|
Decision
|
|
Ottawa, 31 March 1988
|
|
Decision CRTC 88-221
|
|
W1 Cablesystems Inc.
|
|
Big Valley, Carbon, Carseland, Cereal, Champion, Chestermere Lake, Delburne, Delia, Donalda, Duchess, Elkwater, Empress, Exshaw, Foremost, Irvine, Magrath, Morrin, Nacmine, Nobleford, Rockyford, Rosemary, Standard, Stavely, Tilley, Warner, Youngstown, Alberta; and Abbey, Aberdeen, Abernethy, Alameda, Asquith, Avonlea, Beechy, Bethune, Blaine Lake, Buchanan, Burstall, Cabri, Canwood, Carievale, Caronport, Chaplin, Climax, Cochin, Codette, Coleville, Colonsay, Conquest, Debden, Dinsmore, Dodsland, Dundurn, Earl Grey, Eastend, Edam, Elbow, Fillmore, Fox Valley, Frontier, Gainsborough, Glaslyn, Glenovan, Govan, Grayson, Gull Lake, Hague, Hanley, Hepburn, Herbert, Hodgeville, Holdfast, Kelliher, Kenaston, Kennedy, Kincaid, Kisbey, Kyle, Lake Lenore, Landis, Lang, Leader, Leask, Lebret, Lemberg, Leoville, Leroy, Lestock, Lintlaw, Lucky Lake, Luseland, Manor, Marshall, Meota, Milden, Milestone, Morse, Mortlach, Mossbank, Muenster, Neudorf, Nokomis, Odessa, Ogema, Osler, Pangman, Paradise Hill, Pelly, Pense, Perdue, Prelate, Punnichy, Rose Valley, Sedley, Semans, Sheho, Shell Lake, Simpson, Spalding, Spy Hill, St. Brieux, St. Louis, Stockholm, Stoughton, Tompkins, Torquay, Turtleford, Vanguard, Vanscoy, Vibank, Viscount, Wapella, White Fox, Willow Bunch and Windthorst, Saskatchewan - 872724000
|
|
Tom Morrison, representing a company to be incorporated Asquith, Saskatchewan - 871673000
|
|
The Village of Avonlea Avonlea, Saskatchewan - 871653200
|
|
Cable Comm Ltd. Delburne, Alberta - 871289500
|
|
Swift Current Cablevision Ltd. Gull Lake, Cabri and Herbert, Saskatchewan - 872776000 - 872775200 - 872774500
|
|
The Commission approves that portion of application number 872724000 by W1 Cablesystems Inc. (W1) requesting licences to carry on broadcasting receiving undertakings at each of the 26 communities in Alberta and 108 communities in Saskatchewan noted above. The Commission will issue licences expiring 31 August 1992, subject to the conditions specified in this decision and in the licences to be issued.
|
|
The Commission reminds the licensee that it is required to submit, both to the CRTC and to the Department of Communications (DOC), its proposed head end co-ordinates for each of the undertakings for the purpose of technical certification. No licence will be issued in respect of an undertaking until such technical certification is issued by the DOC.
|
|
It is a condition of each licence that construction of the undertaking be completed and that it be in operation within 12 months of the date of this decision or such further period as the Commission may, upon receipt of a request for extension before the expiry of the said 12 months, deem appropriate under the circumstances.
|
|
The Commission denies the application by Mr. Tom Morrison, representing a company to be incorporated, and that by the Village of Avonlea, for licences to operate cable television undertakings at Asquith and Avonlea, Saskatchewan, respectively. These applicants were requested to appear at the hearing for oral questioning in light of the fact that their proposals were competing with those by W1 to serve these two communities. Although Mr. Morrison was represented at the hearing by Mr. James Schultz, the applicant's consultant, Mr. Schultz stated that he had not been authorized by the applicant to make any commitments on its behalf. In the case of the Village of Avonlea, neither the applicant's scheduled representative, Mr. Tim Forer, nor any other representative of the village, made an appearance at the hearing.
|
|
The Commission was unable to examine satisfactorily certain aspects of their applications; its assessment was consequently based on their written submissions only. The denial is based, to a large extent, upon the quality of W1's competitive applications, the greater range of services proposed by W1 for both locations, and the extent to which the communities of Asquith and Avonlea (identified by W1 as being positive contributors) will assist in ensuring the viability of its proposal.
