Search

ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-24

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-24

  Ottawa, 8 April 2004
 

Revised procedures for processing applications for new digital Category 2 pay and specialty television services

  This public notice sets out the Commission's determinations in the proceeding initiated by Call for comments on possible amendments to the Commission's procedures for dealing with applications for new Category 2 pay and specialty services, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2003-14, 18 March 2003.
  The Commission has decided that it will no longer require an applicant proposing a new digital Category 2 specialty service to provide evidence, as a precondition to having its application considered by the Commission, of a reasonable likelihood that the service would receive carriage on a licensed broadcasting distribution undertaking. The Commission has further decided to require such an applicant to identify, in its application, all existing Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services with which its proposed service would be partially competitive, and to explain why its proposed service would not be directly competitive with such services. The Commission also provides clarification of the circumstances in which an application proposing a new Category 2 service could be denied.
 

The current procedures

1.

In Licensing framework policy for new digital pay and specialty services, Public Notice CRTC 2000-6, 13 January 2000 (Public Notice 2000-6), the Commission set out its licensing framework for new digital pay and specialty services. The framework was designed to take advantage of the expanded capacity and flexibility of digital distribution technology, while taking into account the risks inherent in launching digital-only services, including the fact that the initial subscriber base for a given service would be limited. It was also the Commission's expectation that the framework would encourage the rollout of digital distribution technology, and serve as:
 

.a bridge between the traditional regulatory mechanisms - which have been highly supportive of emerging new Canadian services - and a more open-entry environment that allows for greater risk-taking, provides for a greater number of services in the marketplace, and allows the success of services to be increasingly determined by customers.

2.

Within this framework, the Commission decided to license two types of services, namely Category 1 services, which would benefit from carriage by all broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) that make use of digital technology, and Category 2 services, which would be licensed on a more open-entry basis.
 

The Category 2 licensing framework

3.

In its Category 2 licensing framework, the Commission established basic minimum licensing criteria for Category 2 services, including minimum required levels of Canadian content. It also took the position that there would be no predetermined limit on the number of Category 2 licences that might be issued. Rather, the Commission stated that an application for a Category 2 service would generally be approved where it met the minimum criteria and all applicable policies and regulations, and provided the applicant demonstrated that the service would not be directly competitive with existing Category 1 or analog pay and specialty services. Further, the Commission determined that it would not assess or take into account the viability of Category 2 services, their business or marketing plans, or the rates to be charged. The Commission stated that this would ensure that highly experimental or innovative services would not be excluded due to lack of perceived viability.
 

The distribution of Category 2 services

4.

The Commission decided that it would be consistent with an open-entry licensing approach to allow BDUs to assess the appeal that a Category 2 service would have among their subscribers in determining whether or not to distribute the service. While a Category 2 service would thus have no guarantee of carriage, the Commission introduced an access rule applicable to any distributor choosing to carry a Category 2 service with which it was affiliated. An affiliated Category 2 service was defined as one in which the distributor directly or indirectly controlled more than 10% of the equity. These distributors would be required to distribute at least five non-affiliated Category 2 services for every affiliated Category 2 service they distribute. For the purpose of this rule, all of the programming signals of a pay-per-view or video-on-demand service would be deemed to be a single service.
 

Current procedures for reviewing Category 2 applications

5.

At a public hearing conducted in August 2000, the Commission considered almost 460 applications for licences to carry on new Category 1 and Category 2 digital specialty and pay services. Because of the sheer number of Category 2 applications involved, the Commission determined that it would conduct its analysis of the ownership or control of each successful applicant following approval of its application, and once it had received notification from the applicant that it was prepared to commence operating.

6.

Following the August 2000 public hearing, in Broadcasting Decisions CRTC 2000-470 to 2000-731, 24 November 2000 with reasons that followed on 14 December 2000, the Commission approved more than 260 new Category 2 services. In Introductory Statement - Licensing of new digital pay and specialty services, Public Notice CRTC 2000-171, 14 December 2000 (Public Notice 2000-171), as revised in Introductory Statement - Licensing of new digital pay and specialty services - Corrected Appendix 2, Public Notice CRTC 2000-171-1 (Public Notice 2000-171-1), the Commission announced the terms and conditions of licence that would apply to those services. In Public Notice 2000-171-1 the Commission specified that a Category 2 licence would only be issued and would only be effective at such time as the following requirements had been met:
 
  • the Commission receives documentation confirming that the licensee has entered into a distribution agreement with at least one licensed distributor;
 
  • the Commission receives documentation establishing that an eligible Canadian corporation has been incorporated in accordance with the application in all material respects acceptable to the Commission and that this corporation may be issued a licence;
 
  • the licensee files, and the Commission reviews and finds satisfactory, all relative documents and agreements pertaining to the control and management of the licensee (i.e. shareholder agreement, program supply agreement, and licence trademark agreement). The licensee must file all such documents prior to beginning operation; and
 
  • the licensee confirms in writing that it is ready to begin operation. This must take place no later than 24 November 2003. Any request for an extension to that deadline requires Commission approval and must be made in writing before that date.
 

Analysis of ownership and control

7.

The Commission's decision to postpone its ownership analysis of applications considered at the August 2000 public hearing until following their approval was one it was effectively obliged to take, given the sheer number of the applications then before it. An unavoidable consequence of this approach, however, was that it did not allow for full public comment on ownership issues prior to the approval of an application.

8.

The Commission's ownership analysis includes, among other things, verification that an applicant meets the Direction to the CRTC (Ineligibility to hold broadcasting licences), P.C. 1985-2108, 27 June 1985, amended by P.C. 1997-629, 22 April 1997, and the Direction to the CRTC (Ineligibility of non-Canadians), P.C. 1996-479, 11 April 1996, amended by P.C. 1997-486, 8 April 1997, and P.C. 1998-1268, 15 July 1998 (the Directions). Thus, putting off completion of this aspect of the Commission's ownership analysis verification gave rise to further potential concerns that the Commission, having once authorized a service, might subsequently discover, just prior to the intended launch date, that the applicant's ownership structure did not meet the Directions. Further, there were many instances where the Commission, having completed its analysis of an applicant's ownership following the initial approval, found that further study was necessary as a consequence of subsequent ownership changes. Such situations actually placed a greater demand on Commission resources than would have been the case had the full ownership analysis been completed prior to approval.

9.

In light of these problems, as of January 2001, the Commission returned to its standard practice of analyzing the ownership and control of the applicant before scheduling its application to a hearing.
 

Distribution arrangements

10.

From January 2001 to the present, the Commission has issued decisions approving the applications for 61 additional Category 2 specialty services. In each case, the Commission has required the prospective licensee to provide evidence that it had entered into a distribution agreement with at least one licensed distributor in order for a licence to be issued.

11.

In January 2002, in an attempt to better manage its workload, and as part of the deficiency process, the Commission began to ask each applicant proposing a new Category 2 service to provide evidence of a reasonable likelihood that the proposed service would obtain carriage by a licensed BDU.If this evidence was not provided, the Commission was not prepared to proceed with the processing of the application. In imposing this requirement, the Commission took into consideration the fact that, since the beginning of 2001, less than 15% of the Category 2 services it had originally authorized had launched.

12.

Following the Commission's introduction of the requirement that prospective applicants for Category 2 services demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that their proposed services would obtain carriage by a licensed BDU, the Commission received comments and complaints from a number of potential service providers. Generally, they were of the view that the Commission's requirement was inappropriate as it created the potential for gate-keeping on the part of the BDUs.

13.

In light of these concerns, the Commission decided to conduct a public review of the procedures it uses in processing Category 2 applications. The Commission's decision to undertake such a review was also prompted by its belief that, while the annual volume of Category 2 applications received by the Commission had fallen far below the volume reached in 2000, there were procedures that might be amended or adopted to streamline the processing of such applications.
 

Call for comments on procedures for dealing with applications for Category 2 licences

14.

In Call for comments on possible amendments for dealing with applications for new Category 2 pay and specialty services, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2003-14, 18 March 2003 (Public Notice 2003-14), the Commission requested comments on the procedures it should use in processing applications proposing new Category 2 pay and specialty television services. In that notice, the Commission focussed on possible modifications and/or alternatives to its current approach that would serve the public interest and make the most efficient and effective use of Commission resources, while ensuring that all applicants receive fair and equitable treatment. In particular, the Commission invited comments on the following questions:
 
  • Likelihood of carriage: Is the requirement that a reasonable likelihood of carriage be demonstrated before an application is deemed to be complete the most appropriate way to balance the Commission's objectives of ensuring an open and flexible licensing framework, and making the best use of its resources?
 
  • Interval process: Would an approach based on processing applications for Category 2 undertakings only at specific time intervals be reasonable? If so, what would the most appropriate time interval be?
 
  • Alternative approaches: Are there alternative approaches the Commission could take that would permit it to better balance resource demands with the objective of a fair and more open-entry licensing framework?
 
  • Other approaches: What other possible approaches could be considered for dealing with Category 2 services that would be consistent with the Broadcasting Act, the approach set out in Public Notice 2000-6, and the requirements of efficient regulation?

15.

The Commission received five comments in response to Public Notice 2003-14, including those submitted by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), associations representing program providers and BDUs, respectively. The remaining three comments were filed by companies that have been involved in applications for licences to operate new Category 2 services, namely China Essence Television Network Inc. (China Essence), Golden Tunes Production Inc. (Golden Tunes) and St. Joseph Corporation (St. Joseph).
 

Positions of the parties

 

Likelihood of carriage

16.

All five of the parties filing comments in response to Public Notice 2003-14 were opposed to the requirement that a reasonable likelihood of carriage be demonstrated before an application is deemed to be complete. The CAB submitted that this requirement granted BDUs "de facto veto power over which new Category 2 services are able to file complete applications for consideration at a hearing." The CAB also stated that the requirement made it difficult for prospective applicants to protect concepts for new services in a competitive environment, and may have a chilling effect on the emergence of innovative ideas for new Category 2 services. It further suggested that the practice represented a significant departure from the open-entry licensing framework for digital services adopted by the Commission in Public Notice 2000-6.

17.

The CCTA was of the opinion that the requirement that a reasonable likelihood of carriage be demonstrated was unnecessary, inefficient, and should no longer be required. The CCTA argued that negotiations between program providers and BDUs concerning carriage, wholesale rates, marketing support, mode of delivery and programming content, can only occur after a service has been licensed, and once an applicant has had an opportunity to formalize its business plans. It noted that a BDU, despite having access only to limited information about a proposed service, may nonetheless be prepared to indicate that it would likely carry the service. The CCTA was concerned, however, that this indication could be wrongly interpreted by the prospective applicant as the BDU's consent to distribute the service, and that this, in turn, could complicate future carriage negotiations.

18.

China Essence contended, as did the CAB, that to require a demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of carriage was an inappropriate requirement, in that it allows BDUs to play the role of gatekeeper. China Essence noted that small independent companies, such as itself, must exercise discipline in the preparation and filing of Category 2 licence applications. In China Essence's view, the requirement appeared to be based on the premise that possession of a letter from a BDU bespeaks market demand or consumer acceptance. China Essence disagreed with such a premise, stating that a BDU letter is neither a realistic measure, nor any guarantee of demand or acceptance.

19.

The comments submitted by Golden Tunes included a description of its experience in asking distributors for a letter indicating their willingness to distribute a proposed Category 2 service. According to Golden Tunes, BDUs viewed the need to provide evidence of a likelihood of receiving carriage as an unreasonable imposition on Category 2 applicants, and as an unwarranted responsibility placed on a BDU, in that it called upon the BDU to offer an implicit promise to distribute a service that it is unable to properly evaluate. Echoing one of the comments made by the CAB, Golden Tunes expressed its further concern that, by having to approach BDUs for the purpose of obtaining such evidence, a Category 2 applicant risked revealing its plans, and having these plans co-opted by others, prior to being licensed.

20.

St. Joseph stated that it did not believe that "the Commission's decision to grant BDUs the authority to determine which Category 2 licensing applications are eligible to be approved by the Commission is consistent with the Commission's mandate under the Act". St. Joseph also argued that the imposition of the requirement for a demonstration of reasonable likelihood of carriage was unfair to those, including St. Joseph, who had filed applications with the Commission prior to receiving notification of the 2002 change in procedures. In its view, this change amounted to a breach of the rules of procedural fairness.
 

Interval process

21.

Three of the five parties commented on the Commission's question regarding the processing of applications at set intervals. Golden Tunes suggested that the Commission could process applications in batches, two or three times a year. Further, it suggested that the Commission could grant provisional licences on an expedited basis, and set a strict time frame within which each licensee must either launch its service or forfeit its licence. While the CAB also supported the processing of applications for Category 2 undertakings at specific intervals, it expressed concern that this could place new services at a disadvantage unless additions of non-Canadian services to the Eligible satellite list were processed at the same time as, and in conjunction with, applications for new services.

22.

China Essence stated that, given what it described as the increasingly evident difficulties in launching new services, the volume of applications for new Category 2 licences may well be a burden that will lessen over time. It noted, however, that whatever number of applications might be received over a period of time, the Commission would still have to process them, and that staggering this activity would thus not lighten the Commission's workload, but would merely amount to managing it differently.
 

Alternative and other approaches

23.

Not all of the parties offered comments on the Commission's questions concerning what alternative approaches might allow it to better balance demands on its resources with the objective of a fair licensing framework conducive to open entry, or what other approaches would be consistent with the Act, the approach set out in Public Notice 2000-6 and the requirements of efficient regulation. Many of the comments were brief and some did not clearly distinguish between the two questions.

24.

The CAB proposed no change other than that, discussed earlier, calling for removal of the requirement that applicants demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of receiving carriage. According to the CAB, the Commission should confirm that it will continue to abide by the original Category 2 application procedures set out in Public Notices 2000-6 and 2000-171, which, in its view, best meet the objective of an open and flexible licensing framework. St. Joseph likewise stated that the open-entry approach to licensing Category 2 services outlined in Public Notices 2000-6 and 2000-171 should be maintained.

25.

The CCTA responded to the Commission's question about alternative approaches to managing the demands on its resources. Specifically, it commented on the Commission's workload associated with assessing whether or not an applicant's proposal would be directly competitive with Category 1 and existing analog pay and specialty services. The CCTA submitted that restrictions on competition may no longer be realistic, given that most BDUs now distribute well over 100 specialty services, including analog, Category 1 and Category 2 specialty services. According to the CCTA, all services compete for audiences and programming, and virtually all services are directly competitive with others. It therefore recommended that the Commission adopt a less restrictive approach to the licensing of Category 2 services that would be competitive with existing services operating in the same or a similar genre.

26.

As an alternative to the above recommendation, the CCTA suggested that the onus should be placed on an incumbent licensee to demonstrate, convincingly, that a proposed service would be significantly more competitive with its service than with any other licensed service. The CCTA submitted that shifting the onus and setting a higher competitiveness threshold would discourage interventions opposing applications for new licences that would have minimal or no impact on existing licensed pay television and specialty television services.

27.

In addressing the workload issue, St. Joseph noted that the Commission, following publication of the first round of Category 2 decisions in December 2000, found itself in many instances assessing the ownership and control of an applicant on more than one occasion prior to launch. St. Joseph agreed with the Commission that this was not an efficient or effective use of Commission resources. It suggested, instead, that the Commission might defer analysis of both the nature of service and the ownership structure of a prospective Category 2 licensee until the service was ready to launch. According to St. Joseph, this approach would enable the Commission to approve those applications that satisfied the minimum requirements for Category 2 services set out in Public Notice 2000-6, but withhold the licence until informed by the applicant that it was ready to launch. At that time, the Commission would complete an assessment of the ownership and control of the undertaking and consider whether the proposed nature of service would be consistent with the "directly competitive" licensing test.

28.

China Essence noted that, as a means to reduce its workload, the Commission could theoretically exempt Category 2 services from licensing requirements, provided they met a list of exemption criteria. It acknowledged, however, that this approach may not be entirely satisfactory, as it would be heavily reliant on the willingness of such services to self-regulate their activities, and on the effectiveness of their efforts in doing so.
 

The Commission's analysis and determinations

29.

The Commission's review of the procedures it follows in processing Category 2 applications has taken into account the comments and suggestions made by the parties in response to Public Notice 2003-14. In conducting this review, the Commission has been guided by the objectives and principles it identified as underlying the licensing framework for new digital pay and specialty services, as first set out in Public Notice 2000-6 and as described again in the opening section of the present notice. The Commission has also been mindful of the importance of ensuring that its limited resources are put to the best and most efficient use.

30.

In the following sections, the Commission sets out its analysis of the various views and approaches put forward by the parties in response to the four questions raised by the Commission in Public Notice 2003-14, and its determinations with respect to each.
 

Likelihood of carriage

31.

In the comments filed in this proceeding, there was unanimous opposition by broadcasters and distributors alike to retention of the requirement, introduced in January 2002, that an applicant provide evidence of a reasonable likelihood that its proposed service would obtain carriage by a licensed BDU prior to having its application processed by the Commission. Concerns ranged from those related to the apparent gate-keeping role it conferred upon BDUs, to those associated with various potential contractual and legal implications raised by the requirement. In the Commission's view, each of the parties in this proceeding have advanced sound and valid reasons for removal of this requirement.

32.

Accordingly, in the interests of fairness and the objectives of open entry, the Commission will no longer require a Category 2 applicant to provide evidence of a reasonable likelihood that its proposed service would obtain carriage by a licensed BDU before having its application processed by the Commission.
 

Interval process

33.

The views of the parties were mixed on the question of whether it would be advisable to process Category 2 applications only at specific intervals. The Commission generally holds the same view as that expressed by China Essence, that simply scheduling hearings at set intervals will not help to lighten the workload. Under the current approach, applications are dealt with as they are received, and are scheduled to be heard at the next available hearing. While holding hearings to consider Category 2 licence applications at set intervals would allow the Commission to manage certain workload issues differently, the method's efficiency assumes a constant volume of applications. The practice could lead to situations where an application that was found incomplete for one hearing scheduled to consider Category 2 applications might be obliged to wait some considerable amount of time before the next such hearing took place. In the Commission's view, the current approach whereby complete applications are scheduled to the next available public hearing is the practice most consistent with procedural fairness and with the open-entry approach that the Commission envisaged when it introduced the digital licensing framework. The current approach will thus be retained.
 

Alternative and other approaches

 

A less restrictive approach to competition between services

34.

It was the CCTA's recommendation that the Commission adopt a less restrictive approach to the licensing of Category 2 services that would compete with Category 1 or existing analog specialty and pay services operating in the same or a similar genre. The Commission's current policy is not to license Category 2 services that would be directly competitive with such services. In practice, this means that the Commission has authorized many services that are partially competitive with licensed Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services.

35.

Category 2 services generally have less stringent obligations with respect to Canadian content, and no specific requirements for expenditures on Canadian programming. In the Commission's view, a Category 2 service that competes directly with an existing Category 1 or analog pay or specialty service would thus have a competitive advantage. Moreover, adopting the CCTA's recommendation would represent a fundamental change in the licensing framework for specialty services, one not expressly contemplated by the Commission in Public Notice 2003-14. The Commission therefore concludes that the current process is not the appropriate vehicle for conducting a review of such a fundamental aspect of the licensing framework for digital services.
 

Placing the onus on incumbents to demonstrate competitiveness

36.

The CCTA, as an alternative to its proposed streamlining approach discussed above, suggested that the Commission place the onus on incumbent Category 1 and analog licensees to demonstrate that their service and a proposed Category 2 service would be directly competitive with each other.

37.

The Commission notes that, at the very least, this approach would increase the role that interveners play in assisting the Commission to reach its determinations where the question arises. The former application form asked an applicant to indicate whether or not its proposed service would be directly competitive with an existing service. Not surprisingly, given the Commission's policy, applicants for Category 2 licences invariably responded that their proposed services would not be directly competitive with any existing service. Few provided any justification for their answer, for example, by comparing the proposed service with existing services that could be considered as being even partially competitive, or by explaining why the proposed service would not be directly competitive with those services. As a consequence, the Commission's approach necessarily entailed an in-depth analysis, including consideration of all interventions, to determine whether or not the proposed nature of service could be considered competitive with existing services.

38.

As noted above, the question in the former application form was ineffective in eliciting the information needed by the Commission to complete its examination of most of the applications received. While it was often a relatively straightforward matter to establish whether or not a proposed ethnic Category 2 service would be directly competitive with an existing service, most French- and English-language specialty services required at least one round of deficiencies to fully assess the question of competitiveness.

39.

In light of the above, the Commission finds that the former approach, where the onus rested with the applicant to demonstrate why its proposed service should not be considered directly competitive, could be combined with one that gives interveners a greater role in the investigation of this question. Accordingly, the Commission has revised the current application form to require an applicant to identify those existing Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services with which its proposal could be considered to be partially competitive (i.e., for these purposes, those having programming at least 10% of which falls within the same or a similar genre). The Commission provides, with the application form, a listing of all existing Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services, including a description of the nature of each service. Also, as part of the application form, the Commission requires an applicant to explain why its proposal should not be considered to be directly competitive with the services it has identified as being at least partially competitive with its own proposed service.

40.

In the Commission's view, such an approach will provide a more complete record for use by both itself and interveners to assess whether or not a proposed service should be considered to be directly competitive with an existing service. The Commission will continue to deny applications where the applicants fail to demonstrate that their proposed services would not be directly competitive with an existing service.
 

Deferral of the Commission's analysis of an applicant's ownership and control

41.

It was St. Joseph's view that the Commission might achieve more efficient and effective use of its resources by deferring its analysis of an applicant's ownership and control until just before the service was launched. As mentioned earlier, however, it was the Commission's experience during the original licensing round for Category 2 services that this approach was both inefficient and ineffective. It also did not allow for full public comment on ownership issues prior to approval. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to conduct its assessment of each applicant's ownership and control before scheduling the application to a hearing.
 

Deferral of the Commission's assessment of an applicant's proposed nature of service

42.

The further suggestion by St. Joseph had been that the Commission should approve applications proposing new Category 2 services without regard to the proposed nature of service, and only assess whether the proposed service would be consistent with the "directly competitive" test at the time the service was ready to commence operations. In the Commission's view, this approach would be inconsistent with one of the key elements of the licensing framework set out in Public Notice 2000-6. In that notice, the Commission announced its policy that a Category 2 service must not be competitive with an existing Category 1 or analog pay and specialty service. The suggested approach would not allow the public or the operator of a Category 1 or analog pay and specialty service, prior to the approval of a service, to comment on the nature of the proposed service and whether or not it could be competitive with an existing service.

43.

Approval of applications without regard to the nature of service would also raise concerns about how an authorized service could conclude programming agreements or affiliation agreements with a distributor without the latter having an indication of what the nature of service would be. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to conduct an assessment of the nature of a proposed Category 2 service as an integral part of the initial licensing process, before reaching a decision either to approve or deny the application.
 

The possible use of an exemption order

44.

The Commission has considered China Essence's proposal that the Commission establish criteria under which Category 2 services would be exempt from licensing requirements. In addition to sharing the same reservations as those expressed by China Essence about its own proposal, the Commission considers that the most difficult aspect of drafting such an exemption order would be formulating a clear and practical definition of what would constitute a "competitive service". The Commission has therefore determined that an approach based on exempting Category 2 services from licensing is not appropriate at this time.
 

Conclusion

45.

In summary, taking into account the objectives for this proceeding and the comments received in this regard, the Commission has decided to implement the following changes to permit the more efficient and effective use of its resources in the processing of Category 2 applications.
 
  • The Commission will no longer require an applicant to provide clear evidence of a reasonable likelihood that its proposed Category 2 service would obtain carriage by a licensed BDU before the Commission proceeds with its consideration of the application.
 
  • The Commission has revised the application form to require an applicant to identify those existing Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services with which its proposal could be considered to be partially competitive (i.e. those having programming at least 10% of which is from the same or a similar genre). The Commission has provided, with the application form, a listing of all existing Category 1 and analog pay and specialty services, including a description of the nature of each service.
 
  • As part of the application form, the Commission now requires an applicant to explain why its proposal should not be considered directly competitive with the services it has identified as being at least partially competitive with its own.
 
  • Where the applicant has, to the Commission's satisfaction, met the two requirements noted above, and has replied to all other questions in the revised application form, including those related to ownership, the application will be considered complete and will be scheduled for consideration at the next available hearing.

46.

Moreover, the Commission confirms that it may deny Category 2 applications in the following circumstances:
 
  •  where there is a well-supported intervention demonstrating that a service would be directly competitive with an existing service, and where the applicant has not persuaded the Commission to the contrary;
 
  • where an applicant, even in the absence of such an intervention, has not satisfied the Commission that its proposed service would not be directly competitive with any existing service; or
 
  • where an applicant has not demonstrated that it meets the ownership requirements.

47.

Applicants are reminded that applications should be as complete as possible and that it is their obligation to ensure that they have responded to all of the Commission's requirements.
  Secretary General
  This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Date Modified: 2004-04-08

Date modified: