ARCHIVED -  Decision CRTC 97-545

Decision

Ottawa, 18 September 1997

Decision CRTC 97-545

Pacific Place Cable Ltd.

Licence amendments

1. In Public Notice CRTC 1997-14 dated 7 February 1997, the Commission announced the receipt of an application by Pacific Place Cable Ltd. (PPC) to amend the broadcasting licence of the cable distribution undertaking serving part of Vancouver as follows:

a) by deleting the requirement contained in Decision CRTC 96-224 which restricted the technical manner by which the licensee is permitted to receive certain television signals at its local head end (over the air, via optical fibre and via Cancom), and by authorizing the licensee to receive those signals by any technical means the licensee elects to utilise;

b) by authorizing the licensee to distribute, at its option, the Vancouver Community Television Service of Rogers Cable T.V. Limited (Rogers);

c) by authorizing the licensee to distribute, at its option, the ethnic and multicultural special programming service of Rogers; and

d) by adding a condition of licence whereby the licensee shall not distribute as part of this ethnic special programming service any commercial message other than sponsorship credits combining no more than the logo, name, address, the telephone number and the type of activity or profession of the sponsor. The sponsorship credits may contain sound and/or visual images, whether moving or fixed. The sponsorship credits shall have no purpose other than to acknowledge, in a concise direct manner, the sponsor's contribution and shall at no time constitute a detailed description or promotional device.

2. PPC carries on a cable distribution undertaking licensed in Decision CRTC 96-224 to serve Concord Pacific Place, a condominium and apartment development on the north shore of False Creek in Vancouver. This community falls within the territory served by a Class 1 cable distribution undertaking operated by Rogers. In granting a license to PPC to operate in part of the same territory served by Rogers, the Commission noted that such competition is consistent with the Commission's approach endorsed in its 19 May 1995 report to the government entitled Competition and Culture on the Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition.

3. In support of its request to alter the methods of signal reception, the applicant stated that it has sought to join the Saltspring Microwave Consortium which provides signals on a non-profit basis to cable distribution undertakings in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The applicant claimed that the Consortium has not approved the membership of PPC, because PPC is not authorized to receive the signals of the Consortium, which are delivered via microwave.

4. In Decision CRTC 96-224, the Commission set out the methods by which PPC is authorized to receive certain television signals at its local head end. Those methods are over the air, via optical fibre and from Cancom. This specificity is the Commission's normal practice when authorizing signal carriage by cable distribution undertakings. As noted above, PPC's application requested approval of the licensee's use of any technical means elected by PPC to receive its authorized signals.

5. This request is approved in part. While the Commission is satisfied that, in this case, there is no need to specify the method of reception as an integral part of the signal authorization, the Commission is concerned that, under the licensee's proposal, a non-Canadian satellite distributor could become the source of authorized signals. With this concern in mind, the Commission therefore authorizes the licensee to distribute the signals authorized in Decision CRTC 96-224, as received at its head end either over the air, or from any licensed or exempted Canadian broadcasting distribution undertaking authorized to provide signals to other broadcasting distribution undertakings.

6. With respect to PPC's request for authority to distribute Rogers' Vancouver Community Television Service and the ethnic and multicultural special programming service of Rogers, PPC stated that, should its proposal to change the methods of signal reception be approved, it would then be in a position to join the Saltspring Microwave Consortium, and would consequently receive all the signals delivered by Rogers' Vancouver undertaking. In this eventuality, the licensee proposed to distribute Rogers' community programming and ethnic and multicultural services on its own undertaking.

7. Interventions in opposition to these proposals were submitted by Rogers, the Canadian Cable Television Association, Access Cable, ICTV (an independent co-operative formed for the purpose of creating community-based television programming) and Mr. Sid Tan.

8. The interveners raised a number of concerns, including the contention that the services in question are not licensed programming services, and that the ownership of such programming should be clarified before PPC is authorized to distribute the Rogers-originated services. For its part, Rogers' position is that the distribution by its direct competitor of Rogers' self-produced services would seriously impair Rogers' ability to compete effectively with PPC.

9. In response to the interventions, PPC stated that, if its requests are approved, it intends to distribute only selected portions of Rogers' community programming, such as sporting events and municipal council proceedings. PPC stated that, if it is unable to share such programming, it would have to duplicate Rogers' efforts; this, it claimed would not be in the public interest.

10. With respect to the request for authority to distribute Rogers' ethnic and multicultural service, PPC claimed that by denying PPC access to this service, Rogers confers an undue preference upon itself, and subjects PPC to an undue disadvantage. PPC argued that such a situation is counter to the Commission's position on issues related to acquisition of programming, as set out in Public Notice CRTC 1997-25 entitled New Regulatory Framework For Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings.

11. The Commission has carefully considered the views of the applicant and the interveners in these two matters.

12. Regarding the applicant's proposal to distribute selected portions of Rogers' community programming, the Commission notes that, in accordance with the community channel policy set out in Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, licensees of distribution undertakings are permitted to reach agreements with each other concerning the sharing and exchange of such programming without the need to obtain the Commission's prior approval. At the same time, and as acknowledged by the Commission in Public Notice CRTC 1997-25, many licensees view their community programming as a means to establish a local presence and promote a positive corporate image. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that it would be unreasonable to require or expect a licensee to act against its perceived self-interest and share with a competitor its public image and goodwill, as expressed within its community programming.

13. With regard to PPC's argument that Rogers, by withholding access to its ethnic and multicultural programming service, is acting countrary to the Commission's policy requirements concerning the acquisition of programming, as set out in Public Notice CRTC 1997-25, the Commission notes that Rogers' authority to produce its programming is contained within its licence to operate a cable distribution undertaking, rather than in a separate licence to carry on a programming undertaking. Therefore, although this service is provided under authority of a licence, it does not operate under the authority of a programming licence such as specialty or pay television services. In this regard, the Commission notes that, in its proposed distribution regulations set out in Public Notice CRTC 1997-84, the access obligations refer to specialty, pay and pay-per-view services and not to community programming or special programming channels.

14. Thus, while PPC does not require the Commission's prior approval for the distribution of community programming produced by Rogers, the Commission reminds PPC that it must obtain the written agreement of Rogers before distributing any such programming. Similarly, while the Commission approves PPC's proposal to distribute the Rogers ethnic and multicultural special programming service, such approval is subject to PPC obtaining the written agreement of Rogers before distributing any such programming. Approval is also subject to the condition of licence related to sponsorship credits set out below.

15. It is a condition of licence that the licensee not distribute, as part of any ethnic and multicultural special programming service, any commercial message other than sponsorship credits. Such credits may combine no more than the logo, name, address, the telephone number and the type of activity or profession of the sponsor. The sponsorship credits may contain sound and/or visual images, whether moving or fixed. The sponsorship credits shall have no purpose other than to acknowledge, in a concise direct manner, the sponsor's contribution and shall at no time constitute a detailed description or promotional device.

This decision is to be appended to the licence.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.