|
Public Notice
|
|
Ottawa, 5 August 1986
|
|
Public Notice CRTC 1986-191
|
|
CALL FOR COMMENTS ON THE LICENSING POLICY FOR MULTIPOINT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (MDS) USING THE 2500 MHz FREQUENCY BAND
|
|
Introduction
|
|
The purpose of this public notice is to invite public comment on the potential use of the 2500 - 2686 MHz frequency band by broadcasting undertakings.
|
|
Background
|
|
A Multipoint Distribution System (MDS) is an over-the-air system that uses microwave frequencies.
|
|
The Department of Communications (DOC) has allocated 15 channels on a primary service basis, and 16 channels on a secondary service basis, for television broadcasting purposes in the 2500 - 2686 MHz band.
|
|
The DOC has indicated in its spectrum utilization policy for this frequency band that frequencies used on a secondary basis are subject to being withdrawn if an assignment for a primary service applicant cannot be satisfied in the remaining primary band.
|
|
Since the MDS frequency band is at the lower end of the microwave spectrum, microwave techniques must be employed, and line-of-sight (LOS) clearance is required between the transmitter and the receiver.
|
|
To receive the MDS signals, individual home receiving equipment will be required. It would typically consist of an antenna (mesh construction and parabolic, or partial parabolic shape) of about 0.6 metres diameter mounted at 6 to 9 metres above the ground (e.g. a chimney), a block down-converter located at the antenna, and a lead-in cable for direct reception by a standard television receiver for systems of up to 12 contiguous channels, or to a set-top converter for systems of 13 to 31 channels (or possibly even fewer channels if the channels are not contiguous.) The individual home receiving equipment is estimated to cost approximately $200 ($300 including decoder) with antenna support structure and set-top converter (if required) being an extra cost.
|
|
The MDS frequency band has limitations in some areas due to shared use with Department of National Defence (DND) radar. There are also some limitations in places along the Canada/U.S.A. border due to frequency co-ordination problems with the U.S.A. (primarily the Windsor/Sarnia and Niagara Falls/St. Catharines/Hamilton/Toronto areas). The DOC is working on a border-sharing agreement, but it has not yet been finalized with the U.S.A.
|
|
A MDS transmitter operating at maximum parameters would typically have a coverage area of 50 km in radius. In those areas where all of the available MDS frequencies are not authorized to a single licensee, it would be possible to have different licensees who may serve different areas. Because of the coverage potential of MDS systems there could be significant overlaps in the coverage contours of the different MDS licensees. However, if they were to share a common transmitter site, then their coverage contours would be essentially identical even though they may be serving different areas.
|
|
The required spacings between MDS transmitters operating on the same frequency are such that a buffer zone (where signal reception quality will be poor, or unacceptable) is normally required between adjacent service areas which utilize the same MDS frequencies. These buffer zones typically can vary in width from about 4 to 34 km. (The size of the buffer zone can be varied somewhat by employing various techniques, e.g. using different transmitting antenna polarizations in adjacent service areas, and/or offsetting transmitter frequencies).
|
|
MDS transmitters operating on adjacent channel frequencies and at maximum parameters must normally be spaced a minimum of 58 or 54 km apart, depending on whether they use the same or opposite antenna polarizations (note that such spacings would normally provide a considerable overlap area between the adjacent coverage areas).
|
|
Possible Uses of MDS for Broadcasting Purposes
|
|
The Commission plans to take a flexible licensing approach for new MDS services, at least in the initial years, until a better appreciation of the market demand and constraints associated with this service can be obtained. The Commission is concerned about how best to integrate this new technology within the existing broadcasting system.
|
|
Although MDS technology is still evolving, the Commission envisages three main types of services.
|
|
1. As a cable-type delivery service to:
|
|
a) Extend the coverage area of existing or new cable systems into less populated areas beyond currently licensed cable service areas, where a cable system would be uneconomical;
|
|
b) Expand the capacity of existing cable systems within their service area;
|
|
c) Distribute services within existing licensed cable service areas.
|
|
2. As a conventional over-the-air broadcasting service to:
|
|
a) Provide new programming services;
|
|
b) re-broadcast programs of authorized television services.
|
|
3. As a hybrid arrangement:
|
|
consisting of one or more cable-type MDS systems and one or more over-the-air type MDS systems within the same market area.
|
|
Issues
|
|
Before issuing its MDS licensing policy, the Commission wishes to receive public comment on issues associated with the introduction of MDS services.
|
|
(1.) Cable-type MDS services
|
|
1.1 Under what conditions should any of the above cable-type MDS services be licensed?
|
|
1.2 To what extent, if any, should existing cable TV regulations apply including priority carriage rules, program substitution, community channel programming, rate regulation and the ownership of facilities?
|
|
1.3 What types of television services should be distributed, including local and distant Canadian stations, foreign stations, Canadian pay and specialty services, U.S. specialty services, and nonprogramming services?
|
|
1.4 Should cable-type MDS systems be required to scramble their signals?
|
|
1.5 Should all the MDS primary broadcasting frequencies available in one service area be licensed to one cable-type service?
|
|
1.6 What limitations, if any, should there be on the cross-ownership of MDS services?
|
|
1.7 To what extent should two or more MDS licensees who operate in the same MDS coverage area, share the same transmitting facility and use the same frequency when common programming services are being provided to each of the service areas with in the common coverage area?
|
|
(2.) Conventional over-the-air MDS services
|
|
2.1 What types of programming services should be provided?
|
|
2.2 To what extent, if any, should existing television broadcasting regulations apply, in cluding Canadian content requirements?
|
|
2.3 Should these services be provided in un-scrambled form?
|
|
2.4 Under what conditions should these services be carried by existing cable television systems?
|
|
2.5 Should MDS channels be licensed for this service if sufficient VHF or UHF television channels are still available?
|
|
2.6 What limitations, if any, should there be on the cross-ownership of MDS services?
|
|
(3.) Hybrid Arrangement
|
|
3.1 Should a licensee be able to use the MDS frequencies for both a cable-type service and an over-the-air service in the same coverage area?
|
|
3.2 Should the licensing policy for such systems be the sum of each of the above types of operation?
|
|
(4.) Secondary Service MDS Channels
|
|
4.1 Should any broadcasting licensee using any of the 16 secondary channels be required to adhere to the same licensing policy as those licensees using any of the 15 primary service channels?
|
|
The Commission does not wish to limit the scope of the submissions and interested parties may also comment on issues not identified in this notice. Comments should be received by the Commission by 3 October 1986 and be addressed in writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle Secretary General
|
|
|