|
|
The Commission denies the application by Cable Comm Ltd. which proposed the use of STV technology to distribute two CANCOM services from Detroit, Michigan and a Canadian specialty service (TSN) at Delburne, Alberta. This applicant failed to satisfy the Commission that it would not be economically feasible to provide cable television service to Delburne, or that an exception to this aspect of the STV licencing policy was warranted in this case. In reaching its decision, the Commission has taken into account the data provided by Cable Comm Ltd. and W1 indicating no appreciable difference between the two proposals in terms of the number of potential households that each would serve. The Commission has also noted the much larger package of services proposed by W1.
|
|
The Commission denies the applications by Swift Current Cablevision Ltd. for licences to operate new cable systems at Gull Lake, Cabri and Herbert, on the grounds that the Commission's failure to license W1 to serve these three communities, which are among W1's top potential positive contributors, would have an unacceptable negative impact on its ability to serve other smaller communities included under its regional proposal.
|
|
Swift Current Cablevision Ltd. is the licensee of the cable television undertaking serving Swift Current, Saskatchewan. It is owned 50% by Prairie Co-Ax T.V. Ltd. In separate decisions issued today, the Commission has licensed Prairie Co-Ax T.V. Ltd. and other applicants to serve a total of 16 communities which W1 had applied to serve under its regional proposal, including 14 in Saskatchewan and two in Alberta.
|
|
As noted in the introduction to this decision, W1 is owned 48% by C1 Communications Inc., 15% by CANCOM and 37% by Monarch Cable T.V. Ltd. In licensing W1 for 134 of the 150 communities it had applied for, the Commission acknowledges the merits of W1's regional service concept which will allow dozens of communities that are otherwise too small to support viable cable systems to receive service with minimal delay. The Commission is convinced that the 134 communities awarded to W1 should generate revenues sufficient to support implementation of this regional model.
|
|
In this regard, the Commission is aware that its decision not to grant licences to W1 for all of the communities it had proposed to serve could result in a capital cost per potential subscriber, for the project as a whole, in excess of W1's stated acceptable maximum. Nevertheless, the Commission reminds W1 that it is required by condition of licence to serve all of the 134 communities for which it is hereby licensed within the next 12 months, or such extended period as the Commission may approve upon request.
|
|
In the case of most of the proposed undertakings, including all of those in Saskatchewan, it appears that the proposed head end sites will be located within the Grade B official contour, as that term is defined in the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (the regulations), of only two licensed television stations, counted in the manner set out in the regulations. Accordingly, in these instances, the applicant will be licensed as a Part III licensee, and the operation of these undertakings will be regulated pursuant to Parts I and III of the regulations.
|
|
In the case of Carbon, Carseland, Champion, Chestermere Lake, Exshaw, Magrath, Nobleford, Rockyford and Standard, Alberta, the applicant had requested conditions of licence, pursuant to the regulations, which would authorize it to act as a Part III licensee in respect of these nine communities which would otherwise be licensed for Class 2 cable systems.
|
|
The Commission has considered the applicant's arguments, essentially related to the increased flexibility that Part III status would permit in service offerings, but is not convinced that these arguments justify the granting of Part III status. It therefore denies the applicant's request. Accordingly, the undertakings at Carbon, Carseland, Champion, Chestermere Lake, Exshaw, Magrath, Nobleford, Rockyford and Standard will be licensed as Class 2 undertakings and regulated pursuant to Parts I and II of the regulations.
|
|
The amount of $20.95 forms the base portion of the basic monthly fee for the purpose of section 18 of the regulations in respect of each of the Class 2 undertakings.
|
|
In addition to the services required or authorized to be distributed pursuant to the applicable sections of the regulations, the licensee is authorized, by condition of licence, to distribute, at its option, the programs of CHCH-TV (IND) Hamilton, WXYZ-TV (ABC), WJBK-TV (CBS), WDIV (NBC) and WTVS (PBS) Detroit, Michigan received via satellite from the CANCOM network, as part of the basic service on each of the Class 2 undertakings except Magrath.
|
|
Interventions were submitted by SaskWest Television Inc., licensee of CFRE-TV Regina and CFSK-TV Saskatoon, and by Allarcom Limited, licensee of CITV-TV Edmonton, opposing the proposed distribution of the programming of CITV-TV on the cable systems at various communities located within the markets served by the Regina and Saskatoon independent television stations. The concerns of Allarcom Limited relate essentially to the fact that various copyrighted programs broadcast by CITV-TV are duplicated within the schedules of the Saskatchewan stations. The concerns of Saskwest Television Inc. have to do with the potential this creates for the fragmentation of CFSK-TV and CFRE-TV audiences within the markets served by these stations.
