ARCHIVED -  Decision CRTC 94-430

Decision

Ottawa, 21 July 1994

Decision CRTC 94-430

La Coopérative de Câblodistribution de l'Est du Québec

Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière, Québec - 931028500Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière, Québec - 931666200

Competing applications for authority to carry on a new cable distribution undertaking

Following a Public Hearing in the National Capital Region beginning on 25 April 1994, the Commission approves the application by La Coopérative de Câblodistribution de l'Est du Québec (the Coopérative) for a broadcasting licence to carry on a cable distribution undertaking to serve Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière. The operation of this undertaking will be regulated pursuant to Parts I and III of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (the regulations).

The Commission will issue a licence to the Coopérative, expiring 31 August 1997, subject to the conditions specified in this decision and in the licence to be issued. This term is consistent with the Commission's practice regarding the licensing of new cable distribution undertakings of this type.

The Commission denies the competing application by Télé-Câble St-Eugène de Ladrière Inc. (Télé-Câble).

In Decision CRTC 94-431 issued today, the Commission also approved the application by the Coopérative to serve Saint-Valérien.

The Coopérative's membership includes several residents of Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière and Saint-Valérien who formed their own cable company because they were no longer prepared to wait for cable service. The Coopérative hired a consulting firm to supply the technical expertise required to build and manage the undertaking.

Télé-Câble is wholly owned by Louis-Serge Tardif. Mr. Tardif was granted authority to serve Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière in 1991 on condition that he file documents with the Commission demonstrating that the company he represented was duly incorporated. As he did not fulfil this requirement and did not construct the undertaking before the licence expiry date, Mr. Tardif's authority was withdrawn.

As stated in a number of decisions, the Commission's primary objective when considering competing applications for a licence to carry on a cable undertaking is to ensure that a viable undertaking is established that offers an attractive package of broadcasting services to the greatest possible number of subscribers, at reasonable cost and within the shortest possible timeframe.

At the hearing the Coopérative demonstrated that it has access to the technical expertise and financial resources necessary to implement the undertaking. The applicant further proposed a package of services that reflects the interests and preferences of local residents, who expressed considerably greater support for the undertaking proposed by the Coopérative than for that proposed by Télé-Câble. Each of these residents has provided a written commitment to contribute $200 to the Coopérative's capitalization and has already deposited $20 of this amount. At the hearing the Commission took particular note of the customer service to be provided by the applicant. The Coopérative's application is notable in that it proposes to use local technicians to provide service, thus ensuring speedier delivery. Finally, given the patience that the residents of Saint-Eugène-de-Ladrière have displayed while waiting for cable service, the Commission considers the construction schedule proposed by the Coopérative to be reasonable.

Although the Commission does not regulate fees charged by Part III cable licensees, it notes the Coopérative's statement at the hearing that its proposed monthly subscriber fee of $25.95 [TRANSLATION] "will be unchanged for the first ten years of operation".

Based upon its evaluation of the two applications and of the discussion at the public hearing, the Commission is of the view that the application by the Coopérative represents the better proposal under the circumstances and that the public interest will be best served by its approval.

In addition to the services required or authorized to be distributed pursuant to the applicable sections of the regulations, the applicant is authorized to distribute CFJP-TV Montréal, received via satellite, as part of the basic service.

The Commission approves the applicant's request with respect to section 23 of the regulations. Accordingly, it is a condition of licence that the applicant be relieved of the requirement that it distribute at least four television programming services as provided for in section 23 of the regulations, so long as it does not distribute any U.S. television service or only those which may subsequently be authorized by the Commission. In deciding to approve this request, the Commission took into consideration the applicant's arguments that it is a small firm with limited financial resources and that distribution of additional English-language CANCOM services is unwarranted because Francophones will constitute a majority of its future subscribers.

In Public Notice CRTC 1992-59 dated 1 September 1992 and entitled "Implementation of an Employment Equity Policy", the Commission announced that the employment equity practices of broadcasters would be subject to examination by the Commission. It encourages the Coopérative to consider employment equity issues in its hiring practices and in all other aspects of its management of human resources.

In accordance with subsection 22(1) of the Broadcasting Act, the Commission will issue a licence to the applicant if it is in receipt of written notification from Industry Canada, within three months of the date of this decision, that it will issue a Broadcasting Certificate. No licence will be issued if the Commission does not receive this notification within said period or, where the applicant applies to the Commission within this period and satisfies the Commission that it is unable to obtain said notification before the expiry of this period and that an extension is in the public interest, within such further period of time as is approved in writing by the Commission.

It is a condition of licence that the authority granted herein be implemented within twelve months of the date of receipt of Industry Canada notification referred to in the preceding paragraph or, where the applicant applies to the Commission within this period and satisfies the Commission that it cannot implement its authority before the expiry of this period and that an extension is in the public interest, within such further period of time as is approved in writing by the Commission.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General