ARCHIVED - Letter

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Ottawa, 6 October 2009

 

Mr. Michael Ferras

Shaw Communications Inc. (on behalf of Shaw Cablesystems Limited and Videon Cablesystems Inc.)

 

Dear Mr. Ferras,

 

Re:   Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-614

 

As you are no doubt aware, on 16 September 2009, the Governor in Council issued Order in Council P.C. 2009-1569 requesting that the Commission hold hearings on the implications and the advisability of implementing a compensation regime for the value of local signals, and issue a report to the Government providing recommendations taking into account:

 

(a) the comments of the general public on the impact of such a measure on consumers, and in particular, its impact on affordable access to a variety of local and regional news, info rmation and public affairs programming; and

 

( b ) how the application of such a regime would impact the various components of the communications industry as it adapts to the new digital communications environment, and in particular, the implications for current and emerging business models.

 

The Commission has issued Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-614, initiating a proceeding leading to the issuance of the requested report. In order to inform public comment in this proceeding and to assist the Commission in the formulation of its recommendations, Shaw is requested to respond to the questions below.

 

1.   Provide the total number of direct basic-service subscribers, the average monthly basic rate and total monthly revenues as of 31 August 2009, broken down as follows:

 

•  systems with up to 6,000 subscribers,

•  systems with more than 6,000 but less than 20,000 subscribers,

•  systems with 20,000 or more subscribers

 

2.   For each of the above categories, provide the average standard (non-promotional) fees for all related items such as installation, connection, set-top boxes, PVRs, etc. (distinguishing between analog and digital, SD and HD, as relevant).

 

3.   For each of the following individual systems:

 

•  High River

•  Nanoose Bay

•  Saanich

•  Burnaby

•  Cranbrook

•  Fort McMurray

•  Calgary

•  Sault Ste. Marie

•  Vancouver (North and West)

 

provide information as of 31 August 2009 as follows:

 

•  the total number of direct basic-service subscribers and the associated basic service revenues

•  the monthly rate for the basic service

•  a list of the services included in the basic service (i.e., for direct subscribers);

•  for each discretionary analog tier, the rate for the tier and the services included in it

•  a description of all digital service offerings in terms of the rates charged and the services included (where services are offered on an à la carte or “create a package” basis, provide the rates and any applicable terms and conditions)

•  if different from the information provided in response to question two, all standard fees for related items such as installation, connection, set-top boxes, PVRs, etc. (distinguishing between analog and digital, SD and HD, as relevant).

 

4.   For each of the categories of systems noted in question one, provide the rate changes implemented by Shaw for the basic service between 1 October 2001 and 31 August 2009 , indicating both the percentage change and the absolute dollar change.   Provide the rationale for each rate change (e.g., additional services added to basic, increased capital cost recovery).  

 

5.   For each of the categories of systems noted in question one, provide a breakdown for the year ending 31 August 2009 indicating the percentage of basic service revenues applied to each of the following:

 

•  depreciation and amortization

•  fees to programmers for each of the following categories of services

•  services included on basic as a result of a section 9(1)(h) order

•  services included on basic because they are dual status services or because of “mirroring” requirements as per Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-23

•  any other Canadian specialty services

•  any other services (specify and provide by type of service, e.g., exempt)

•  other direct operating expenses

•  indirect operating expenses

•  debt recovery/servicing

•  profit

 

6.   For each of the categories of systems noted in question one, provide a breakdown for the year ending 31 August 2009 indicated the percentage of discretionary service revenues applied to each of the following:

 

•  depreciation and amortization

•  fees to programmers for Canadian pay or specialty services

•  fees paid to programmers for any other services (specify and provide by type of service, e.g., exempt, U.S. 4+1, distant Canadian, non-Canadian services from the eligible lists)

•  other direct operating expenses

•  indirect operating expenses

•  debt recovery/servicing

•  profit

 

The above information is to be filed with the Commission by no later than 9 a.m. on 26 October 2009. It must be received and not merely mailed by that date. Shaw's responses will be placed on the record of the proceeding initiated by Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2009-614, subject to the Commission's disposition of any confidentiality requests.With respect to information granted confidentiality, in addition to abridged responses, the Commission anticipates placing information provided on the public record in aggregated form.

 

Any request that information provided be held in confidence should be made in accordance with the Commission's normal practice in this regard.   In particular, as described in Guidelines respecting the confidential treatment of annual returns and material or information filed in support of a broadcasting application before the Commission, Circular No. 429, 19 August 1998, the onus is on the party requesting confidentiality “to demonstrate clearly that the public interest will best be served by treating the information or material as confidential …”, taking into account, among other things, the public interest in ensuring that the record of the proceeding is based on full disclosure of relevant facts.   Please note that, should you wish to request confidentiality for any of the information provided, you must submit both an unabridged version of your response for the Commission's use and an abridged version to be placed on the public record.

 

For your information, we are requesting similar information from Bell TV, Shaw Direct, and the four other major cable systems (Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers, Videotron).

 

Sincerely,

 

[original signed by]

 

 

Cynthia Stockley

 

Director

Distribution Policy

 

c.c.

 

Randy Hutson

Scott Hutton

Donna Gill

Date modified: