi head-end, until such time as the Seattle or other authorized ABC signal is available from CANCOM. The Commission's authority to delete the Tolstoi headend and the back-up head-end at Drayton will, therefore, only be effective at such time as an authorized ABC signal from CANCOM is provided.

In accordance with the balance guidelines for Canadian and U.S. services initially outlined in Decision CRTC 83-126, and as shown in the appendix listing the 24 communities concerned which do not meet these guidelines, authorization for the addition of one or more CANCOM U.S. signal(s) will only be effective at such time as suitable, additional, authorized Canadian television service(s) are provided to subscribers.

Fernand Bélisle Secretary General

APPENDIX

           Authorized Increase in Licensee      Application No./ Maximum Monthly Fee

Prairie Co-Ax TV Ltd.

* Assiniboia      840818900  $13.25 to/à $13.89
* * Moose Jaw      840819700  $10.24 to/à $10.88

North Eastern Cablevision Ltd.

** Yorkton      840820500  $13.95 to/à $14.59 ** Melville      840821300  $13.95 to/à $14.59 ** Canora       840822100  $13.97 to/à $14.61 ** Esterhazy      840823900  $13.87 to/à $14.51 ** Kamsack      840824700  $13.97 to/à $14.61

Image Cable Systems Ltd.

* Carlyle       840825400  $17.22 to/à $17.86 ** Carrot River     840826200  $15.22 to/à $15.86 *** Foam Lake      840827000  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Fort Qu'Appelle     840828800  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Grenfell      840829600  $14.38 to/à $15.02 *** Hudson Bay      840830400  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Humboldt      840831200  $14.38 to/à $15.02 * Indian Head      840832000  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Kelvington      840833800  $14.38 to/à $15.02 *** Langenburg      840834600  $14.38 to/à $15.02 ** Lanigan      840835300  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Lumsden      840836100  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Martensville      840837900  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Melfort      840838700  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Moosomin      840839500  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Nipawin      840840300  $14.12 to/à $14.76 ** Outlook      840841100  $14.38 to/à $15.02 * Oxbow       840842900  $17.22 to/à $17.86 *** Preeceville     840843700  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Rosthern      840844500  $17.22 to/à $17.86 * Shellbrook      840845200  $14.38 to/à $15.02 ** Tisdale      840846000  $14.12 to/à $14.76 *** Wadena      840847800  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Warman       840848600  $14.12 to/à $14.76 * Watrous       840849400  $14.38 to/à $15.02 ** Whitewood      840850200  $14.12 to/à $14.76 *** Wynyard      840851000  $14.12 to/à $14.76

           Authorized Increase in Licensee/      Applicatlon No. Maximum Monthly Fee Regina Cablevision Cooperative

* Regina       840852800  $10.90 to/à $11.54

Saskatoon Telecable Ltd.

* Saskatoon      840853600  $10.81 to/à $11.45 * Prince Albert     840854400  $10.18 to/à $10.50

Swift Current Cablevision Ltd.

* Swift Current     840855100  $11.75 to/à $12.39

Swift Current Telecasting Co. Ltd.
* Gravelbourg      840856900  $15.30 to/à $15.94
* ** Maple Creek      840857700  $14.30 to/à $14.94
* *** Shaunavon      840858500  $14.30 to/à $14.94

REQUIREMENTS REGARDING BALANCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. SERVICES

* Indicates licensees who are currently authorized to distribute at least four Canadian television services and who, therefore, qualify to add all four U.S. signals from CANCOM immediately.

** Indicates licensees who are currently authorized to distribute only three Canadian television services and who, therefore, are required to add the carriage of at least one additional, suitable, authorized Canadian service prior to the distribution of the fourth U.S. signal from CANCOM.

*** Indicates licensees who are currently authorized to distribute only two Canadian television services and who, therefore, are required to add the carriage of at least two additional, suitable, authorized Canadian services prior to the distribution of the third and fourth U.S. signals from CANCOM.