Search

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61

Ottawa, 10 October 2002

Policy framework for community-based media

Table of contents

In this public notice, the Commission sets out an integrated policy framework for community-based media. The framework includes a replacement for Community channel policy, Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, 5 June 1991, a new licensing framework for community-based television undertakings and a replacement for A licensing policy for low-power radio broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1993-95, 28 June 1993. The complete text of the new policies is attached to this public notice as an Appendix.

The Commission notes that its policies for campus and community radio have recently been revised and are set out in Campus radio policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-12, and Community radio policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-13, both dated 28 January 2000.

Background

1. In Call for comments on a licensing framework for low-power community television undertakings in urban areas, and in other markets not covered by existing policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-127, 1 September 2000 (Public Notice 2000-127), the Commission invited public comment on a licensing framework for low-power community television stations.

2. In Review of community channel policy and low-power radio broadcasting policy, Public Notice CRTC 2001-19, 5 February 2001 (Public Notice 2001-19), the Commission invited public comment on issues relating to its policy frameworks for community cable television channels and low-power radio stations. In that notice, the Commission advised that the comments received in response to Public Notice 2000-127 would be considered in conjunction with the review of the community channel and low-power radio policies, to allow the development of an integrated policy framework for community-based programming undertakings.

3. In Proposed policy framework for community-based media, Public Notice CRTC 2001-129, 21 December 2001 (Public Notice 2001-129), the Commission issued, for public comment, its proposed policy framework for community-based media, including the community channel, community-based television and low-power radio.

The Commission's objectives for community-based media

4. The Broadcasting Act (the Act), at section 3(1)(b), establishes "community", along with "public" and "private" as one of the three elements that comprise the Canadian broadcasting system. Section 3(1)(i)(iii) states that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should "include educational and community programs".

5. In light of the Act's objectives, the Commission proposed the following overall objectives for community-based media in Public Notice 2001-129:

General comments received in response to Public Notice 2001-129

6. The Commission received 228 written comments in response to Public Notice 2001-129. Of these, 173 focused on issues related to French-language community media and 55 addressed English-language community media. The Commission received comments from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), as well as from individual licensees. A large number of comments came from individuals and community organizations with an interest in community broadcasting. The Fédération des Télévisions Communautaires Autonomes du Québec (the Fédération), representing 37 not-for-profit community television corporations in Quebec, submitted detailed comments. In addition, the Ministčre de la Culture et des Communications du Québec (MCCQ), certain municipalities, and unions participated in the process.

7. The comments received from licensees and their associations, as well as from community groups and individuals, were generally supportive of the proposed objectives for community-based media and of most of the specific proposals for policy and regulatory change set out in Public Notice 2001-129.

8. The CCTA noted that the proposed policy "provides an integrated approach to community-based programming undertakings that is balanced and creative." The CCTA considered that, "subject to the comments and suggestions set out in this submission, the policies proposed generally represent an appropriate and comprehensive approach to community-based media."

9. The CAB stated that it generally supported the Commission's proposed policies and that the implementation of these policies "will contribute to the attainment of the two important objectives" quoted above.

10. The Fédération stated:

[ TRANSLATION] The objectives of the policy proposals are highly noble - ensuring further creation and presentation of locally-produced community programs that reflect local realities. We also appreciate the fact that the Commission wants to encourage diversity of voices and alternative solutions by promoting new entrants in the local market.

11. The Independent Community Television Co-operative (ICTV) of Vancouver stated:

Overall we are pleased with the direction and intent of the proposed changes to community television policy outlined in 2001-129. Our reading of the proposed policy suggests that it sounds like a long overdue revitalization of the founding goals for community access television in Canada and a bold vision for its role within the Canadian broadcast community in the 21st century.

12. The Community Media Education Society submitted that Public Notice 2001-129 is "the most important policy paper for community television since Canada started having community television, and Canada is where community television began."

13. The Independent Film & Video Alliance (IFVA) congratulated the Commission on its proposed policy and took the position that "a strengthened community television policy will provide a counter-balance to the reduction in diversity in the Canadian broadcasting industry that the media ownership mergers have caused."

14. While most individual interveners were generally supportive of the Commission's policy approach, a few voiced criticisms. Brian Peterson failed to see how any proposed regulation in this package would truly compel any cable service provider to open more access to community groups in a substantive way. Jan Pachul stated that "The CRTC is continuing its elitist regulatory policies favouring existing cable and broadcast operators. The CRTC has never explained why it is in the public interest for cable operators to run community channels."

15. The MCCQ asked the Commission to clarify grey areas on the issue of access:

[TRANSLATION] Of course, efforts have been made to define the community aspect more effectively, and the resulting new quantifiable requirements for cable companies. But there are still grey areas that need to be clarified and the new requirements are still difficult to control.

16. Several of those interveners who expressed general support for the Commission's policy approach also provided substantive comment on certain proposals or made suggestions for additional policy elements.

17. The Commission appreciates the comments submitted during the different phases of this proceeding. The submissions have made a significant contribution to the Commission's final policy determinations. In the following sections, the Commission reviews and makes determinations on those aspects of the proposed policy that received substantive comment, as well as those that, in the Commission's view, require further examination. These aspects are:

The community channel policy:

Licensing framework for community-based television programming undertakings:

Policies specific to community-based low-power television undertakings:

Licensing policy for low-power radio undertakings:

Other matters:

18. Proposals not addressed in this notice are adopted as originally set out in Public Notice 2001-129. The complete texts of the new policies are set out in an appendix attached to this public notice.

The community channel policy

19. The Commission notes that all parties who provided comments on the role and objectives for the community channel supported those set out in the proposed policy.

Local community television programming

20. The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Distribution Regulations) define the term community programming. The Distribution Regulations, however, do not provide a definition for local community television programming.

21. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission defined local community programming as "programming that is reflective of the community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed service area or by members of the community in the licensed service area. Programs produced in other licensed areas within the same municipality will also be considered local programming."

22. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that "licensees who provide community programming services should devote not less than 60% of the programming aired in each broadcast week to the broadcast of local community programming".

Position of the parties

23. There was general agreement with the proposal that a minimum of 60% of the programming aired in each broadcast week should be devoted to local community programming.

24. Both the CAB and the Fédération suggested that the definition of local community programming be clarified in light of the possibility that the Commission may issue regional licences to cable distribution undertakings. Concerns were expressed that a regional licence may permit the community channel operator to provide programming reflective of the larger regional area and no longer reflect the individual communities in the original licensed service areas.

25. In addition, the Fédération and the MCCQ requested that alphanumeric bulletin boards be excluded from the definition of local community programming as they are not considered programs, as defined in the Act.

The Commission's analysis and determination

26. The requirement that a minimum of 60% of the broadcast week be devoted to local community programming will be applicable to all cable licensees that elect to distribute a community channel, and will be implemented through an amendment to the Distribution Regulations. For greater clarity, the Commission will refer to local community programming as local community television programming.

27. The Commission notes that under any regional licensing model, the original licensed areas will generally be retained for regulatory purposes. The Commission considers that linking the definition of local community television programming to the original licensed area as a subset of the regional licence will ensure that the smaller localities served under the current licence will continue to be served with distinct community channels, even if the cable company obtains approval for a regional licence.

28. Accordingly, for the purpose of this policy, the Commission considers local community television programming to consist of programs, as defined in the Act, that are reflective of the community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed area, or by members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced in another licensed area within the same municipality will also be considered local community television programming.

29. The Commission notes that the licensed areas of cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (cable BDUs) are set out in the licences in effect as of the date of this policy. Where a cable BDU obtains the Commission's approval for a regional licence, the Commission will generally retain the existing licensed area set out in the cable BDU's current licence and require that local community television programming continue to be reflective of the community within that licensed area.

30. With respect to alphanumeric bulletin boards, the Commission agrees that such services would not be considered as programs under the Act. Further, the Commission considers that the use of this material by large community channel operators could significantly reduce the time available for local community television programming and for access by local community groups. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that, for smaller cable systems, these bulletin boards can provide a useful and cost-effective means of serving the community and permitting community groups to promote their activities. Accordingly, except as otherwise specified by condition of licence, the Commission will allow Class 3 cable licensees to utilize alphanumeric bulletin boards to achieve the 60% requirement for local community television programming.

Community and complementary programming

31. Class 1 and Class 2 licensees are limited in the programming distributed on the community channel to community programming as defined in the Distribution Regulations and those types of programs set out in sections 27(1) and (2) of the Distribution Regulations. In addition to community programming, section 27(3) permits Class 2 licensees to distribute complementary programming on the community channel. The specific types of complementary programming permitted are set out in Complementary programming on the community channel, Public Notice CRTC 1985-151, 18 July 1985. Class 3 licensees may also distribute the programming set out in section 35 of the Distribution Regulations.

Position of the parties

32. In its comments, the CAB proposed that all non-local community programming be reflective of the community in which it originates.

The Commission's determination

33. The Commission considers that the definition of community programming and the opportunities for complementary programming in the Distribution Regulations remain appropriate. It is also of the view that the new requirement for 60% local community television programming is a sufficient tool to fulfil the objectives of this policy. The Commission is further of the view that it is unnecessary to require that all non-local community television programming be reflective of the community in which it originates.

Professional major league sports programming

34. The Commission notes that certain professional major league sports programs have recently been carried on a community channel. While no comments were filed in this proceeding with regard to the role of professional or amateur sports programming, the Commission considers that this issue requires further consideration.

The Commission's determination

35. The Commission is aware that community sports activities, whether amateur or professional, have long been an important and popular element of the community channel. Such programs produced by the licensee fall within the definition of community programming in the Distribution Regulations. However, in the Commission's view, the broadcast of programs featuring professional major league sports, produced by companies generally engaged in the production of such programs, does not fulfil the objectives of this policy and, accordingly, will generally not be allowed on the community channel.

Community television programming in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver

36. The proposed policy acknowledged that there are distinct communities within larger metropolitan areas and that these communities should be reflected in the community channel programming. The Commission proposed that licensees that provide community programming in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver demonstrate at renewal time how they will reflect the various communities within their licensed areas in these urban centres.

Position of the parties

37. The MCCQ argued that Montréal and the surrounding area should not be considered as a single community for the purpose of community channel service. The Fédération also pointed out that with the recent mergers of municipalities in the province of Quebec, other major metropolitan centres have been created. The Fédération proposed that greater Montréal be subdivided into a minimum of six service areas, each with its own community channel operation. Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron) recognized that there is more than one community within the greater Montréal area, but noted that defining a community and determining the number of community channels required to adequately reflect the diverse population in the Greater Montréal area are complex questions. As the number of communities served by distinct community channels increases, the resources available for community programming will decrease.

The Commission's determination

38. The Commission recognizes that no single solution may be appropriate for the large metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. The Commission intends to hold renewal hearings for Vidéotron, Rogers Cable Inc. (Rogers) and Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) for Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver at which community channel proposals will be considered.

39. The Commission administratively renewed, for a term of 12 months, the Vidéotron, Rogers and Shaw licences that were to expire 31 August 2002, in order to allow these licensees to take into account the terms of the new policy in their renewal applications. In preparation for the renewal hearings, the Commission will require these licensees to file detailed plans showing how they intend to reflect the various communities within their licensed areas in these urban centres.

Access programming

40. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that licensees devote at least 50% of the community programming schedule in each broadcast week to the airing of access programming, i.e. programming produced by individuals or groups in the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.

Position of the parties

41. The CCTA and the English-language cable licensees that filed comments all argued that 50% of the total schedule was an unreasonable amount of access programming for most community channels.

42. Persona Communications argued that the proposal does not take into account situations where individuals or groups simply do not volunteer. Any requirement should be a guideline and not a condition or regulation.

43. Access Communications noted that despite heavy promotion of community access, they rarely get more than 30% access programming.

44. The interveners noted above proposed that a more reasonable access requirement would be 50% of the community channel's local programming, or 30% of the total schedule.

45. ICTV in Vancouver supported the Commission's 50% proposal, but argued that it should apply to original programming only, that is, for each original hour of access programming, the cable operator may produce one original hour of cable-produced programming. ICTV also stated that access programming should be distributed throughout the whole schedule including prime time and that there should be a clear and fair program selection process.

46. ICTV further noted that coverage of municipal councils should not count either as access or local community television programming since "this is a public service of unquestionable value supported by both independent community producers and cable providers alike."

47. The MCCQ proposed that, in light of the recognition of the French-language market in the Act, the Commission should require that cable distributors in French-language markets, including metropolitan Montréal, give priority to local not-for-profit community television corporations (TV corporations) where they are available. They proposed that licensees provide TV corporations with a minimum of four hours of access programming per week, reasonably distributed in the community programming schedule, and contribute to their support by providing financial, material or human resources.

48. With respect to the recognition and access issues raised by TV corporations in the province of Quebec, the MCCQ stated:

[ TRANSLATION] independent community television stations, given their collective ownership structure, democratic management and roots in the community, further foster citizen access and participation because they are owned and managed by those citizens. The MCCQ wants to ensure that those stations can continue making a significant contribution to the diversification of voices in Quebec. The fact that it has supported communities with community stations for almost 30 years is evidence of its commitment to ensuring that they have at hand the communication tools they need for self-expression.

49. On the same issue, the Fédération confirmed that:

[ TRANSLATION] Independent community TV stations are more than just a group in the community - they are non-profit community TV production companies mandated by their communities. The structure of community television corporations is inclusive, guaranteeing both free and open access to local programming that reflects the real concerns of the community served.

50. Vidéotron stated that:

[ TRANSLATION] if community groups provided verifiable assurances that they could provide a certain number of programs and maintain an acceptable level of production quality in compliance with the regulatory framework, without active assistance from Vidéotron, they would be welcomed. Obviously, Vidéotron should, in those cases, monitor such producers from a distance. Without minimal monitoring during production, the licensee's employees could spend their time previewing completed programs to ensure compliance before broadcasting, instead of investing in the production and broadcasting of community programs.

The Commission's analysis and determination

51. Access by citizens to the community channel has always been a cornerstone of the Commission's policy. In Public Notice 1991-59 the Commission stated:

The factor that most distinguishes the content of community programming from conventional television services is the ability of community programming to turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant. From this participation flows programming of a nature that is as varied as the imagination and skills of the participants.

52. The Commission expects licensees to give the community the widest opportunity for self-expression by actively encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas, produce their own programs with or without the help of the licensee's staff, and submit videotapes and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee.

53. The Commission considers that providing and encouraging citizen access remains one of the most important roles of the community channel. Further, the Commission is of the view that most large cable systems will have no difficulty in finding acceptable access programming. However, as noted by several interveners, the Commission recognizes that in smaller markets the demand for access may not be high and that, even in those markets where demand is high, citizens requesting access may not have the ability to be active participants in program production. The Commission believes that it is the responsibility of the cable operator to ensure that the views of all groups are represented.

54. For the purpose of this policy, access programs are programs produced by members of the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.

55. In light of the above, the Commission considers that the proposal to require that, in all cases, as a minimum, 50% of the community channel schedule be devoted to access programming may not be appropriate, and that 30% as proposed by the CCTA and other cable licensees would be an acceptable minimum requirement. However, where the demand for access exceeds the minimum requirement, the Commission considers that, for Class 1 and Class 2 licensees, requests for access that conform to the terms and conditions for access set out in Cable television community channel standards, Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, 1 June 1992 (Public Notice 1992-39), or as it may be amended from time to time, must not be denied at least until 50% of the community channel's schedule has been filled with such programming.

56. With respect to the proposals from ICTV, the Commission considers that applying access requirements to original programming only is not appropriate. Such a requirement could have the effect of reducing the overall amount of community programming, especially in situations where the demand for access is low. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees that access programming should be scheduled in a reasonable manner throughout the broadcast day, including the peak viewing period (7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), and that the ratio of original to repeat programs should generally be the same for access programs as it is for the rest of the community programming.

57. The Commission agrees with ICTV that live coverage of municipal council or other community government proceedings not be considered access programming. Such programming, if considered as access, could dominate the access portion of the schedule to the detriment of access programming that is more reflective of citizen self-expression. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that live coverage of municipal council meetings and other government proceedings is an important aspect of the community channel's responsibility and will count as local community television programming.

58. With respect to the submission by the MCCQ, the Commission agrees that not-for-profit community television corporations, incorporated under a federal or provincial charter, should have guaranteed access rights. The Commission recognizes that these corporations have historically played a significant role in Quebec in meeting the objectives established in the 1991 community channel policy.

59. The Commission notes that throughout the public process, it has not received complaints or negative comments regarding the various co-operative models utilized in licensed areas in Quebec other than those operated by Vidéotron. Since the Fédération represents 37 not-for-profit corporations in the province of Quebec, the Commission appreciates that this model allows sufficient flexibility with regard to the cable operator's role and objectives, and provides assurance of a minimum level of citizen participation and community involvement in community television programming. While such corporate entities currently exist only in Quebec, the Commission sees no reason why other provinces could not recognize, in the future, similar corporations whose formal purpose is to produce community television programs.

60. For the purposes of this policy, the Commission defines TV corporations as:

Not-for-profit corporations, incorporated under a provincial or federal charter which provides that the primary activity of the corporation is to produce community television programming and/or operate a community television channel that is reflective of the community they represent. Board members must be drawn from the local community and the corporation must hold an annual meeting where all members of the corporation are invited to participate and to vote.

61. In light of the above, the Commission intends to amend the Distribution Regulations to implement the following access program requirements:

Promotion of access opportunities

62. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission noted that cable licensees are expected to actively promote citizen access to the community channel and to provide and promote the availability of related training programs. The Commission also noted that it would review the efforts of licensees in this regard as part of the licence renewal process.

The Commission's determination

63. The Commission considers that, in light of its final policy on access, it is appropriate that cable companies take specific and effective steps to inform and promote access to the community channel, and to provide and promote the availability of related training programs.

64. The Commission expects all Class 1 and Class 2 licensees to distribute a billing insert describing the availability of access programming and methods by which proposals can be made. Such billing inserts should be distributed within six months of the date of this public notice, and annually thereafter. The Commission intends to review the efforts of licensees in this regard as part of the licence renewal process.

Financial support

65. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit Class 1 licensees with fewer than 20,000 subscribers to allocate all of their contributions to Canadian programming to local expression. While most interveners supported this proposal, a number of alternative suggestions were made regarding financial support for the community channel.

Position of the parties

66. ICTV argued that 100% of public funds collected by cable licensees should go to community access activities or to access producers in proportion to the hours they provide.

67. Persona Communications proposed that Class 1 licensees with less than 60,000 subscribers should be able to allocate the full 5% contribution to Canadian programming, in its entirety, to local expression.

68. Rogers reiterated its proposal that the Commission amend the definition of gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities to exclude revenues from sponsorship and contra advertising.

69. Rogers also proposed that cable operators that provide a second community channel in the other official language be permitted to access an additional 2% from the 5% contribution to Canadian programming.

The Commission's analysis and determination

70. With respect to the ICTV proposal, the Commission considers that licensees should allocate funds available for local expression in a way that will best fulfil the needs of their audience and conform to its policies. The Commission notes that while access programs are a central element of community programming, licensee-produced programs may be equally valuable.

71. In the proposal set out in Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission sought a balance between increased resources for the community channel and the loss of revenues to the Canadian Television Fund. In determining the size of Class 1 systems that could allocate the full 5% contribution to local expression, the Commission finds that there are no compelling arguments to change its proposed approach. The Commission will, therefore, permit Class 1 licensees with fewer than 20,000 subscribers to allocate the full 5% contribution to Canadian programming to local expression. The Distribution Regulations will be amended accordingly.

72. With respect to changing the definition of "gross revenues" as proposed by Rogers, the Commission considers that the amounts involved are insignificant compared to the administrative burden involved in changing the accounting and reporting systems. However, the Commission considers that Rogers' proposal for recognition of increased contributions to local expression where a licensee operates two community channels, one in each official language, in a single market, has merit. It recognizes that providing separate French- and English-language community channels in a given market is clearly in the public interest.

73. Accordingly, licensees that elect to distribute two community channels in a given market, one in each official language, may apply under section 29 of the Distribution Regulations for a condition of licence in order to allocate up to 2% of their required contribution to Canadian programming to each of the community channels. Given the limited number of markets where licensees are likely to elect to distribute community channels in both official languages, the Commission considers that the impact on the Canadian Television Fund will not be significant.

Advertising and sponsorship

74. The proposed policy re-affirmed the existing limitations on advertising revenues and proposed that these would continue to be limited to sponsorship and contra advertising. However, the Commission proposed to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit sponsorship messages to include 15 seconds of moving pictures in each message.

Position of the parties

75. The CAB, Global Television Network (Global) and Thunder Bay Electronics all argued against any relaxation of the sponsorship rules. The CAB maintained that the Commission's proposal would blur the distinction between sponsorship and advertising and could have an impact on local advertising revenues available to radio and television undertakings. The CAB recommended that if the proposed relaxation is accepted, there should be limitations such as a maximum number of minutes per hour, more explicit guidelines, and a more thorough monitoring plan.

76. Persona Communications proposed that the permitted amount of moving pictures should be increased to 30 seconds.

77. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) suggested removing the requirement that a sponsor of a particular program be mentioned in connection with that program. PIAC was concerned that this could lead to sponsors unduly influencing community programming.

78. The Fédération stated that it would not object if sponsorship messages included moving video of more than 15 seconds in length.

The Commission's analysis and determination

79. As stated in the proposed policy, the Commission considers that the public service orientation of the community channel can be best achieved through stable funding provided by cable licensees, with limited reliance on advertising revenues. Therefore, it will continue to limit the advertising revenues of community channels to sponsorship and contra advertising. The Commission considers that it is not necessary to limit the amount of time for sponsorship messages since these messages must be contained within individual community programs and are thus self-limiting.

80. Further, the Commission has examined the concern raised by PIAC, but finds no evidence that the sponsorship of community programs has resulted in any undue influence on the content of those programs.

81. The Commission intends, however, as proposed, to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit sponsorship messages contained in community programs to include moving visual presentations and a limited description of their products or services. Such messages, contained in community programs, may consist of oral or written acknowledgements, including a moving visual presentation of no more than 15 seconds. Where a person provides direct financial assistance for the community programming in which an acknowledgement is contained, the acknowledgement shall mention no more than:

Promotional messages

82. In the proposed policy, the Commission expressed its concern that excessive amounts of corporate promotion for the cable licensee on the community channel could lead to the perception that the community channel is more a promotional vehicle for the cable company than a public service. The Commission sought comment on two options to deal with this problem:

  1. Restrict the nature of the self-promotional messages to an oral or written message, including a moving visual presentation of no more than 15 seconds, that mentions no more than the name, address, telephone number and description of the service being promoted.
  2. Restrict the number of minutes per hour that may be used for self-promotional purposes.
Position of the parties

83. The CCTA and most cable companies argued against any restriction on self-promotion, pointing out that such promotion is beneficial to both analog and digital programming services. In addition, they argued that such promotion provides necessary customer information regarding packages, options and ordering.

84. The CAB noted that the promotion of cable packages on the community channel could be beneficial to Canadian programming services. However, it proposed that cable licensees only promote individual services in a manner consistent with the use of local commercial availabilities on U.S. satellite services. The CAB proposed the establishment of joint guidelines by the CAB and the cable industry, on the use of self-promotion on the community channel. If no such agreement could be reached, the Commission would establish the rules.

85. Persona Communications and Vidéotron proposed that self-promotion should be limited to two minutes per hour as long as there is no content restriction. The Fédération also considered that two minutes per hour was appropriate for the distributor to brand itself in a positive manner.

86. Câblevision du Nord de Québec Inc. (CNQ) and Electro Vision (La Tuque) inc. (now operating under the name CNQ) both considered that three minutes per hour was reasonable.

87. ICTV proposed that promotional messages be subject to the content restrictions suggested by the Commission, but that a maximum of eight minutes per hour be imposed. PIAC also favoured content restrictions plus a time limit of two minutes per hour.

The Commission's analysis and determination

88. The Commission recognizes the importance for cable companies of having reasonable opportunities to brand and promote their services on the community channel, given that effective promotion of cable packages and Canadian programming services helps to attract audiences to these services, thus serving the objectives of the Act. However, the Commission is concerned that excessive promotional material on the community channel will detract from its public service objectives. It considers that a limit on promotional material is appropriate. Based upon the comments received, the Commission will limit promotional material on the community channel to a maximum of two minutes per hour.

89. In addition, the Commission considers that the existing policy regarding the use of the commercial availabilities in foreign satellite services provides a useful model for promotional messages on the community channel. According to that policy, at least 75% of the time on a weekly basis must be made available for the promotion of licensed Canadian programming services while a maximum of 25% may be made available for the promotion of the cable company's programming, packaging and customer services.

90. However, the Commission notes that, since the policy relating to foreign commercial availabilities was issued, cable licensees have been permitted to control a wide variety of programming undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate to restrict the promotion of related programming undertakings to the 25% portion of promotional time. The definition of the term "related programming undertaking" is set out, for other purposes, in section 18(12) of the Distribution Regulations as one in which the BDU licensee or an affiliate, or both, controls more than 10% of the total shares issued and outstanding.

91. In light of the above, the Commission intends to amend section 27(1) of the Distribution Regulations respecting Class 1 and Class 2 licensees to limit to two minutes per hour the time that may be used for self-promotional messages on the community channel. Further, the Distribution Regulations will be amended to require that the time allocated for promotional messages be divided as follows:

A new class of community programming service

92. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to retain the current approach of permitting cable operators to distribute a community channel as part of their distribution licences and to establish a new class of broadcasting licence for the provision of community programming. This class will be referred to as a community programming service. Licences under this new class will be available to non-profit community groups in situations where the cable company does not provide a community channel, or does not operate a community channel in accordance with the provisions of the revised policy.

Position of the parties

93. No comment on this proposal was received from either cable licensees or broadcasters.

94. Community groups were strongly in favour of the proposal. PIAC proposed that community groups be allowed to apply for community programming service licences even if the cable company provides a community channel in accordance with the policy.

The Commission's determination

95. In light of the comments received and considering the opportunities provided by the new community-based low-power television programming undertaking class of licence, as announced in the next section the Commission adopts the licensing policy proposed in Public Notice 2001-129 and intends to amend the Distribution Regulations accordingly.

Implementation

96. This policy replaces Community channel policy, Public Notice 1991-59, 5 June 1991. The Commission expects those licensees that elect to distribute a community channel to operate fully in accordance with this policy, effective 6 January 2003. The performance of licensees in this regard will be examined at the time of licence renewal.

97. With respect to Vidéotron, the Commission notes that in Transfer of effective control of Vidéotron ltée to Quebecor Média Inc., Decision CRTC 2001-283, 23 May 2001, Quebecor Média Inc. and Vidéotron agreed to the Commission's request for a moratorium on the status of the current relationship between the licensee and the independent community television groups now operating in the territories served by Vidéotron, pending completion of the community channel policy review and release of the Commission's policy. This moratorium remains in effect until the Distribution Regulations have been amended in order to implement this policy.

Licensing framework for community-based television programming undertakings

98. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to create a new class of licence for a community-based television programming undertaking and to establish a regulatory framework for the licensing of these services. Two sub-categories of this class were proposed:

These two sub-categories share all major licensing criteria with respect to ownership, programming, financing and licensing. They differ only in the method of distribution.

99. Since there were no concerns raised with regard to this proposal, the Commission intends to create the new class of licence as proposed.

Objectives

100. In Public Notice 2001-129 the Commission noted that community-based television services will provide a high level of locally-produced, locally-reflective programming that complements the programming provided by conventional television and the cable community channel. Such services should enrich the variety of local and community-based television programming available to the public, as well as provide opportunities for new voices to participate in the Canadian broadcasting system.

101. The Commission proposed that its assessment of applications for such services would take into consideration the number of community-based services already licensed in the proposed service area, the availability of over-the-air channels and/or the available capacity of the affected cable distribution undertakings.

102. Community-based television programming undertakings should not replicate the programming offered by existing television services.

Position of the parties

103. Shaw proposed that the Commission assess and take into account the impact of licensing community television on the distribution of existing and future programming services, particularly Category 2 specialty services.

104. Thunder Bay Electronics and CJCD-TV in Dawson Creek, B.C. both raised the potential negative impact of community-based television on small market local broadcasters. Thunder Bay Electronics argued that new community-based television services should either not be licensed in small markets, or the incumbent local broadcaster should be given priority for a community-based television licence. Télé-Mag inc. stated that cable companies can give all kinds of reasons why the CRTC should exempt them from distributing this type of service.

