ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-60
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-60 |
|
| Ottawa, 10 August 2004 | |
Reports by the Cable Wiring workgroup on the use of cable inside wire |
|
Consensus on a Non-Disclosure Agreement |
|
|
1. |
The CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee working group on Cable Wiring (CW-CISC) has submitted a consensus report containing a Non-Disclosure Agreement, the terms of which are to govern the treatment of any confidential information that may be provided by one broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) to a competing BDU for the purpose of ensuring the orderly transfer of customers from one to the other. The Non-Disclosure Agreement is intended for use in maintaining the confidentiality of information in situations where the inside wire in a multiple-unit dwelling (MUD) is owned by a BDU other than one that is operated by Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Vidéotron ltée, Cogeco Cable Canada inc. or their subsidiaries. |
|
2. |
The Commission has reviewed and approves this consensus report and its Non-Disclosure Agreement. |
Non-consensus on reporting procedures for use of inside wire |
|
|
3. |
The CW-CISC has submitted a further report concerning the administrative and reporting procedures to be followed by all BDUs concerning their use of inside wire installed in MUDs and owned by other BDUs. The CW-CISC submitted this as a "non-consensus" report since the working group had been unable to reach consensus on one element of the administrative and reporting procedures. This element, as contained in the first paragraph of the section entitled Ownership of Inside Wire, provides that: |
|
Absent information to the contrary, Connecting BDUs will assume that inside wire in a MUD is the property of the incumbent cable distribution undertaking. |
|
Positions of parties |
|
|
4. |
LOOK Communications Inc. (LOOK) disagreed with the assumption that the incumbent cable BDU should be considered the default owner of inside wire in MUDs. It suggested that, instead, the incumbent should be required to demonstrate to the Connecting BDU that the incumbent does, in fact, own the inside wire in a particular MUD. LOOK proposed that each cable BDU provide its competitors with a complete list of the buildings in which it claims ownership of the inside wire. Competing BDUs would then report on their use of the inside wire only in the specific buildings identified on this list. |
|
5. |
The Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) opposed LOOK's proposal. It argued that requiring incumbents to create lists of this type would be a significant administrative burden that was not anticipated by the Commission in Cable inside wire lease fee, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-51, 3 September 2002 (Public Notice 2002-51), wherein it set a monthly per-subscriber fee for use of inside wire in MUDs. The CCTA was also of the view that LOOK's proposal would be inconsistent with the consensus reached previously by the CW-CISC to adopt a "self-reporting" model for use of inside wire in MUDs in order to minimize administrative costs. |
|
6. |
As an alternative, VDN Cable Inc. (VDN Cable) suggested that LOOK's concerns with respect to the ownership of inside wire could be addressed through a mechanism that would enable the Connecting BDU to recover lease fees paid to an incumbent BDU in the event that it is demonstrated that the incumbent does not own the inside wire in a particular MUD. |
The Commission's analysis and determination |
|
|
7. |
The Commission agrees with the CCTA that participants in meetings of the CW-CISC held prior to the issuance of Public Notice 2002-51 had developed a consensus recommendation to implement a self-reporting model for inside wire use as a means of minimizing administrative costs. The Commission approved and confirmed this recommendation in Public Notice 2002-51 and other related notices, and determined that the administrative costs incurred by owners related to the leasing of inside wire in MUDs should be kept to a minimum. This principle is consistent with section 5(2)(g) of the Broadcasting Act which calls upon the Commission to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that is sensitive to the administrative burden that such regulation and supervision may place on broadcasting undertakings. |
|
8. |
The Commission also notes that its calculation of a just and reasonable inside wire lease fee of $0.52 per month per subscriber, as set in Public Notice 2002-51, was based, in part, on the above recommendation of the CW-CISC that a self-reporting model be adopted as a means of minimizing the administrative costs incurred by owners of the wire. As a result, the inside wire lease fee calculated by the Commission does not provide for the recovery of significant administrative costs by inside wire owners. |
|
9. |
The Commission considers that LOOK's proposal, if adopted, could require every incumbent cable BDU that is subject to the administrative and reporting procedures established by the CW-CISC to maintain a list of MUDs in which it owns the inside wire. In the Commission's view, this would constitute a burden for incumbent cable BDUs, and would result in significant administrative costs that were not included in the Commission's calculation of a just and reasonable fee for the use of inside wire in MUDs. For these reasons, the Commission does not accept LOOK's proposal. |
|
10. |
In the Commission's view, VDN Cable's proposal to incorporate a mechanism that would allow the Connecting BDU to recover lease fees paid to an incumbent BDU, would be a simpler administrative tool to address situations in which it is found that the incumbent BDU had been paid for the use of the inside wire that it does not, in fact, own. |
|
11. |
The Commission considers that the proposal by VDN Cable strikes an appropriate balance between minimizing the administrative burden on incumbent BDUs and ensuring that Connecting BDUs have access to an efficient method of reimbursement should inside wire be found to not be owned by the incumbent BDU. To implement this proposal, the Commission has amended the second paragraph of the section entitled "Ownership of Inside Wire" contained in the reporting procedures to read as follows: |
|
Connecting BDUs will exercise due diligence in investigating any claim of ownership of inside wire in a MUD by a third party other than the incumbent cable distribution undertaking. A Connecting BDU will notify the incumbent cable distribution undertaking of any concerns regarding ownership of the inside wire. In the event that the inside wire is found not to be owned by the incumbent cable distribution undertaking, the Connecting BDU may claim a refund, or a credit applied against the monthly fees payable to the incumbent in a subsequent month. |
|
|
12. |
The non-consensus report and the administrative and reporting procedures, as amended, are approved by the Commission. These documents, as well as the consensus report and its Non-Disclosure Agreement, are available for viewing on the CISC's website: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cisc.htm |
| 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: 2004-08-10
- Date modified: