|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490
|
|
Ottawa, 8 September 2006 |
|
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
Battleford, Estevan, Moose Jaw, North Battleford, Pilot Butte, Prince
Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Swift Current, Weyburn, White City and
Yorkton, Saskatchewan |
|
Applications 2005-1239-4 and 2005-1237-8
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-18
16 February 2006 |
|
Licence amendments related to the funding and provision of an outlet
for local expression
|
|
The Commission approves the
application by Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) proposing
conditions of licence establishing the terms under which it would
provide an outlet for local expression as part of the service offered by
its regional, Saskatchewan-based video-on-demand (VOD) programming
undertaking. |
|
The Commission also approves
SaskTel’s application for a condition of licence in respect of its
broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) serving communities in
twelve licensed areas in Saskatchewan. The condition of licence
recognizes eligible expenditures on the proposed outlet for local
expression as contributions to local expression under the contribution
scheme set out in section 29 of the Broadcasting Distribution
Regulations. In the case of each BDU, these contributions may be
deducted from the amount that the BDU would otherwise be required to
direct to Canadian programming in accordance with that section.
Depending on the number of subscribers served by the BDU within a given
licensed area, the deductions may range from a maximum of 2% of its
annual gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities within that
licensed area, to a maximum of 5% of those revenues. |
|
The Commission denies the request
by SaskTel that it also be authorized to direct to the outlet for local
expression a portion of the annual contribution that, by condition of
licence, must be made by its VOD undertaking to an existing,
independently-administered Canadian program production fund. |
|
The applications
|
1. |
The Commission received applications by
Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) for amendments to the licence
it holds for the operation of a regional, Saskatchewan-based
video-on-demand (VOD) programming undertaking and to the licence that
authorizes it to carry on broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs)
serving the twelve communities noted above.1 SaskTel is the incumbent
telephone company for the Province of Saskatchewan. It is also a
provincial crown corporation. The two applications are described below. |
|
The VOD application
|
2. |
SaskTel proposed to offer an outlet for
local expression that would be delivered to BDU subscribers as part of
its digital interactive VOD service. The proposed community programming
provided on the outlet for local expression, while free of charge, would
otherwise differ from that distributed on a traditional community
channel, where programs are delivered to subscribers at set times in
accordance with a schedule. Instead of the familiar linear programming
model of the latter, the proposed outlet for local expression would
provide subscribers with access to a broad inventory of individual
programs, each of which would be available to subscribers on demand,
24 hours per day, seven days per week. SaskTel proposed to work with
community members, local clubs, and local production companies to create
a range of programming that would reflect the communities in each of its
licensed areas and the province as a whole. |
3. |
SaskTel further proposed that the
Commission apply conditions of licence reflecting regulatory
requirements that would be similar to those applicable to the community
programming distributed on the community channels operated by cable BDUs,
as set out in sections 27, 27.1 and 28 of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations (the Distribution Regulations). |
4. |
In addition, SaskTel stated that it would
be willing to adhere to specific terms of reference for the operation of
an independent programming committee that it would establish for the
purpose of ensuring that programming distributed on the outlet for local
expression reflects the freedom of expression and journalistic,
creative, and programming independence contemplated in the Direction
to the CRTC (Ineligibility to Hold Broadcasting Licences) SOR/85-627,
27 June 1985, as amended by SOR/97-231, 22 April 1997 (the Direction). |
5. |
SaskTel also requested an amendment to its
existing condition of licence, which currently requires adherence to the
requirements of the Pay Television Regulations, 1990 (Pay TV
Regulations).2 Section 3(2)(e) of the Pay TV Regulations generally
prohibits a licensee from distributing programming, other than filler
programming, that is produced either by the licensee or by a person
related to the licensee. As an exception to that prohibition, SaskTel
requested that it be permitted to distribute programming on its proposed
outlet for local expression, up to 10% of which would be produced by it
or by a related person. |
6. |
SaskTel requested a further amendment that
would allow it to distribute sponsorship and commercial messages
exclusively as part of its outlet for local expression programming, as
permitted on community channels under section 27 of the Distribution
Regulations. Since the Pay TV Regulations prohibit the distribution of
programming that contains any commercial messages, SaskTel suggested the
addition of a condition of licence to allow it to distribute such
sponsorship and commercial messages. |
7. |
Further, SaskTel requested an amendment to
its current condition of licence that requires it to contribute 5% of
the gross annual revenues earned by its VOD undertaking to an existing,
independently administered Canadian program production fund.
Specifically, SaskTel proposed that it be allowed to direct up to 2% of
its gross annual revenues to the proposed outlet for local expression,
thereby reducing its contribution to the Canadian program production
fund to no less than 3% of its gross annual revenues. |
8. |
SaskTel also indicated that it would be
prepared to provide programming in French and in other languages in
accordance with audience demand. |
|
The BDU application
|
9. |
SaskTel proposed to deduct amounts
representing up to 2% of the gross annual revenues derived from the
broadcasting activities of each of its BDUs from its contributions to
Canadian programming required under section 29 of the Distribution
Regulations. The deductions would be in recognition of expenditures
representing those amounts on the proposed outlet for local expression
distributed as part of SaskTel’s digital interactive VOD service.3 SaskTel requested that its BDU licence be amended through the addition
of a condition of licence that would recognize these deductions as
contributions to local expression under section 29 of the Distribution
Regulations. |
10. |
SaskTel proposed that, while the funds
spent on the proposed outlet for local expression (both from the BDU and
VOD operations) would generally be allocated in a manner that would take
into account the number of subscribers served by the SaskTel BDU in each
licensed area, up to 20% of the funds that would otherwise be attributed
to the Regina and Saskatoon licensed areas purely on the basis of
subscriber numbers might be reallocated, depending on program
submissions and program needs, to programming produced in the smaller
licensed areas, to programming produced outside the licensed areas or to
programming covering provincial events. According to the applicant, this
approach would ensure that each community receives an appropriate share
of SaskTel’s expenditures on the proposed outlet for local expression. |
|
Interventions
|
11. |
More than forty interventions were filed
with respect to SaskTel’s applications. Of these, several interventions
were by parties who supported the applicant’s plans for the provision
and funding of an outlet for local expression as part of SaskTel’s VOD
service. Many parties, however, expressed concern regarding SaskTel’s
proposals. One concern related to the potential for provincial
government interference in SaskTel’s community programming. A second
focus of concern was the proposed redirection, away from the Canadian
Television Fund (CTF) and other independent production funds, of annual
cash amounts that, whether by condition of licence or regulation, must
currently be channelled to those production funds from the gross annual
revenues earned by SaskTel’s VOD undertaking, as well as by its BDUs in
Saskatchewan. Interveners questioned whether this was, in and of itself,
appropriate or desirable, and whether it would be equitable to
stand-alone VOD licensees or consistent with the VOD licensing policy
framework. Interveners also suggested that approval of SaskTel’s funding
proposals may create a potential disincentive for the continued
operation of analog community channels by cable BDUs, and encourage them
to fund the operation of VOD services instead. |
12. |
The applicant’s position with respect to
these issues is examined further below, followed by the Commission’s
analysis and determinations. |
|
Provision of community programming by a crown corporation
|
13. |
As indicated above, certain interveners
were concerned that the community programming to be produced by or on
behalf of the applicant, a provincial crown corporation, would be
subject to potential political influence or interference by the
Government of Saskatchewan. In their view, the applicant might be
prevented from exercising the freedom of expression and journalistic,
creative and programming independence required under the Direction. |
14. |
In its applications, SaskTel noted that,
in New cable distribution undertaking in Saskatchewan, Decision
CRTC 2001-171, 12 March 2001
(Decision 2001-171), the Commission
determined that SaskTel qualified as an "independent carrier",
was not directly controlled by the Government of Saskatchewan, and
thus met the eligibility criteria set out in the Direction with respect
to the holding a broadcasting licence. The applicant acknowledged
that, although the Commission had decided to impose a condition of
licence prohibiting SaskTel’s BDUs from operating a community channel,
no such restriction was imposed by the Commission in New video-on-demand
service for Saskatchewan, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-451,
5 September 2003 (Decision 2003-451),
which granted SaskTel a licence to carry on a regional, Saskatchewan-based
VOD programming undertaking. |
15. |
In its reply to interventions, the
applicant argued that the passage of time has firmly established that
SaskTel operates its BDUs and its VOD programming undertaking
independently of the Government of Saskatchewan and is free from
political interference in programming decisions, noting that: |
|
The Government of Saskatchewan has not influenced or interfered
in any programming or other decisions pertaining to the
undertakings. All programming and operation decisions for SaskTel’s
MAX operations are made by production managers within the MAX
division.
|
16. |
SaskTel emphasized that the Government of
Saskatchewan has confirmed SaskTel’s programming independence and has
protected its broadcasting activities from political interference by
issuing an Order in Council empowering SaskTel to accept from the CRTC a
licence to operate a broadcasting distribution undertaking on the
condition that such licence is operated by SaskTel’s officers and other
employees with freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and
programming independence. |
17. |
The applicant also noted that sections 27
and 28 of the Distribution Regulations clearly prescribe the programming
and operational requirements that a BDU licensee must follow in the
delivery of community programming. It stated that it will adhere to each
specific requirement where applicable, and that it would be willing to
accept conditions of licence that require adherence to these provisions,
including requirements stipulating that it: |
|
- retain a daily log of all local programming;
|
|
- respond to complaints filed by anyone with the Commission
regarding community programming; and
|
|
- be subject to the Commission’s powers to monitor SaskTel’s
compliance with programming requirements and to take remedial action
should those requirements not be met.
|
18. |
Further, SaskTel stated that it would
accept a condition of licence requiring the creation of an independent
programming committee (IPC) that would be responsible for ensuring that
SaskTel’s community programming represents the communities served.
SaskTel proposed that the IPC be made up of volunteers who would have no
connection to SaskTel, and would be "…nominated at the local level from
non-profit cultural, sporting and recreational organizations and who
have strong associations within the communities they reside and a strong
desire to showcase a balanced view of their community." It added that
the IPC would be responsible for "…all decisions relating to or
affecting television programming available for broadcast by the licensed
undertaking," including decisions relating to program content and
presentation, with a view to ensuring that "…programming is in
conformity with any applicable conditions, regulations, and policies of
the [Commission] and the Broadcasting Act." |
|
Proposal for funding the outlet for local expression
|
19. |
SaskTel requested that it be authorized to
allocate, as expenditures on its proposed outlet for local expression,
up to 2% of the gross annual revenues derived from the broadcasting
activities of its VOD undertaking and BDUs in Saskatchewan. This
proposal would reduce, from 5% to 3%, the percentage of the gross
revenues earned by its VOD undertaking in each broadcast year that must
now, by condition of licence, be contributed to an independently
administered Canadian program production fund. SaskTel’s proposal would
also reduce, from 5% to 3%, the percentage of gross revenues earned by
its BDUs in each broadcast year that must now, in accordance with
section 29 of the Distribution Regulations, be contributed to Canadian
programming. |
20. |
Certain of the interveners who addressed
the applicant’s funding proposals were concerned by the effect that
their approval would have in reducing SaskTel’s annual contributions to
the CTF and to other independent production funds. Some parties
especially objected to the applicant’s request that it be permitted to
divert revenues to its proposed outlet for local expression from two
sources, i.e., from the revenues both of its VOD undertaking and of its
BDUs. According to one intervener, approval would create a precedent
that might give rise to similar requests by other BDU licensees who also
operate or are associated with VOD and pay-per-view (PPV) undertakings,
a situation the intervener described as "triple-dipping." Other
interveners argued that approval of these proposals would be inequitable
to the operators of direct-to-home BDUs and of stand-alone VOD
undertakings for whom the provision of an outlet for local expression
does not constitute a practical option. |
21. |