The Commission's determination

105. The proposed policy states that the Commission will consider available cable capacity when assessing applications for community-based television programming undertakings. The Commission considers that, inherent in a review of capacity is the assessment of the impact on existing and future Canadian specialty services. The Commission notes, however, that the objective of this new policy is to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating the entrance of new participants at the local level.

106. With respect to small markets, the Commission recognizes the potential impact of community-based television programming undertakings on existing local, over-the-air licensees. Accordingly, when assessing applications for community-based television programming undertakings in small markets, the Commission will take into consideration any impact that licensing such an undertaking may have on local radio and television licensees.

Ownership

107. The proposed policy stated that the Commission would consider applications by both for-profit and not-for-profit applicants. It also indicated that it did not intend for this new class to provide opportunities for established broadcasters to extend their reach and, therefore, would give preference to locally-based new entrants.

Position of the parties

108. PIAC proposed that licences for community-based television undertakings be restricted to not-for-profit groups. They argued that it would be counterproductive to replicate the over-abundance of commercially-owned media in the community sector. IFVA also stated that preference should be given to applications from non-profit groups.

109. MCCQ and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec (ARCQ) stated that the Commission should not grant community licences to for-profit corporations. For ARCQ, there is a clear distinction in the Act between private and community elements and, if private corporations are granted community television licences, it could have a significant impact on their capacity to raise local radio advertising revenues and thereby on their ongoing viability.

110. Télé-Mag inc. supports the proposed approach: [TRANSLATION] "The CRTC should therefore consider the possibility of for-profit community television. We are proposing regional television stations as a way of distinguishing among them more effectively. Regional TV should be for-profit and promote community development."

The Commission's determination

111. The Commission confirms that, in granting licences for community-based television programming undertakings, it will give preference to locally-based new entrants.

112. With respect to ownership, the Commission maintains its view that there may be opportunities for local entrepreneurs to develop applications that will meet the Commission's objectives for community-based media. The Commission will, therefore, consider proposals from both for-profit and not-for-profit applicants.

Local programming

113. The proposed policy for community-based television programming undertakings required that licensees devote not less than 60% of their programming to local programming, defined in Public Notice 2001-129 as programming that is reflective of, and produced in, the area that the community-based television programming undertaking is licensed to serve.

Position of the parties

114. The CCTA expressed concern that community-based television services could cover a broad region, ethnic group or other community of interest and thus be equivalent to Category 2 specialty television undertakings. It proposed that all community-based television undertakings be "based on local expression unique to a geographic community."

The Commission's determination

115. In New television station for Toronto/Hamilton, Decision CRTC 2002-81, 8 April 2002, the Commission used a definition of local programming that has the same intent as the definition proposed in Public Notice 2001-129, but in more precise language. Accordingly, in order to avoid any confusion, the Commission will define local programming, for the purpose of community-based television programming undertakings, as follows:

Local programming means station productions or programming produced by community-based independent producers that reflects the particular needs and interests of residents of the area that the community-based television programming undertaking is licensed to serve.

116. In the case of a community-based low-power television programming undertaking, this area will be defined by the grade B contour of the antenna. In the case of a community-based digital service, the Commission will require a detailed description of the geographic area to be served, which will form part of a condition of licence on the nature of service.

Advertising and financing

117. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that community-based television programming undertakings be permitted to broadcast up to 12 minutes per hour of advertising. Such undertakings would not have access to any funding that cable licensees allocate for local reflection.

Position of the parties

118. Global opposed any access to advertising by community-based television licensees on the grounds that it could threaten the viability of conventional local broadcasters. However, if advertising were permitted, Global proposed that it be limited to local advertising.

The Commission's analysis and determination

119. The Commission remains convinced that for-profit, as well as not-for-profit, undertakings will be in a position to provide popular and useful community programming. In order to be consistent with this approach, it believes that community-based television programming undertakings must have access to advertising revenues. In the Commission's view, such advertising on community-based television programming undertakings, while providing an affordable venue for small, community advertisers, will have minimal impact on the revenues or profitability of conventional local radio or television licensees.

120. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with Global that advertising on community-based television programming undertakings should be limited to local advertising. Since the Commission's policy requires that the signals of these undertakings be available only in the specific area they serve and since their programming must be 60% local, the Commission considers that virtually all advertising will be sold to local businesses. A requirement restricting licensees to local advertising will not, therefore, unduly constrain the new community-based television programming undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission will permit licensees to broadcast 12 minutes of local advertising per hour.

Carriage by broadcasting distribution undertakings

121. The Commission proposed that community-based television programming undertakings be granted mandatory carriage by BDUs, on the digital band, throughout the area reached by the over-the-air signals or the service area authorized by the Commission.

Position of the parties

122. The CCTA, Rogers and Shaw all argued that such mandatory carriage was unnecessary and would be harmful to cable BDUs. They pointed out that there is limited capacity on the digital band, that the design of cable networks made it inefficient to deliver channels to a specific geographic area, and that forced carriage of community services could prevent the carriage of licensed Category 2 specialty services.

123. Shaw noted that if community-based television offered a valuable service, it would be in the interest of cable BDUs to carry it.

124. Vidéotron suggested that, considering the limits on their system capacity and the potential demand for community-based television in Quebec, the Commission should adopt a flexible regulatory position using a case-by-case approach rather than a generally applicable policy.

125. The Fédération suggested that, in view of the low penetration rate of digital services in Canada, the Commission should grant a transition period requiring carriage of community-based television undertakings, on both analog and digital, until at least two-thirds of Canadian households have subscribed to digital services.

126. PIAC argued that community-based television should be granted required carriage on the basic service of the analog band.

The Commission's analysis and determination

127. In the Commission's view, the proposed digital carriage requirements proposed in Public Notice 2001-129 provide an appropriate balance between capacity and cost considerations and the value to the public of a licensed community-based television programming undertaking. According to Commission data, almost 80% of cable subscribers in Canada now have access to digital services offered by cable companies. The Commission recognizes that, at this time, a minority of cable customers actually subscribe to these digital services. It also acknowledges that attractive, new community-based television services could help drive an increase in the rate of subscription.

128. Accordingly, the Commission will require BDUs to carry licensed community-based television programming undertakings on the digital band, throughout the area reached by the over-the-air signals or the service area to be authorized by the Commission, and intends to amend the Distribution Regulations accordingly.

Policies specific to community-based low-power television undertakings

Definition of low-power television

129. No comments were received with respect to the definition of community-based low-power television undertakings. The Commission will adopt the definition proposed in Public Notice 2001-129, as set out in the appendix to this notice.

Calls for competing applications

130. The Commission proposed to issue calls for competing community-based low-power television undertaking applications in certain circumstances. In making its decision whether to issue a call, the Commission will take into consideration the availability of low-power channels in the market to be served.

Position of the parties

131. The CAB sought further guidance on the circumstances under which calls would be issued. For instance, the CAB asked whether the existence of television services in the market would be a consideration.

The Commission's determination

132. The Commission considers that the primary reason for issuing a call for competing applications should be that a limited number of low-power frequencies is available in the market to be served. During the licensing process it will consider the impact of community-based low-power television undertakings on existing services.

133. In this regard, the Commission notes that on 10 July 2002, the Department of Industry informed the Commission that it would not issue broadcasting certificates for new analog broadcasting facilities above channel 59. The Department also advised the Commission that it would not issue broadcasting certificates for channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, pending the conclusion of studies on the use of these channels for public safety purposes.

Developmental community-based television

134. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission sought comment as to whether there would be a benefit to adopting a streamlined licensing framework for developmental community-based television stations, as is the case for developmental community radio.

Position of the parties

135. Conestoga College and ICTV each supported a streamlined framework for developmental stations. Conestoga College also submitted that such a process would enable the College to begin operating quickly and thus meet the needs of the community.

The Commission's analysis and determination

136. The Commission considers that any applicant for a community-based television programming licence should demonstrate that it has the organization and expertise required to adhere to the licensing framework set out in this public notice. Further, the Commission has no evidence at this time that community groups interested in applying for a community-based television programming undertaking licence will find the process onerous.

137. In light of this and the limited support for a developmental licence, the Commission will not adopt a streamlined licensing framework for developmental community-based television stations at this time.

Replacement of existing policy for remote stations

138. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that the new policy would apply in both urban and remote areas and thus replace the existing policy for remote stations set out inPublic Notice CRTC 1987-8, 9 January 1987.

139. The Commission noted, however, that it would be prepared to offer relief from the logging requirements in the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 (the Television Regulations) for those community-based television programming undertakings operating in remote areas.

Position of the parties

140. In its submission, Isle Madame Community Television Association (Telisle) fully supported the proposed framework, which, in its view, reflects its own experience and objectives. Telisle proposed, however, that community television licensees in remote areas should be able to apply for exceptions to the policy, or the Television Regulations, in the following areas:

The Commission's determination

141. The Commission recognizes that community television undertakings operating in remote areas face unique challenges. Accordingly, the Commission will be prepared to allow relief from the logging requirements set out in the Television Regulations, the Canadian content and local programming requirements set out in this policy, and the requirement to operate at a low power, upon application from licensees of community-based television programming undertakings serving remote areas.

142. The Commission will expect cable licensees operating in remote areas to carry any remote community-based television programming undertaking licensed to serve that area, on its analog basic service. For the purpose of this policy, the Commission defines a remote community-based television station as a community-based television programming undertaking serving a community which has no competing regional or local television service or local community cable channel operating on a regular basis.

Licensing policy for low-power radio undertakings

Defining markets with scarce low-power frequencies

143. In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission stated that it would generally consider that low-power frequencies are scarce in:

Position of the parties

144. The CAB opposed the proposal on the grounds that it was imprecise and subject to competing interpretations. Further, the CAB argued that the inclusion of AM frequencies in the definition would mean that "virtually no radio market in Canada could be considered to have a scarcity of frequencies", on the grounds that the 1605-1705 kHz band remains unused almost everywhere.

145. The CAB proposed that, instead of a "zoning" definition, the Commission should have a "showing" requirement. For example, the "first-in" applicant would be expected to provide a satisfactory technical brief showing that at least two additional FM low-power frequencies can be assigned in the same area.

The Commission's analysis and determination

146. The Commission considers that the CAB's point with respect to AM frequencies is valid. However, changing the "zoning" requirement to a "showing" requirement raises two issues:

147. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the zoning requirements set out in the proposed policy, but amends the fourth criteria to read:

Priority system for assessing competing applications

148. The Commission proposed retaining the priority system set out in A licensing policy for low-power radio broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1993-95, 28 June 1993.

Position of the parties

149. The CAB suggested that the priority system be simplified to consist of only three tiers:

The Commission's determination

150. The Commission considers that the proposed priorities as set out in the appendix to this notice, which have been in place since 1993, give prospective applicants more detailed guidance as to how the Commission will evaluate competing low-power radio applications. These, in combination with the objectives set out in this revised policy, effectively reflect the priorities proposed by the CAB.

Other matters

151. The CAB, CKUA and the National Campus Radio Association (NCRA) made a number of recommendations dealing with areas not addressed in the Commission's proposed policy for low-power radio. As a result, the Commission will include the following matters in its revised policy:

Ownership

152. Consistent with the Commission's objective that low-power radio contribute additional, diverse voices to the markets served, the ownership of multiple low-power radio licences and cross-ownership between low-power radio and low-power television will generally be discouraged.

Canadian talent development

153. Low-power radio, whether not-for-profit or commercial, should contribute appropriately to Canadian talent development when offering a music service. The Commission will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the proposed contributions, which could include the provision of an outlet for artists in the community who do not receive airplay on other stations.

Adherence to industry codes

154. The Commission will continue to expect low-power radio licensees to adhere to the applicable industry codes and encourages such licensees to become members of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternate format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Appendix to Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61

Policy framework for community-based media

Objectives

The Commission has established the following as the objectives of its policies for community-based media:

The community channel policy

This policy replaces that set out in Community channel policy, Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, 5 June 1991.

Licensees will be expected to fulfil all the applicable provisions of the policy set out below. The performance of licensees in this regard will be examined at the time of licence renewal.

Role and Objectives

The role of the community channel should be primarily of a public service nature, facilitating self-expression through free and open access by members of the community.

The community channel should:

Local community television programming

If a licensee elects to distribute community programming services, it shall devote not less than 60% of the programming aired during each broadcast week to the broadcast of local community television programming.

For the purpose of this policy, the Commission considers local community television programming to consist of programs, as defined in the Broadcasting Act (the Act), that are reflective of the community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed area or by members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced in another licensed area within the same municipality will also be considered local community television programming.

The licensed areas of cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (cable BDUs) are set out in the licence in effect as of the date of this policy. Where a cable BDU obtains the Commission's approval for a regional licence, the Commission will generally retain the existing licensed area set out in the cable BDU's current licence and require that local community television programming continue to be reflective of the community within that licensed area.

Class 3 cable licensees may utilize alphanumeric bulletin boards to achieve the 60% requirement for local community television programming, except as otherwise specified by condition of licence.

Community and complementary programming

Pursuant to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, (the Distribution Regulations) Class 1 and Class 2 cable licensees that elect to distribute community programming shall not distribute on the community channel any programming service other than those set out in section 27(1) and (2).

Class 2 licensees are authorized in section 27(3) to distribute on the community channel the programming services referred to in Complementary programming on the community channel, Public Notice CRTC 1985-151, 18 July 1985.

Class 3 licensees may also distribute the programming set out in section 35 of the Distribution Regulations.

Licensees are not permitted to distribute foreign or commercial programs on the community channel.

Licensees are not permitted to receive financial payment in exchange for the distribution of government or public service information material.

Licensees are expected to adhere to the principle that local community television programs be given scheduling priority.

Professional major league sports programming

The broadcast of programs featuring professional major league sports, produced by companies generally engaged in the production of such programs, does not fulfil the objectives of this policy, and will generally not be allowed on the community channel.

Community television programming in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver

Licensees that provide community programming in the greater Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver areas will be expected to set out their plans and commitments at licence renewal time as to how they will reflect the various communities within their licensed areas in these urban centres.

Access programming

For the purpose of this policy, access programs are programs produced by members of the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.

The Commission intends to amend the Distribution Regulations to implement the access requirements set out above.

Access programming should be scheduled in a reasonable manner throughout the broadcast day, including the peak viewing period (7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), and the ratio of original to repeat programs should be generally the same for access programs as it is for the rest of the community programming.

Licensees should consult members of the community to determine the mix, scope and types of programs that best serve the needs and interests of the community at large, through formal advisory boards and/or feedback from volunteers.

The community channel should reflect the official languages, as well as the multicultural and Aboriginal reality of their communities.

Service to the hearing and visually impaired

Licensees that elect to distribute community programming should endeavour to meet the needs of persons with hearing or visual impairment. However, the Commission recognizes that the financial resources available to each licensee are different.

Therefore, the Commission will explore in licensing and licence renewal processes appropriate commitments to captioning and program description, commensurate with the resources of each licensee.

Promotion of access opportunities

Licensees are expected to actively promote citizen access to the community channel and to provide and promote the availability of related training programs. The Commission expects all Class 1 and Class 2 licensees to distribute a billing insert describing the availability of access programming and methods by which proposals can be made. Such billing inserts should be distributed within six months of the date of this public notice and annually thereafter. The Commission will review the efforts of licensees in this regard as part of the licence renewal process.

Financial support

The Commission intends to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit Class 1 systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers to allocate the full 5% of their contribution to Canadian programming to local expression.

Licensees shall report their levels of community programming expenses, and are expected to dedicate the large majority of their expenditures to the direct expense category. Direct expenses are defined in Circular No. 426 - Guidelines respecting financial contributions by the licensees of broadcasting distribution undertakings to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, 22 December 1997.

Two community channels in a given market

Licensees that elect to distribute two community channels in a given market, one in each official language, may apply under section 29 of the Distribution Regulations for a condition of licence in order to allocate up to 2% of their required contribution to Canadian programming to each of the community channels.

Advertising and sponsorship

Community channels will continue to be limited to sponsorship advertising as prescribed under section 27 of the Distribution Regulations, however, the Commission intends to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit sponsorship messages contained within community programs to include moving visual presentations and a limited description of their products or services.

Such messages, contained in community programs, may consist of oral or written acknowledgements, including a moving visual presentation of no more than 15 seconds. Where a person provides direct financial assistance for the community programming in which an acknowledgement is contained, the acknowledgement shall mention no more than:

In accordance with Circular No. 348, Sponsorship messages on the community channel, 27 July 1988, words promoting goods or services are not acceptable, and descriptions that promote a favourable image of the sponsor will be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if they depart from what is permitted in the Distribution Regulations.

Licensees must not deny, restrict or reduce access opportunities if a member of the community is unable or unwilling to attract a sponsor.

Under no circumstances should a licensee charge a fee for providing access programs, or insist that access programs have sponsorship.

All revenues generated by sponsorship advertising must be reinvested in the operation of the community channel. Licensees must identify these revenues and associated expenditures separately when reporting their community programming expenses to the Commission.

Revenues associated with the rental of production facilities for external commercial and industrial productions should also be reinvested in the community channel, thus avoiding the requirement for cost separation procedures.

Advertising on small cable systems

Class 3 licensees that provide service to unserved communities are permitted, pursuant to section 35(d) of the Distribution Regulations, to distribute a maximum of 12 minutes of commercial messages per hour on their community channels. However, the freedom to advertise should not result in a change in orientation of the programming provided.

The Distribution Regulations define an unserved community as the licensed area of a distribution undertaking where there is no local radio station and no local television station.

Promotional messages

The Commission intends to amend section 27 of the Distribution Regulations for Class 1 and Class 2 licensees in order to limit the time that may be used for promotional messages on the community channel, to a maximum of two minutes per hour.

Further, the Distribution Regulations will be amended to require that the time allocated for promotional messages be divided as follows:

For the purpose of this policy, a related programming undertaking is defined as one in which a BDU licensee or an affiliate, or both, controls more than 10% of the total shares issued and outstanding.

A new class of community programming service

Cable operators have the option of distributing a community channel as part of their distribution licences. In situations where the cable company does not provide a community channel, or does not operate a community channel in accordance with the provisions of this policy, community groups may apply for a community programming service licence.

The Commission will establish a new class of broadcasting licence for the provision of community programming. Such a class will be referred to as a community programming service.

In order to obtain a community programming service licence, applicants will have to demonstrate that the proposed service would be operated in accordance with the Community channel policy, the relevant provisions of the DistributionRegulations and Cable television community channel standards, Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, 1 June 1992 (Public Notice 1992-39) as it may be amended from time to time.

Licensees of community programming services will be not-for-profit organizations, the structure of which will provide for membership, management, operation and programming primarily by members of the community.

The Commission intends to revise the Distribution Regulations in order that licensed community programming services are accorded mandatory analog carriage as part of the basic service where a cable licensee does not elect to distribute a community channel or does not operate a community channel in accordance with the provisions of this policy. The Distribution Regulations will also be amended to allow community programming service licensees to receive the applicable percentage of the cable undertaking's gross revenues that may be allocated to local expression by the cable licensee.

Regulations, standards and codes

Licensees that elect to distribute community programming are subject to the Distribution Regulations and will be expected to adhere to the following industry codes as conditions of licence:

Monitoring

In addition to responding to any complaints, the Commission will conduct random audits of community channel logs and videotapes to monitor adherence to the quantitative provisions of this policy.

The Commission intends to amend section 28(1) of the Distribution Regulations in order to ensure that the program logs for community channels record local community programming and access programming as defined in this policy.

Special programming services

Existing special programming services may continue to be distributed. The Commission does not intend, however, to authorize any additional special programming services.

DTH satellite community channels

The Commission does not consider the concept of DTH community channels to be in keeping with its proposed objectives to ensure more locally-produced and locally-reflective community programming.

Licensing framework for community-based television programming undertakings

A new class of licence

The Commission has created a new class of licence - Community-based television programming undertaking, and established a regulatory framework for the licensing of these community-based television programming services. The licensing framework for community-based television programming undertakings includes two sub-categories:

Common policies

Objectives

Community-based television programming undertakings will provide a high level of locally-produced, locally-reflective programming that complements the programming provided by conventional television and the cable community channel. Such services should enrich the variety of local and community-based television programming available to the public, as well as provide opportunities for new voices to participate in the Canadian broadcasting system.

Community-based television programming undertakings should not replicate the programming offered by existing television services.

Licensing criteria

In its assessment of applications for community-based television programming undertakings, the Commission will take into consideration the number of community-based services already licensed in the proposed service area, the availability of over-the-air channels and/or the available capacity of the affected cable distribution undertakings and the impact on local radio and television licensees operating in small markets.

Ownership

The Commission will consider applications by both for-profit and not-for-profit applicants to operate community-based television programming undertakings.

The Commission does not intend to grant this new class of licence to established licensees to extend their reach or to provide additional types of service. In assessing applications for community-based television programming undertakings, the Commission will give preference to locally-based new entrants.

Canadian content

Licensees of community-based television programming undertakings shall devote not less than 80% of the broadcast year to the broadcasting of Canadian programs.

Local programming

Licensees of community-based television programming undertakings shall devote not less than 60% of the broadcast year to the broadcasting of local programming.

For the purpose of this policy, local programming means station productions or programming produced by community-based independent producers that reflects the particular needs and interests of residents of the area that the community-based television programming undertaking is licensed to serve.

In the case of a community-based low-power television programming undertaking, this area will be defined by the grade B contour of the antenna. In the case of a community-based digital service, the Commission will require a detailed description of the geographic area to be served, which will form part of a condition of licence on the nature of service.

Service to the hearing & visually impaired

Licensees of -based television programming undertakings should endeavour to meet the needs of persons with hearing or visual impairment. However, the Commission recognizes that the financial resources available to each licensee are different.

The Commission will explore in licensing and licence renewal processes appropriate commitments to captioning and program description, commensurate with the resources of each licensee.

Citizen participation

Licensees of community-based television programming undertakings are encouraged to:

Advertising and financing

Licensees of community-based television programming undertakings shall not broadcast more than 12 minutes of local advertising material in any clock hour in a broadcast day.

Licensees of community-based television programming undertakings shall not have access to any contributions that cable licensees allocate for local expression.

Regulations and codes

Community-based television programming undertakings are subject to the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 (the Television Regulations) and will be expected to adhere to the following industry codes as conditions of licence:

The Commission encourages the licensees of community-based television programming undertakings to become members of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Policies specific to community-based low-power television undertakings

Definition of low-power television

This policy replaces the existing policy for remote stations set out in Public Notice CRTC 1987-8, 9 January 1987.

The Department of Industry defines low-power television stations in Part IV of its Broadcasting Procedures and Rules as those stations operating with a transmitter power of 50 watts or less on the VHF band, or 500 watts or less on the UHF band. Due to their limited effective radiated power, their Grade B service contour does not exceed 12 kilometres in any direction from the antenna site. The coverage that they provide is therefore much more limited than that of regular class television stations.

As well, low-power television stations are secondary assignments in relation to regular class stations, and are established on an unprotected basis with respect to the frequency band that they occupy. This means that they have no protection from interference by regular class stations. However, in the event that a low-power station causes interference to a regular station, the low-power station could be required to change its assigned channel or to cease operation if no replacement channel can be found. Low-power television stations are, however, entitled to protection from other low-power stations that are established at a later date.

Carriage by broadcast distribution undertakings

The Commission will require BDUs to carry licensed community-based television programming undertakings on the digital band, throughout the area reached by the over-the-air signals or the service area to be authorized by the Commission, and intends to amend the Distribution Regulations accordingly.

Under the Distribution Regulations, local television stations must be distributed on an analog channel as part of the basic service. However, in circumstances where capacity is limited, the Commission considers that the mandatory analog distribution of community-based low-power television stations by cable undertakings may not be appropriate.

Accordingly, in such circumstances, the Commission will be prepared to allow relief from these carriage requirements, upon application for a condition of licence by cable licensees.

However, cable undertakings that are granted relief from this requirement and distribute digital services will be required to distribute community-based low-power television undertakings on a digital basis within the area served by the over-the-air signals of those stations.

Calls for competing applications

The Commission may issue calls for competing low-power television applications in certain circumstances. In making a decision whether to issue a call, the Commission will take into consideration the availability of low-power television channels in the market to be served.

Replacement of existing policy for remote stations

The provisions of the policy set out in this notice will apply to both urban and remote community-based low-power television undertakings, thereby replacing the existing policy for remote stations, set out in Public Notice CRTC 1987-8, 9 January 1987.

However, the Commission will be prepared to allow relief from the logging requirements set out in section 10.8 of the TelevisionRegulations, the Canadian content and local programming requirements set out in this policy and the requirement to operate at a low power, upon application from licensees of community-based television undertakings serving remote areas.

The Commission will expect cable licensees operating in remote areas to carry any remote community-based television programming undertaking, licensed to serve that area, on its analog basic service.

For the purpose of this policy, a remote community-based television station is defined as a community-based television programming undertaking serving a community which has no competing regional or local television service, or local community cable channel operating on a regular basis.

Policies specific to community-based digital services

Carriage by broadcast distribution undertakings

Community-based digital services will not be accorded mandatory distribution on analog cable channels.

A cable undertaking that distributes services on a digital basis will be required to distribute community-based digital services on the digital band throughout the service area authorized by the Commission.

Nature of service and proposed service area

In order to clearly define the proposed community or communities to be served, applications for a community-based digital service licence must include a detailed description of the nature of the proposed service and the geographic area to be served.

Calls for competing applications

The Commission may issue calls for competing community-based digital applications in certain circumstances. In making a decision whether to issue a call, the Commission will take into consideration the number of community-based services already licensed in the proposed service area, and the available capacity of the affected cable distribution undertakings.

A licensing policy for low-power radio undertakings

This policy replaces that set out in A licensing policy for low-power radio broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1993-95, 28 June 1993.

Objectives

The Commission considers that low-power radio undertakings make a contribution to the goals set out in the Broadcasting Act and may attract new entrants into the Canadian broadcasting system. Such services are particularly well-suited to provide local community-based programming. Low-power radio undertakings should not replicate the programming offered by existing services.

The Commission expects applicants for low-power radio services to show how their programming proposals will fulfil the following objectives:

Classes of low-power radio undertakings

There are four types of low-power radio undertakings defined by the Department of Industry in Parts III and IV of its Broadcasting Procedures and Rules:

Calls for competing applications

The Commission may issue calls for competing low-power applications in certain circumstances. In making a decision to issue a call, the Commission will take particular note of the following criteria:

Markets where low-power frequencies are scarce

The Commission will generally consider that low-power radio frequencies are scarce in:

Priority system for assessing competing applications

When considering competing applications for the use of low-power frequencies in areas where such frequencies are scarce, the Commission will generally give priority to conventional broadcasting services (Priority A) over one-dimensional services (Priority B). Moreover, the Commission will generally attach to the various types of services falling within the two priority groupings a priority that corresponds to their relative ranking within each, as set out below.

Priority A services:
  1. Originating conventional not-for-profit radio services (e.g. community, campus and Native);
  2. Originating conventional for-profit radio services (private commercial broadcasters including ethnic);
  3. Rebroadcasting transmitters of local stations rebroadcasting within the station's contour;
  4. Rebroadcasting transmitters of distant signals (the CBC will have priority within this sub-group of Priority A services).
Priority B services:
  1. Not-for-profit public information services (e.g. traffic or weather information services);
  2. Commercial announcement services.

The following three factors may also be considered by the Commission in its evaluation of competing applications of the same type for the same low-power frequency. The Commission realizes, however, that the relative importance of each of these factors may vary depending on the type of service proposed. Such importance will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Application of the Radio Regulations, 1986

The Commission will generally require licensees of conventional low-power radio stations to adhere to the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Radio Regulations) unless otherwise specified by condition of licence.

The question of whether to require adherence to the Radio Regulations by the licensees of non-conventional services will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In addition, licensees of non-conventional low-power undertakings will be subject to a condition of licence that defines their programming in such a way as to ensure that they do not change their programming and begin to offer the same services as conventional licensees without Commission approval.

Adherence to industry codes

The Commission encourages low-power radio licensees to become members of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, and expects such licensees to adhere to the following industry codes:

Ownership

Consistent with the Commission's objective that low-power radio contribute additional, diverse voices to the markets served, the ownership of multiple low-power radio licences and cross-ownership between low-power radio and low-power television will generally be discouraged.

Canadian talent development

Low-power radio, whether not-for-profit or commercial, should contribute appropriately to Canadian talent development when offering a music service. The proposed contributions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and could include providing an outlet for artists in the community who do not receive airplay on other stations.

Date modified: