ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Procedural Letter addressed to Geoffrey White (Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Consumers’ Association of Canada)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 12 March 2015
By email
Geoffrey White
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre and
Consumers’ Association of Canada
gwhite@piac.ca
Re: Complaints by Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Consumers’ Association of Canada regarding CraveTV and Shomi (2015-0136-2 and 2015-0141-1)
Dear Mr. White:
Today, the Commission published one of several determinations following the Let’s Talk TV proceeding. In The way forward - Creating compelling and diverse Canadian programming, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2015-86, the Commission has further clarified its existing approach to video-on-demand and digital media undertakings. It has also issued a call for comments to amend and expand the existing exemption order for video on demand (VOD) services that will include a hybrid VOD service as a new type of exempt undertaking.
The Commission considers that the applications by Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Consumers’ Association of Canada (PIAC/CAC) would benefit from taking into consideration the Commission clarifications in the above-noted Regulatory Policy.
Accordingly, by majority decision, the Commission returns these applications. If PIAC/CAC still wishes to pursue the issues identified in its applications, it should consider whether it would be more appropriate to do so in the proceeding to amend and expand the exemption order for VOD services, or by way of a new application(s). Any new application must take into consideration the above noted Regulatory Policy and provide more specific evidence and argument in support of its position.
Sincerely,
John Traversy
Secretary General
c.c. Bell (bell.regulatory@bell.ca)
Rogers (susan.wheeler@rci.rogers.com)
Shaw (regulatory@sjrb.com)
TELUS (ann.mainville-neeson@telus.com)
Vaxination Informatique (jfmezei@vaxination.ca)
PIAC (jlawford@piac.ca)
CAC (bcranbiz@telus.net)
- Date modified: