|
|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-523
|
|
|
See also: 2003-523-1
Ottawa, 24 October 2003
|
|
|
CF Cable TV Inc.
Montréal, Quebec
|
|
|
Vidéotron (Régional) ltée
Terrebonne, Quebec
|
|
|
Applications 2002-0957-9, 2002-0973-5
Public Hearing in Québec, Quebec .
8 April 2003
|
|
|
Licence renewal of cable distribution undertakings serving part of Montréal and Terrebonne
|
|
|
The Commission renews the licences of CF Cable TV Inc. and Vidéotron (Régional) ltée for Terrebonne from 1 December 2003 to 31 August 2005. This period will allow the Commission to consider the next renewal of these licences at the same time as that of Vidéotron ltée for Montréal and, if necessary, to finalize the conditions related to the community channel for all the cable distribution undertakings operating in the greater Montréal area.
|
|
1.
|
In Licence Renewal, Decision CRTC 95-6, 13 January 1995, the Commission renewed the Class 1 licence of CF Cable TV Inc. (CF Cable) for the cable distribution undertaking serving part of Montréal from 1 September 1995 to 31 August 2001. Subsequently, in Decision CRTC 97-84 dated 27 February 1997, the Commission approved the application by Groupe Vidéotron ltée (GVL) for authority to transfer effective control of CF Cable to Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron). The transfer of control was part of a larger transaction whereby GVL assumed control of CFCF Inc. The Commission then granted a series of expedited renewals in respect of the CF Cable licence until 30 November 2003.1
|
|
2.
|
In Policy Framework for Community-based Media, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61, 10 October 2002 (Public Notice 2002-61), the Commission set out an integrated policy framework for community-based media which essentially replaced the previous Community Channel Policy (Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, 5 June 1991) (the community policy). The Commission recognized that large metropolitan areas contain a number of distinct communities, and that no single approach may be appropriate for the community channel in such large urban centres. It further indicated as follows:
|
|
|
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.
|
|
3.
|
Consequently, as indicated in Public Notice 2002-61, the Commission directed CF Cable/Vidéotron (the applicant) to file detailed plans with the renewal application for CF Cable showing how the various communities in the greater Montréal area would be reflected.
|
|
4.
|
The Commission notes that the licensed areas of Vidéotron and its subsidiaries in the Montréal region cover a large territory, which extends from the Saint-Jérôme area in the north to the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu area in the south, and from Rigaud in the west to Joliette in the east. The licence held by Vidéotron for most of this territory expires on 31 August 2005.
|
|
5.
|
The applicant's community channel plan applies to all of its cabled territory in greater Montréal which includes three service areas, namely the main Vidéotron area, the CF Cable area, and that of Vidéotron (Régional) ltée, another subsidiary operating in the Terrebonne sector. The licence renewal application for the Terrebonne sector was also scheduled for consideration at the 8 April 2003 Public Hearing as a non-appearing item.
|
|
6.
|
Having examined the applicant's overall plan for the community channel, and following discussions on the subject at the Public Hearing, the Commission has decided to harmonize the renewal dates for the licences of Vidéotron and its subsidiaries in the greater Montréal area. At the time it considers the Vidéotron licence renewal in 2005, the Commission will review the conditions of licence, commitments and expectations set out in this decision and, if necessary, finalize the conditions related to the community channel for all of its cable undertakings operating in this region. Accordingly, the Commission renews the broadcasting licence of the Class 1 cable television undertaking licensed to CF Cable and that licensed to Vidéotron (Régional) ltée for the Terrebonne sector from 1 December 2003 to 31 August 2005.
|
|
7.
|
These undertakings will be regulated in accordance with the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the regulations), and the licences are subject to the provisions contained therein and to the conditions of licence set out in Appendix I to this decision.
|
|
|
Interventions
|
|
8.
|
The Commission received 19 interventions concerning these applications. Of these, 13 were unconditionally in favour of renewal of the CF Cable licence. Four organizations commented on the community channel in their interventions, including the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec (FTCAQ) and three not-for-profit local community television corporations (TV corporations) as defined in the community policy, namely Corporation de Télédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay inc. (CTGC), Télévision Communautaire du Grand Saint-Jérôme, and Télévision Rive Nord de Repentigny (TRN).
|
|
9.
|
Community program volunteer Isabelle Bouchard opposed the renewal of the CF Cable licence. She stated that opportunities were limited for the creation of new community television services in Montréal and Laval. She added that volunteers and TV corporations in Montréal are allowed to work on only a small number of programs, and that the applicant is not doing enough to promote training programs and access to the community channel.
|
|
10.
|
The Commission also received an opposing intervention from CTV Inc. on behalf of CTV Specialty Television Inc. (CTV), regarding all the licence renewal applications filed by Vidéotron and its cable subsidiaries that were scheduled for consideration at the 8 April 2003 Public Hearing. CTV requested that the licences be renewed for a short term not exceeding two years in light of ongoing disputes over affiliation payments for CTV's specialty services RDS, TSN and Discovery Channel.
|
|
11.
|
The Commission notes that the resolution of such ongoing disputes is the subject of a separate process that is not part of the current proceeding.
|
|
12.
|
On 26 March 2003, Vidéotron replied to all interventions filed in respect of its renewal applications. Issues related to the community channel are discussed below.
|
|
|
The Community Channel (Canal Vox)
|
|
13.
|
Discussion at the Public Hearing focused principally on the plan filed by the applicant with respect to its community channel service known as Canal Vox. The discussion at the Public Hearing took place against the background of the new community policy announced in Public Notice 2002-61. The applicant agreed that the conditions of licence and other licence provisions relating to the community channel contained in this decision should ultimately apply to the main Vidéotron licence for the greater Montréal area when it is renewed in 2005. The Commission examined in detail the applicant's plans and commitments in the light of the following aspects of the policy:
|
|
|
- reflection and representation of different community groups;
|
|
|
- financial support for TV corporations;
|
|
|
- local community television programming;
|
|
|
- other sources of community programming;
|
|
|
- access to the community channel programming schedule;
|
|
|
- advertising and sponsorship;
|
|
|
- promotion of access and training for, and of participation by, volunteers;
|
|
|
- reflection of both official language groups, and of the ethnic and aboriginal composition of the community; and
|
|
|
- services for persons with a visual or hearing impairment.
|
|
|
Reflection and representation of the different community groups
|
|
14.
|
After meeting and consulting with those TV corporations that had expressed interest following publication of the community policy, the applicant proposed to reflect the various geographical communities within the greater Montréal area by creating six service zones. The six proposed zones, as depicted on a map entitled Vidéotron - Montréal Area - Local Broadcast Contours and Cable Territories (the map), which was provided by the Commission at the Public Hearing and accepted by the applicant, are as follows:
|
|
|
Zone 1: Montréal Island/Island of Laval;
|
|
|
Zone 2: Saint-Jérôme, Prévost and Sainte-Thérèse;
|
|
|
Zone 3: Terrebonne, Repentigny, L'Assomption and Joliette;
|
|
|
Zone 4: Longueuil, Boucherville, Beloeil, Varennes, Saint-Bruno and La Prairie;
|
|
|
Zone 5: Saint-Jean and Chambly; and
|
|
|
Zone 6: Châteauguay, Mercier, Saint-Constant, Delson and Sainte-Catherine.
|
|
15.
|
The applicant indicated that zone 1 is managed by Canal Vox, which feeds community programming to all other zones in the greater Montréal area. TV corporations responsible for coordinating local community programming in the five other zones will be able to break away during periods agreed upon with Canal Vox in order to insert their own local programming.
|
|
16.
|
The Commission notes, as did the FTCAQ and CTGC at the hearing, that a climate of constructive collaboration appears to have been established between the applicant and the TV corporations with respect to the community channel, and that the latter are generally satisfied with the zones proposed by the applicant.
|
|
17.
|
The Commission further notes, however, that while the applicant's preference is to proceed with the six zones proposed, the FTCAQ, the TRN and Isabelle Bouchard wish to see the creation of additional zones in Montréal, Laval and the Lanaudière area. The applicant argued that the zones proposed in its plan are consistent with the existing configuration of its cable system, and that creating more zones could entail significantly higher technical costs.
|
|
18.
|
The Commission decided to apply a condition of licence authorizing implementation of the service zone arrangement proposed by the applicant, provided that a seventh zone is created consisting of the Island of Laval. In view of the demographic significance and particular characteristics of the City of Laval, the condition of licence set out in Appendix I requires that the applicant divide the proposed Zone 1 into two parts, thereby creating a new service zone for Laval, within 90 days of receiving a request to do so from a local TV corporation. In addition, the applicant is required to submit to the Commission, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a revised map reflecting the service zone changes. The Commission encourages the applicant to submit its revised map in an electronic format (e.g., .mid, .mif or .tab) that would be compatible with a geographic information system (GIS). The electronic file may be submitted by e-mail or on diskette.
|
|
19.
|
The applicant indicated at the Public Hearing that the work involved in implementing the plan as proposed could be completed within three months of receiving a favourable decision from the Commission. Based on the timetable discussed at the Public Hearing, the separate local zones could be in place by 1 January 2004. As stipulated in the condition of licence contained in Appendix I, the Commission requires the applicant to take all steps necessary to ensure that five of the six local community channel zones authorized by the Commission (leaving the separate Laval zone aside for the moment) are operational within three months of the date of this decision. The Commission expects the applicant to make every effort to complete this project by 1 January 2004.
|
|
20.
|
With regard to the management of Canal Vox in the greater Montréal area, the Commission expects the applicant to comply with the other provisions of the community policy. The Commission notes that the applicant will also be required to comply with the amendments that will be made to the regulations to reflect the provisions of the community policy, pursuant to Call for comments - Proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2003-57, 16 October 2003. The Commission intends to review the applicant's performance in this regard at the time of licence renewal in 2005.
|
|
|
Financial support for TV corporations
|
|
21.
|
Under the regulations, a cable distributor can elect to assign a portion of its contribution to Canadian programming to local expression. The Commission notes that the applicant has consistently contributed at least 2% of its gross revenues to local expression and has adhered to its financial commitments with respect to the total contribution required of it.
|
|
22.
|
The Commission notes, however, that the applicant's projected expenditures reflect a significant imbalance between the air time assigned to local TV corporation programs and the financial resources that would be allocated to them. Access programming time allocated to TV corporations would represent 46% of total air time, but funding for this programming would be only slightly greater than 15% of the total amount of the expenditures projected for community programming. The remainder is earmarked for Canal Vox programming produced by the applicant.
|
|
23.
|
The Commission recognizes that the applicant's production costs may well be higher than those of the TV corporations, who employ volunteers. Nevertheless, as stated in Public Notice 2002-61, the Commission considers that access programming is a core component of local community programming, and that licensees should allocate sufficient funds to local expression to meet their viewers' needs and to comply with Commission policy. Consequently, the Commission expects the applicant to achieve a better balance between the funding allocated to TV corporations for access programming and the funding allocated to programming produced by the applicant and broadcast on Canal Vox. The Commission intends to review this matter at the time of licence renewal in 2005.
|
|
24.
|
In order that the Commission may monitor the applicant's performance with respect to local expression more closely, and on an annual basis, it is a condition of licence that the applicant file with the Commission audited annual reports on contributions and expenditures associated with the operation of the community channel in the format set out in Appendix II to this decision. The annual reports should be for the periods ending 31 August 2004 and 2005, and should be filed concurrently with the annual return.
|
|
25.
|
The Commission notes in this regard that, in Guidelines respecting financial contributions by the licensees of broadcasting distribution undertakings to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, Circular 426, 22 December 1997 (Circular 426), the Commission prescribed how licensees must claim and file contributions to local expression. Where a terrestrial distributor elects to provide a community channel as an outlet for local expression, Circular 426 states as follows:
|
|
|
Licensees are allowed to claim as direct expenses, in the calculation of their financial contribution to local expression, the depreciation or lease payments, whether on account of capital or operating leases, for equipment used to provide a community channel.
|
|
26.
|
In view of the above, and taking into account discussions on the matter at the Public Hearing, the Commission considers that the applicant should be allowed to claim depreciation on the equipment required to provide for separate local community channel programming in the various service zones so long as that equipment is used solely to enable the TV corporations to distribute their programming on the applicant's community channel. The Commission therefore expects the applicant to claim, as direct expenses in the annual report referred to above, only the equipment that is associated directly with such programming, and to itemize clearly such pieces of equipment in the report.
|
|
|
Local community television programming
|
|
27.
|
The community policy requires licensees who elect to distribute community programming services to devote at least 60% of their weekly programming schedule to local community television programming, defined in the policy 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.
|
|
28.
|
The applicant confirmed at the Public Hearing that it accepts this definition of local community television programming and intends to comply with the policy by devoting at least 60% of its broadcast week to local community television programming in all service areas within the greater Montréal region, through the proposed separately-distributed programming in the various zones, and through the use of access programming. The community policy defines access programming as:
|
|
|
Programming produced by members of the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.
|
|
29.
|
The Commission notes that the above commitment by the applicant is a variation on the definition of local community television programming, which is based on just one service area. As indicated in condition of licence 1(a) in Appendix I, the Commission will treat the three licences that the applicant holds in the Montréal area as being for a single service area, for the purposes of the applicant's community channel.
|
|
30.
|
The Commission further notes that certain programs of more general interest that are produced by the applicant, and are described as "service programs", represent a preponderance of the programming in the Canal Vox schedule, which includes the peak evening viewing period. These programs are normally distributed by Canal Vox on all of Vidéotron's community channels across Quebec. The applicant stated that, although this type of program is also of local interest, it was prepared to limit to no more than 30% the amount of its total direct expenditures that are devoted to programming that, while produced locally, is of interest to a viewership that extends beyond those who reside in the Montréal area.
|
|
31.
|
The Commission accepts the applicant's commitment to limit its direct expenditures on service programs to no more than 30% of its total direct expenditure budget for programming produced by all TV corporations, present and future, in the greater Montréal area. In accepting this commitment, the Commission has taken into consideration the fact that most service programming is produced locally in Montréal, is wholly Canadian and, for the most part, is of interest to all Francophone viewers served by the applicant. The Commission points out, however, that the programming currently produced in Montréal will be deemed local programming only within the greater Montréal service area comprising the seven service zones described in Appendix I.
|
|
|
Other sources of community programming
|
|
32.
|
The applicant stated that community channel programming in Montréal is enhanced by programming received from other locations where Vidéotron operates a community channel. It confirmed at the hearing that programming distributed on Canal Vox in the Montréal area that does not form part of the minimum amount of 60% local community programming required under the community policy, is produced elsewhere in the province, not by other TV corporations, but by Canal Vox in other licensed areas.
|
|
33.
|
The Commission notes the applicant's commitment to provide the minimum percentage of local community programming prescribed by the community policy, taking into account the above definition of a local community television program. It also notes the applicant's recognition of the fact that the community channel is not a conventional television service or a specialty television service, and must not compete with such services. The community policy clearly establishes the framework and objectives for programming exhibited on the community channel.
|
|
|
Access to community channel programming
|
|
34.
|
The applicant stated at the hearing that it intends to comply with the provisions of the community policy concerning access to community programming. Based on the discussions held and positions expressed at the hearing, the Commission notes that all parties appear to be in agreement as to the nature of the authority delegated to the TV corporations with respect to programming, coordination and local inserts, and that the parties appear to have demonstrated their good will and a genuine willingness to cooperate.
|
|
35.
|
Given the above, the Commission brings the applicant's attention to the following:
|
|
|
- It is a condition of licence, as set out in Appendix I, that the applicant, through its programming, reflect the greater Montréal community in its entirety. Moreover, it shall be responsible for all programming distributed on the community channel, including programming produced by the TV corporations for distribution in the individual service zones during breakaway segments.
|
|
|
- The technical quality of the applicant's access programming must conform to minimum broadcast standards. The Commission expects these minimum technical standards to be objective and clearly understood by the TV corporations and the individuals or groups producing access programming.
|
|
|
- With respect to the terms and conditions governing access to the community channel and the resolution of disputes, the Commission refers the parties to Cable Television Community Channel Standards, Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, 1 June 1992, which includes an attachment setting out the standards approved by the Commission.
|
|
|
- The Commission reminds the applicant of its commitment to include an equitable place for access programming produced by the TV corporations on the community channel (Canal Vox in the greater Montréal area), with respect to the placement of such programming in the schedule, the number of hours of original and repeat programming that is distributed.
|
|
36.
|
The Commission intends to examine closely the applicant's performance in providing equitable treatment to access programming produced by the TV corporations at the time of licence renewal in 2005.
|
|
|
Advertising and sponsorship
|
|
37.
|
As stated in the community policy, the Commission considers that cable licensees can best ensure that the public service orientation of the community channel is maintained by ensuring that the community channel has stable funding and relies only to a limited extent on advertising revenue. Under the regulations, community channels are restricted to the distribution of sponsorship and contra advertising. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that the TV corporations are free to solicit sponsors to obtain partial funding for their access programming.
|
|
|
Promoting access, training and volunteer participation
|
|
38.
|
The applicant indicated at the hearing that it promotes access and volunteer participation through newspaper advertising, messages placed on the Canal Vox web site, billing inserts, and messages carried on the community channel. The applicant added that training of TV corporation members and volunteers is provided by experienced freelance specialists supervised by the applicant. The training is tailored to meet operational requirements and can involve all aspects of television production. All costs are borne by the applicant.
|
|
39.
|
The Commission notes the applicant's commitments with respect to access, training and participation by TV corporations and volunteers. It intends to assess the applicant's performance in this regard at the time of licence renewal.
|
|
|
Reflecting the ethnic, aboriginal and official-language composition of the community
|
|
40.
|
The applicant stated that the programming on its community channel reflects Canada's two official languages and the ethnic composition of the community. However, no programs specifically targeting Aboriginals are currently distributed on the community channel. The applicant explained that it had surrendered its authority for a portion of its system that had served the Mohawk community in Kahnawake in order to permit the community to operate its own community channel.
|
|
41.
|
The Commission is satisfied that the applicant is serving the objectives of the community policy through its use of both official languages in its programming and its reflection of the ethnic composition of the greater Montréal area. The Commission nonetheless expects the applicant to be sensitive to the presence of Aboriginals within its service area, particularly of those who reside in urban areas.
|
|
|
Services for persons with a visual or hearing impairment
|
|
42.
|
The Commission's community policy states that licensees who elect to distribute community programming should strive to meet the needs of persons who have a visual or hearing impairment. At the hearing the applicant committed to provide subtitles for at least 10% of its original programs in Montréal and Québec beginning in 2003, and to gradually increase the level to 50% of all original programs by the 2008-2009 broadcast year. Sign language would also be employed in Montréal and Québec and other areas where it provides a community channel. The Commission expects the applicant to adhere to these commitments.
|
|
|
Other issues
|
|
43.
|
The licensee is authorized to continue to distribute CITY-TV (IND) Toronto, a distant Canadian signal, on a discretionary basis.
|
|
44.
|
Further, the licensee is authorized to continue to distribute WFFF-TV (FOX) Burlington, Vermont, on a discretionary tier of its undertaking. The licensee is also authorized to continue to distribute the signal of WWBI-TV (Warner Brothers) Burlington-Plattsburg, New York, on a discretionary digital basis. The Commission notes that the licensee receives these signals off-air.
|
|
45.
|
The licensee is also authorized to distribute, on a discretionary digital basis, a second set of U.S. 4+1 signals, so long as it complies with the following:
|
|
|
The distribution on a discretionary basis on the licensee's digital service of U.S. 4+1 signals, in addition to the set of such signals already carried by the system, is subject to the provision that, with respect to such signals, the licensee adhere to the requirements regarding non-simultaneous program deletion set out in section 43 of the Regulations. The Commission may suspend the application of this provision in respect of a signal, upon its approval of an executed agreement between the licensee and the broadcaster concerned. Such an agreement must deal with issues related to the protection of program rights arising in connection with the discretionary carriage of a second set of U.S. 4+1 signals solely on the licensee's digital service, as approved in this decision.
|
|
46.
|
The Commission reminds the licensee that the simultaneous substitution requirements, as set out in section 30 of the Regulations, also apply with respect to the U.S. 4 + 1 signals. The Commission also reminds the licensee of its commitment to distribute the signal of CJNT-TV Montréal on channel 24, as part of the basic service of its undertaking.
|
|
47.
|
Because this licensee is subject to the Employment Equity Act and files reports concerning employment equity with Human Resources Development Canada, its employment equity practices are not examined by the Commission.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This decision is to be appended to the licences. It is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
|
|
Footnote:
1See Decisions CRTC 2001-456, 1 August 2001; 2002-160, 2 July 2002; 2003-26, 30 January 2003; and 2003‑293, 21 July 2003.
|
|
|
Appendix I to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-523
|
|
|
Conditions of licence
|
|
1.
|
For the purposes of the community channel, the licensed area shall consist of:
|
|
|
(a) A single service area currently encompassing those served under three existing licences (Vidéotron ltée, Montréal; CF Cable TV inc., Montréal; and Vidéotron (Régional) ltée, Terrebonne);
|
|
|
(b) Seven (7) service zones, including six (6) local service zones, within which local community programming is coordinated by not-for-profit local community television corporations (TV corporations), as defined in Public Notice 2002-61, in accordance with terms and conditions as agreed between Vidéotron1 and the TV corporations, on condition that the programming these TV corporations produce for distribution within a service zone complies with the community policy and applicable regulations. The seven service zones are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zone 2: Island of Laval Island (see (c) below);
|
|
|
Zone 3: Saint-Jérôme, Prévost and Sainte-Thérèse;
|
|
|
Zone 4: Terrebonne, Repentigny, L'Assomption and Joliette;
|
|
|
Zone 5: Longueuil, Boucherville, Beloeil, Varennes, Saint-Bruno and La Prairie;
|
|
|
Zone 6: Saint-Jean and Chambly; and
|
|
|
Zone 7: Châteauguay, Mercier, Saint-Constant, Delson and Sainte-Catherine.
|
|
|
c) Local service arrangements for the Island of Laval in zone 2 above shall be implemented by the licensee within 90 days of receipt of a request that it do so from a local TV corporation.
|
|
2.
|
Arrangements shall be completed for the distribution of separate community programming on the community channel in the local service zones 3 to 7 inclusive within three months of the date of this decision at the latest.
|
|
3.
|
The licensee shall submit audited annual reports to the Commission listing expenses associated with the operation of the community channel in the format shown at Appendix II of this decision. The annual reports should be for the periods ending 31 August 2004 and 2005, and should be filed concurrently with the licensees's annual returns.
|
|
4.
|
Through its programming, the licensee shall reflect the greater Montréal community in its entirety. Moreover, it shall be responsible for all programming distributed on the community channel, including programming produced by the TV corporations for distribution in the individual service zones during breakaway segments.
|
|
5.
|
The licensee is relieved of the requirement under section 17 of the regulations that it distribute the programming services of the priority television stations CFTU-TV and CJNT-TV Montréal and CJOH-TV-8 Cornwall on the basic band of its basic service if channels are available. The licensee is nevertheless required to distribute CFTU-TV, CJNT-TV and CJOH-TV-8 as part of the basic service. The licensee is also relieved of the requirement of section 22 of the regulations that it distribute the programming services of CKOD-FM Valleyfield and CFLG-FM Cornwall. In addition, the licensee is authorized to continue to distribute, at its option, the signals of two PBS stations, namely those of WETK Burlington, Vermont, and WCFE-TV Plattsburgh, New York.
|
|
6.
|
The licensee is relieved of the requirement of section 7 of the regulations that, except as provided by a condition of licence, it not alter or delete the programming services of Consumer News and Business Channel and The Movie Network 3, and Country Music Television and Viewers Choice 2, in the course of their distribution. This condition of licence will permit the licensee to alter or curtail these services for the purpose of sharing a channel, in accordance with the licensee's agreements with the operators of these programming services. The other provisions of section 7 shall continue to apply.
|
|
7.
|
The licensee may, at its option, insert certain promotional material as a substitute for the "local availabilities" (i.e. non-Canadian advertising material) of non-Canadian satellite services. At least 75% of these local availabilities must be made available for use by licensed Canadian programming services for the promotion of their respective services, for the promotion of the community channel and for unpaid Canadian public service announcements. A maximum of 25% of the local availabilities may be made available for the promotion of discretionary programming services and packages, customer service information, channel realignments, cable FM service and additional cable outlets.
|
|
8.
|
The licensee shall adhere to the provisions contained in Cable television community channel standards, Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, 1 June 1992, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission.
|
|
|
Footnote:
Vidéotron includes Vidéotron ltée, Montréal, CF Cable TV inc., Montréal and Vidéotron (Régional) ltée, Terre-bonne
|
Date Modified: 2003-10-24