|
|
The Commission considers that the arguments put forward by the interveners raise legitimate concerns. Accordingly, it is a condition of licence in respect of the undertakings at the following communities that the licensee shall not distribute, as part of its basic service, the programming service of television station CITV-TV Edmonton, received via satellite: Aberdeen, Asquith, Avonlea, Bethune, Blaine Lake, Caronport, Colonsay, Dundurn, Earl Grey, Govan, Hague, Hanley, Hepburn, Holdfast, Mortlach, Osler, Pense, Perdue, Vanscoy, Vibank and Viscount, Saskatchewan.
|
|
In light of similar concerns expressed by Allarcom Limited, and by Calgary Television Limited, licensee of CFAC-TV (IND) Calgary, regarding carriage of the CANCOM delivered signal of the Edmonton independent television station on certain of the proposed Class 2 undertakings in Alberta, and in conformity with the Commission's policy with respect to the distribution of distant Canadian signals, the Commission denies the proposed distribution of the programming of CITV-TV Edmonton, as part of the basic service, at Carseland, Champion, Chestermere Lake, Exshaw, Magrath and Nobleford, Alberta.
|
|
In the case of the Magrath undertaking, in addition to the services required or authorized to be distributed pursuant to the applicable sections of the regulations, the licensee is authorized, by condition of licence, to distribute, at its option, CHCH-TV (IND) Hamilton and WTVS (PBS) Detroit, Michigan, received via satellite from the CANCOM network, as part of the basic service. In addition to the PBS signal, the applicant proposed to distribute five other non-Canadian television services. This would be contrary to the Commission's policy which generally limits the cable distribution of non-Canadian television services by Class 2 licensees, as part of the basic service, to the three U.S. commercial and one non-commercial network (3+1) signals.
|
|
W1 failed to convince the Commission that an exception to its policy is justified in this case. Accordingly, it is a condition of licence that W1 is authorized in respect of its Magrath undertaking to distribute, at its option, any three of WXYZ-TV (ABC), WJBK-TV (CBS), WDIV (NBC) Detroit, Michigan, KFBB-TV (ABC/NBC) and KRTV (NBC/CBS) Great Falls, Montana, as part of the basic service, and is required to notify the Commission within three months of the date of this decision as to which services it intends to distribute.
|
|
With respect to the Eastend undertaking, the Commission reminds the applicant that CBCP-TV-1 Shaunavon is a local station and that its signal must be carried as a priority.
|
|
The Commission notes that at Carseland, Magrath and Nobleford, Alberta, although no local or regional French-language television stations owned and operated by the CBC will be received over-the-air, the applicant proposes to distribute the CBC French-language service of extra-regional stations at these communities. Accordingly, it is a condition of licence in respect of the undertakings at these three locations that the licensee is relieved of the requirement of paragraph 9(1)(f) of the regulations to distribute the French-language programming service of a station owned and operated by the CBC and distributed to the licensee by satellite or microwave relay so long as the over-the-air signal of the extra-regional CBC French-language television station proposed for carriage in each instance is distributed and is of acceptable quality.
|
|
The Commission acknowledges the applicant's plans for the development of a community channel at each of the communities, including those for which it will be licensed as a Part III licensee. The Commission encourages W1 to promote community interest in, and access to, this channel.
|
|
It is a condition of licence for all systems, pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the regulations, that the licensee be permitted to distribute the CBC Parliamentary Television Network on the community channel at times when community programming is not being distributed, and that the licensee shall, pursuant to paragraph 19(a) of the regulations, curtail the signal of this service as necessitated by community programming requirements.
|
|
With respect to the intervention from CTV Television Network Ltd., the Commission notes that the applicant has not proposed the distribution of CHAN-TV (CTV) Vancouver on any of the nine Class 2 undertakings herein approved. In the case of the remaining Part III undertakings, the Commission notes that where the licensee is distributing the CHAN-TV signal from CANCOM as well as the signal of a local CTV affiliate, the deletion of duplicate programming from the CANCOM service or the substitution of the local service is required pursuant to section 24 of the regulations and the List of Part III Eligible Canadian Satellite Services published 1 August 1986.
|
|
The Commission acknowledges the support for the W1 application expressed in 71 interventions. The Commission has also taken into account the views contained in 13 other interventions expressing opposition or comment, including those of the Cooperative of Community Television Services, T&B Satellite Reflections and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities which advocate the use of STV technology rather than cable to serve these communities.
|
|
|
|