ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2010-259
This page has been archived on the Web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.
| Route reference: 2009-704 | |
| Ottawa, 7 May 2010 | |
| Videotron Ltd.1 Gatineau (Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull) and surrounding areas, Quebec, and Rockland, Ontario | |
| Applications 2009-1305-5 and 2009-1304-7, received 23 September 2009 | |
Class 1 terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) serving Gatineau (Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull) and surrounding areas, Quebec and Class 2 terrestrial BDU serving Rockland, Ontario – Licence amendment | |
| The Commission denies an application by Videotron Ltd. to amend the broadcasting licence of its Class 1 terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) serving Gatineau (Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull) and surrounding areas to relieve it of the requirement set out in section 25(b) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations. The Commission notes that in Broadcasting Decision 2010-87, it revoked the licence for the Class 2 terrestrial BDU serving Rockland because it met all the exemption criteria set out in Broadcasting Order 2009-544. | |
Introduction | |
| 1. | The Commission received applications from Videotron Ltd. to amend the broadcasting licence for the Class 1 terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) serving Gatineau (Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull) and surrounding areas and the licence for the Class 2 terrestrial BDU serving Rockland to relieve the BDUs of the requirement under section 25(b) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations) concerning the distribution of a television programming service on a restricted channel. The applicant proposed to move CHCH-TV-1 Ottawa to channel 9, a restricted channel, in order to free up channel 16 for distribution of the television programming undertaking CKXT-DT-3 Ottawa. CHCH-TV-1 is operated by Channel Zero and retransmits the programming of CHCH-TV Hamilton, and CKXT-DT-3 is operated by Sun TV Company and retransmits the programming of CKXT-DT Toronto. |
| 2. | In support of its applications, the applicant indicated that the amendment would comply with the Commission's policy regarding analog distribution of Canadian television stations broadcasting on a digital only basis, as set out in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2009-545. The applicant stated that no other analog channel is available to distribute CKXT-DT-3 and that CHCH-TV has changed its mandate to focus more on the Hamilton market and is thus less relevant to the Outaouais, a Francophone market. The applicant indicated that channel 9 provides good reception because the cable network in Gatineau was recently upgraded. It submitted that neither the public nor CHCH-TV will be adversely affected by the channel realignment and that CKXT-DT-3 will be distributed on an analog channel in the Ottawa area in accordance with Broadcasting Decision 2008-125. |
| 3. | The Commission received an intervention from Channel Zero opposing the application, to which the applicant did not respond. The intervention can be examined on the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca under "Public Proceedings." |
Commission's analysis and determinations | |
| 4. | The Commission notes that subsection 25(b) of the Regulations permits BDUs to distribute a priority service on a restricted channel only if they obtain permission from the programming undertaking. Otherwise, they must obtain the Commission's authorization. In its intervention, Channel Zero stated that it disagreed with the distribution of its service on a restricted channel. The Commission therefore must determine whether the channel realignment is warranted, and if so, which of the services should be moved. |
| 5. | The Commission notes that the inferior reception quality of channel 9 could have a negative impact on the public and on the services. Although the applicant stated that [translation] "interference on channel 9 is firmly under control because the cable networks were recently upgraded," it did not provide any evidence of the quality of reception. |
| 6. | The Commission further notes that Quebecor Media Inc. has effective control of Sun TV Company and Videotron. Consequently, although the application is consistent with Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2009-545, the applicant could comply with the regulatory policy and with the Regulations by distributing its service CKXT-DT-3 on channel 9. The Commission therefore asked the applicant to explain why it believed that CHCH-TV-1 should be distributed on channel 9 rather than CKXT-DT-3. |
| 7. | The applicant replied that CHCH-TV programming was less attractive to the Outaouais public because it targeted Hamilton. The Commission notes that CKXT-DT's programming is hardly more attractive, given that it targets the Toronto market. In its intervention, Channel Zero indicated that its programming included information on Ottawa and Gatineau (i.e. weather forecasts), but the Commission notes that this does not constitute local programming. Furthermore, although the applicant noted that Gatineau is a Francophone market and CHCH-TV-1 is an English-language station, the Commission notes that both CHCH-TV-1 and CKXT-DT-3 are English-language stations. |
| 8. | In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that moving CHCH-TV-1 to channel 9 would unnecessarily disrupt subscribers and the broadcaster and that there is no reason why the applicant could not distribute CKXT-DT-3 on this channel. |
Conclusion | |
| 9. | The Commission denies the application by Videotron Ltd. to amend the broadcasting licence for the Class 1 terrestrial BDU serving Gatineau (Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull) and surrounding areas to relieve it of the requirement set out in section 25(b) of the Regulations. |
| 10. | The Commission directs Videotron to comply with Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2009-545 as it relates to the analog distribution of CKXT-DT-3 and to confirm such compliance to the Commission within 10 days of the date of this decision (no later than 17 May 2010). |
| 11. | The Commission notes that it revoked the licence of the BDU serving Rockland in Broadcasting Decision 2010-87 because the BDU met all the exemption criteria set out in Broadcasting Order 2009-544. |
| Secretary General | |
Related documents | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| This decision is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca. | |
Footnote1 The Commission notes that the application was originally filed by Quebecor Media Inc. on behalf of CF Cable TV Inc. (CF Cable TV). In Broadcasting Decision 2009-745, the Commission approved an application by Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) for authorization to acquire from CF Cable TV, as part of a corporate reorganization, the assets of several BDUs, including those named in this application. The transaction was completed through the wind-up of the assets of CF Cable TV into Videotron on 1 January 2010. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing this decision in the name of Videotron, the current licensee of the broadcasting distribution undertakings named in the applications. |
- Date modified: