ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-234

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-234

Ottawa, 13 August 2002

Bluewater TV Cable Ltd.
Clinton, Bayfield, Brucefield, Holmesville and Varna; and
Exeter, Dashwood, Crediton, Huron Park and Centralia, Ontario

Applications 2001-0787-2, 2001-0789-8, 2001-1367-1 and 2001-0788-0
Public Hearing at Québec, Quebec
18 February 2002

Reorganization of licensed areas

In this decision, the Commission denies the applications by Bluewater TV Cable Ltd. proposing a series of transactions that would have resulted in the creation of three cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), each having less than 2,000 subscribers, in an area currently served by two cable BDUs that each have more than 2,000 subscribers.

The applications

1.

The Commission received applications by Bluewater TV Cable Ltd. (Bluewater), on behalf of itself and Ex-Cen Cablevision Ltd. (Ex-Cen), which would result in a reorganization of the licensed service areas of two Class 2 cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) into three Class 3 undertakings.

2.

Bluewater serves Clinton, Bayfield, Brucefield, Holmesville and Varna (the Clinton cable system). Ex-Cen serves Exeter, Dashwood, Crediton, Huron Park and Centralia (the Exeter cable system).

3.

Specifically, Bluewater applied to:

4.

Bluewater and Ex-Cen are owned and controlled by the Stinson family of Clinton. Both systems are fully interconnected via fibre optic cable and share head end facilities.

5.

To support its proposal, Bluewater submitted that the creation of three Class 3 licences would be in accordance with the CRTC's approach of alleviating the administrative burden for both the Commission and operators of small cable BDUs. Bluewater confirmed that the number of subscribers in each of the resulting three systems would be less than 2,000.

6.

Bluewater further submitted that the proposed reorganization would facilitate estate planning for the Stinson family.

Interventions

7.

The Commission did not receive any intervention in connection with these applications.

The Commission's analysis and conclusions

8.

Operators of small cable BDUs that meet the criteria set out in Exemption order respecting cable systems having fewer than 2,000 subscribers, Public Notice CRTC 2001-121, 7 December 2001 (Public Notice 2001-121), are exempt from licensing requirements and associated regulations. Among other criteria, the exemption order stipulates that, in order to qualify for exempt status, a cable BDU must operate its own head end.

9.

As stated earlier, the Clinton and Exeter cable systems are fully interconnected and use the same head end. The Commission notes that the applicant did not provide any indication that it intended to establish separate facilities for the proposed smaller cable BDUs that would enable them to operate independently. Accordingly, the three cable BDUs proposed by the applicant do not qualify for exempt status under the criteria outlined in Public Notice 2001-121.

10.

The Commission further notes that the Clinton cable system and the Exeter cable system would qualify for licensing under one licence in accordance with the regional licensing model announced in Changes to the Commission's approach to cable undertakings, Public Notice CRTC 2001-59, 29 May 2001.

11.

In view of the foregoing, approval of these applications would not achieve the principal objective identified by the applicant of reducing the administrative burden on itself and on the Commission. The Commission, therefore, denies the applications.

Secretary General