|
|
|
|
|
|
Câblevision Gatineauval inc.
|
La Pêche and Hull-West (including parts of Wakefield, Farm Point and Chelsea), Quebec - 199705563
|
Short-term licence renewal
|
1. Following a Public Hearing in the National Capital Region beginning on 15 October 1997, the Commission renews the licence held by Câblevision Gatineauval inc. for the cable distribution undertaking serving the localities mentioned above from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000. This two-year term will allow the Commission a reasonable period of time to assess the licensee's performance in light of complaints and interventions received by the Commission and addressed later in this decision.
|
2. In accordance with the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the regulations), the licence (formerly a Class 2 - fewer than 2,000 subscribers) shall be renewed as a Class 3 licence, and the operation of the undertaking shall be regulated pursuant to Parts 1 and 3 of the regulations. The licence will be subject to the conditions in effect under the current licence as well as to those conditions specified in the licence to be issued.
|
3. This is the third short-term licence renewal issued by the Commission for this undertaking as a consequence of interventions and complaints from subscribers regarding signal reception quality and customer service. In Decision CRTC 92-746 dated 26 October 1992, the Commission renewed the licence for a period of only two years. More recently, the licensee was called to appear at the 15 April 1996 Public Hearing to discuss the reasons why its licence should be renewed in light of unresolved complaints from subscribers; the licensee was subsequently granted an 18-month renewal (Decision CRTC 96-223 dated 13 June 1996).
|
4. During the current licence term, the Commission received a large number of complaints from subscribers which were again related to poor signal reception quality and poor customer service. As a result, in July 1997 the Commission asked the Department of Industry to assess the licensee's cable system. The Department found that the quality of the signals distributed on some channels did not meet current standards. In light of all of the foregoing, the Commission called the licensee to appear at a public hearing for the second time in 18 months to review the reasons why the licence for this undertaking should be renewd.
|
5. Following release of the notice of public hearing pertaining to this latest renewal application, the Commission received four interventions from subscribers, three of whom were opposed to the licence renewal because of the poor quality of service, and one who suggested that competition should be permitted within the market to provide access to better quality service. The Commission also received an intervention from Radio Nord inc., licensee of CFGS-TV Hull-Ottawa; the interverner objected to the fact that the licensee does not distribute the signal of this priority station. Although it has noted the licensee's reply to this intervention, the Commission reminds the licensee that it is required to distribute this service pursuant to section 32(1)(a) of the regulations. Accordingly, the Commission expects the licensee, within six months of the date of this decision, to confirm in writing that it has complied with the regulations.
|
6. In response to the Commission's concerns that problems discussed at previous hearings regarding the licensee's performance had apparently recurred during the current licence term, the licensee stated at the hearing that it has since made improvements to its cable system and customer service. It noted, however, that certain technical problems lie beyond its control, such as those caused by frequent electrical outages in the area it serves.
|
7. In its discussions with the licensee, the Commission asked it to submit a work plan at the hearing detailing the concrete, verifiable and measurable technical and administrative actions it would take to correct the problems that had led to its appearance before the Commission. Later on at the hearing, the licensee submitted an implementation schedule for technical improvements, specifically to its head end and cable system and for overcoming its hydro-electrical problems.
|
8. The Commission notes that one of the measures proposed by the licensee in its plan consists of the expenditure of $15,500 on equipment. The Commission also notes the licensee's proposal at the hearing to establish a three-member advisory committee representing subscribers whose role would be to make the licensee aware of any problems that might occur, thereby allowing the licensee to provide reliable, ongoing and efficient service to its subscribers and improve customer relations.
|
9. Following presentation of these proposals, the Commission requested the licensee to submit written reports by certain dates concerning the following:
|
· the work yet to be completed and the budget required to upgrade its cable system;
|
· implementation of the proposed customer service improvements; and
|
· measures to be taken in co-operation with Hydro-Québec to improve the performance of the electrical components.
|
10. The Commission also requested the licensee to submit a final report before the end of the current licence term confirming that the work has been completed in accordance with the timetable and that the new management procedures have been put in place.
|
11. The written report and target dates submitted by the licensee following the hearing respond to the concerns expressed by the Commission at the hearing. In these documents, the licensee has demonstrated a willingness to put in place effective mechanisms to upgrade the technical quality of its cable system and to improve customer service. It indicated in the documents that some repair work had been delayed by the January ice storm and remains to be done, and that negotiations with Hydro-Québec had been postponed for the same reason. It noted, however, that $8,137 had already been spent on the purchase of equipment.
|
12. In view of the concrete measures taken by the licensee, and the willingness it has demonstrated to correct its technical problems and improve customer service, the Commission considers that a licence renewal for a two-year term is justified. The Commission, however, requires the licensee, within six months of the date of this decision, to file a report on the status of its negotiations with Hydro-Québec, on the establishment of the committee of subscribers, and on the disbursement of the outstanding balance of $7,363 earmarked by the licensee in its work plan for equipment expenditures.
|
13. The Department of Industry has advised the Commission that it is prepared to renew the Broadcasting Certificate for a period of two years only, expiring 28 February 2000. With respect to the operation of this undertaking beyond this period, the Commission draws the licensee's attention to section 22(1) of the Broadcasting Act pertaining to the technical certification of broadcasting undertakings and to section 22(4) which provides that any broadcasting licence issued, amended or renewed in contravention of section 22 is of no force or effect.
|
This decision is to be appended to the licence.
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|