As noted above, some interveners were
concerned that approval of SaskTel’s applications might persuade other
distributors to allocate funds to VOD services rather than to
traditional community channels. Parties noted that, whereas VOD
programming undertakings have served principally as an additional window
for feature films, approval of the proposals would effectively expand
the scope of the VOD policy framework. Other interveners saw the
applications as being at odds with the community channel policy, which
was developed for traditional linear community channel programming, and
noted that not all of the provisions of the community channel policy can
be applied to a video-on-demand service. |
22. |
In its reply to interventions, SaskTel
argued that its proposed outlet for local expression should have funding
comparable to that available to other Class 1 BDUs for their community
channel operations. The applicant submitted that the Commission provided
for a degree of flexibility in this regard by including a provision in
the Distribution Regulations that would permit exceptions to the
specified contribution formula, by condition of licence. From the
applicant’s perspective, it was also important that it be able to
allocate funds from both its VOD undertaking and its BDUs for use in
content production and in the creation of local employment
opportunities. |
23. |
SaskTel asserted that, in preparing its
applications, it had "carefully considered the existing regulatory
regimes, and [had] appropriately fashioned a proposal that does not
undermine them in any way." SaskTel acknowledged that its proposal was
unique and that its critics were "partly right" in noting that it
represents a departure from the existing regulatory framework: |
|
SaskTel is proposing to use the flexibility and adaptability of
its digital distribution platform to provide its customers with a
leading edge service enhancement (the first of its kind in Canada)
in order to meet customer demand and provide Saskatchewan residents
with a competitive alternative to traditional community programming.
|
24. |
SaskTel also submitted that its proposal
falls within the parameters set by the Commission in the Distribution
Regulations, which incorporate, among other things, the policy framework
for contributions by BDUs to the provision of local expression and
Canadian programming. In its discussion of those matters, the Commission
stated that any terrestrial distributor who intends to provide an outlet
for local expression, other than a community channel, may present a
proposal to the Commission to do so. |
|
Commission’s analysis and determinations
|
|
Provision of community programming by a crown corporation
|
25. |
The Commission has given careful
consideration to the concerns of interveners regarding the potential for
provincial government interference in the programming offered by SaskTel
on its outlet for local expression. The Commission has also examined the
commitments offered by the applicant to alleviate those concerns. |
26. |
Under the terms of the Direction,
provincial governments and their agents may not hold broadcasting
licences. However, the Direction provides for an exception that would
allow an entity, such as SaskTel, to be licensed provided it qualifies
as an independent carrier. The Direction defines an independent carrier
as follows: |
|
"ìndependent carrier" means a corporation that is either a
Canadian carrier within the meaning of the Telecomunications Act
that is owned by Her Majesty in right of any province, that was
operating on August 6, 1996 and that continues to be operated as a
Canadian carrier, or a subsidiary corporation of the Canadian
carrier, where
|
|
(a) the Commission determines that the corporation is not
directly controlled by Her Majesty in right of any province, and
|
|
(b) without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), the
corporation enjoys freedom of expression and journalistic, creative
and programming independence in the pursuit of its objectives and in
the exercise of its powers.
|
27. |
In Decision 2001-171,
the Commission approved SaskTel’s application for a BDU licence provided
that the applicant make certain changes to the terms and conditions
related to the appointment of its Board of Directors, for the purpose
of ensuring that SaskTel qualified as an independent carrier under
the Direction. The Commission also noted that SaskTel had indicated
in its application that the opportunity for journalistic and creative
input for the operator of a BDU would be confined largely to the community
channel. Given the applicant’s indication at the time that it did
not intend to operate a community channel, at least at the outset,
the Commission imposed a condition of licence stipulating that SaskTel
not operate a community channel. |
28. |
The Commission considers that the
applicant’s commitments in the present application with respect to the
creation and operation of an IPC to oversee SaskTel’s programming, in
accordance with established terms of reference, will serve to ensure
that the programming fully reflects and preserves the applicant’s
"freedom of expression and journalistic, creative, and programming
independence." Specifically, the Commission notes that under the terms
of reference for the IPC, that committee shall be responsible for making
all programming decisions relating to or affecting television
programming available for broadcast on the outlet for local expression,
including decisions relating to the content and presentation of that
programming. To ensure a high level of citizen participation and
community involvement, the IPC will also be charged with seeking
opportunities for programming proposals and encouraging submissions that
reflect the makeup of the communities served. The Commission also notes
that the IPC’s terms of reference specify that no change to those terms
shall be made unless prior Commission approval is obtained. The IPC
terms of reference are set out in Appendix C to this decision. |
29. |
Furthermore, the Commission notes the
applicant’s commitment, in response to concerns about programming of a
partisan political character, to comply with a condition of licence
requiring that it ensure that all accredited political parties are
allocated an equal number of titles of equal duration in its programming
inventory, and that it not have any programming of a partisan political
character in its inventory during provincial election periods. |
30. |
The Commission is satisfied that these
commitments adequately address the concerns of interveners with respect
to the applicant’s ability and its resolve, as an independent carrier
within the meaning provided in the Direction, to exercise "freedom of
expression, and journalistic, creative and programming independence".
The Commission is further satisfied that the Commission would be able to
respond effectively, on a case-by-case basis, to any complaint it might
receive about the operation of the proposed outlet for local expression.
|
|
Proposal for funding the outlet for local expression
|
31. |
Sections 27, 27.1 and 28 of the
Distribution Regulations contemplate the delivery of community
programming, based on the operation of traditional linear community
channels. Section 29 makes provision for contributions to local
expression by BDU licensees that distribute their own community
programming on the community channel. |
32. |
In New Regulatory Framework for Broadcasting
Distribution Undertakings, Public Notice CRTC 1997-25,
11 March 1997 (Public Notice 1997-25),
which announced the Commission’s policy determinations that subsequently
led to publication of the Distribution Regulations in Public Notice
1997-150, the Commission
emphasized its intention "to give all terrestrial distributors
the opportunity to present innovative proposals for providing outlets
for local expression within the purview of the [Broadcasting Act]."
Moreover, as SaskTel mentioned in its reply to interventions, in Public
Notice 1997-150, the
Commission invited terrestrial distributors wishing to provide an
outlet for local expression, other than a community channel, to present
their proposals to the Commission. |
33. |
The Commission notes that approval of SaskTel’s
applications would allow the introduction of a model for the provision
of local expression that differs considerably from the traditional
model followed over the last four decades, whereby community programming
has been distributed on community channels. While such approval would
also represent an evolutionary departure from the offerings of conventional
VOD undertakings, it would be in keeping with the Commission’s intention,
as originally expressed in Public Notice 1997-25,
to encourage innovative proposals for providing outlets for local
expression. |
34. |
The Commission places great importance on
the role played by BDUs in the provision of community programming and on
the value of community programming that is of particular relevance to
the communities served. In this particular instance, the Commission
considers that there are a number of benefits that would be realized
through implementation of the applicant’s plans, not the least of which
would be the provision of community programming to SaskTel’s BDU
subscribers, who do not currently have access to such programming. In
addition, SaskTel subscribers would benefit from the ability of the
applicant’s digital distribution platform to provide virtually unlimited
shelf space for community programming and offer diversity of choice on
an on-demand basis rather than in accordance with any fixed schedule. |
35. |
The Commission also notes SaskTel’s
willingness to adhere to conditions of licence establishing requirements
for the provision of community programming, thereby ensuring that its
programming would essentially parallel that offered by BDUs on their
community channels, pursuant to sections 27, 27.1 and 28 of the
Distribution Regulations. In particular, the Commission notes that,
consistent with section 27.1, at least 60% of the program offering for
each licensed area would be local community television programming, and
at least 30% would be community access television programming. |
36. |
Given all of the above, the Commission
considers that it would be appropriate to recognize SaskTel’s proposed
programming, offered as part of the applicant’s VOD service, as local
expression, as contemplated under the contribution scheme set out in
section 29 of the Distribution Regulations. |
37. |
In the circumstances, the Commission also
considers that it would be appropriate to permit SaskTel to distribute
programming on the proposed outlet for local expression, up to 10% of
which would be produced by it or by a related person, and to distribute
sponsorship messages as permitted on community channels. |
38. |
As discussed above, SaskTel proposed to
allocate up to 2% of the gross annual revenues derived from the
broadcasting activities of its VOD undertaking and its BDUs in
Saskatchewan to local expression, and to reduce its required annual 5%
contributions to independent Canadian program production funds by a
corresponding percentage of those gross annual revenues. |
39. |
Section 29(6) of the Distribution
Regulations permits a Class 1 BDU licensee having 20,000 or more
subscribers and distributing its own community programming on the
community channel in a licensed area to make a deduction of a maximum of
2% of its gross annual revenues earned from broadcasting activities from
the amount it must otherwise contribute to Canadian programming, i.e.,
to the CTF and other independent production funds, to reflect its
contribution to local expression. Under section 29(5) of the
Distribution Regulations, a Class 1 BDU licensee that has fewer than
20,000 subscribers and that distributes its own community programming on
the community channel in a licensed area is permitted to make a
deduction of up to a maximum of 5% of its gross annual revenues earned
from broadcasting activities, i.e., the entire amount it must otherwise
contribute to Canadian programming, to reflect its contribution to local
expression. |
40. |
The contribution scheme set out in section
29 of the Distribution Regulations draws a distinction between smaller
and larger BDUs. Given that SaskTel has been granted a regional licence
authorizing it to carry on BDUs in a number of licensed areas, the
Commission considers it appropriate that SaskTel be permitted to deduct
from its contributions to Canadian programming up to 5% of the gross
annual revenues that are derived from the broadcasting activities of its
BDUs in those licensed areas having fewer than 20,000 subscribers,
provided that it contributes that amount, at a minimum, to local
expression. Consistent with section 29(6) of the Distribution
Regulations, the maximum deduction for contributions to local expression
in licensed areas having 20,000 or more subscribers will be 2% of a
BDU’s gross annual revenues derived from broadcasting activities. |
41. |
Further, the Commission finds reasonable
SaskTel’s proposal to reallocate, depending on program submissions and
program needs, up to 20% of the funds that would otherwise be
apportioned by SaskTel to local expression in each of the Regina and
Saskatoon licensed areas to programming produced in the smaller licensed
areas, to programming produced outside the service areas or to
programming covering provincial events. As proposed by the applicant,
this approach would ensure that each community receives an appropriate
share of expenditures on local expression. |
42. |
With respect to SaskTel’s VOD undertaking,
its current conditions of licence require it to contribute 5% of the
gross annual revenues to an independent Canadian program production
fund. This condition of licence is consistent with the licensing framework
for VOD and PPV services set out in Introductory statement to Decisions
CRTC 2000-733 to 2000-738:
Licensing of new video-on-demand and pay-per-view services, Public
Notice CRTC 2000-172,
14 December 2000. In the Commission’s view, approval of this aspect
of SaskTel’s VOD application would be inconsistent with the licensing
framework for VOD services. |
|
Conclusion
|
43. |
Based on all of the forgoing, the
Commission approves the application by Saskatchewan
Telecommunications for licence amendments pertaining to its provision of
an outlet for local expression as part of the service offered by its
regional, Saskatchewan-based VOD programming undertaking. The Commission
also approves Saskatchewan Telecommunications’s application for
licence amendments recognizing the licensee’s expenditures on local
expression, for the purposes of the contribution scheme set out in
section 29 of the Distribution Regulations. |
44. |
The Commission denies the request by
Saskatchewan Telecommunications that it also be authorized to redirect
to the outlet for local expression any portion of the annual
contribution that, by condition of licence, must be made by its VOD
undertaking to an existing, independently-administered Canadian program
production fund. |
45. |
Appendix A and Appendix B to this decision
pertain to SaskTel’s BDU licence and to its VOD licence, respectively.
In those appendices, the Commission sets out the conditions of
licence that specify the various requirements relating to the
funding of, and the programming offered on, the outlet for local
expression, in keeping with the licensee’s commitments. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This decision is to be appended to each
of the licences. It 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
|
|
Appendix A to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490
|
|
Amendments to the broadcasting licence issued to Saskatchewan
Telecommunications (SaskTel) to carry on a broadcasting distribution
undertaking serving Battleford, Estevan, Moose Jaw, North Battleford,
Pilot Butte, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Swift Current, Weyburn,
White City and Yorkton, Saskatchewan
|
|
The licensee shall continue to be subject
to the conditions set out in New cable distribution undertaking
in Saskatchewan, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2001-171,
12 March 2001, in addition to the following conditions. |
|
The licensee shall be subject to the
following conditions of licence as an exception to the requirements set
out in section 29 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations: |
|
If the licensee has 20,000 or more subscribers in the licensed
area of a broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) on August 31
of the previous broadcast year and distributes programming that
qualifies as local expression on a video-on-demand or pay-per-view
service, the licensee shall make, in each broadcast year, a
contribution to Canadian programming of not less than the greater of
|
|
(a) 5% of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities
in the licensed area in the year, less any contribution to local
expression made by the licensee in the licensed area in that year,
and
|
|
(b) 3% of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities
in the licensed area in the broadcast year.
|
|
If the licensee has fewer than 20,000 subscribers in the
licensed area of a BDU on August 31 of the previous broadcast year
and distributes programming that qualifies as local expression on a
video-on-demand or pay-per-view service, the licensee shall make, in
each broadcast year, a contribution of not less than 5% of its gross
revenues derived from broadcasting activities in the licensed area
in the year to Canadian programming, less any contribution to local
expression made by the licensee in the licensed area in that year.
|
|
If the licensee has 20,000 or more subscribers in the licensed
area of a BDU on August 31 of the previous broadcast year and does
not distribute programming that qualifies as local expression on a
video-on-demand or pay-per-view service, and if a community
programming undertaking is licensed in the licensed area, the
licensee shall make, in each broadcast year, a contribution of not
less than
|
|
(a) 3% of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities
in the licensed area in the broadcast year to Canadian programming,
and
|
|
(b) 2% of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities
in the licensed area in the broadcast year to the community
programming undertaking.
|
|
If the licensee has fewer than 20,000 subscribers in the
licensed area of a BDU on August 31 of the previous broadcast year
and does not distribute programming that qualifies as local
expression on a video-on-demand or pay-per-view service, and if a
community programming undertaking is licensed in the licensed area,
the licensee shall make, in each broadcast year, a contribution of
5% of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities in the
licensed area in the broadcast year to the community programming
undertaking.
|
|
- If a licensee does not distribute programming that qualifies as
local expression on a video-on-demand or pay-per-view service, and
if no community programming undertaking is licensed in the licensed
area, the licensee shall make, in each broadcast year, a
contribution of not less than 5% of its gross revenues derived from
broadcasting activities in the licensed area in the year to Canadian
programming.
|
|
- For the purpose of calculating the licensee’s contribution to
local expression for each of the Regina and Saskatoon licensed
areas, the licensee may include the contributions to local
expression made for programming produced in other licensed areas,
for programming produced outside the licensed areas or for
programming covering provincial events, up to a maximum of 20% of
the total contribution to local expression applicable for each of
the Regina and Saskatoon licensed areas.
|
|
For the purpose of these conditions:
|
|
"video-on-demand service" means
the video-on-demand programming undertaking authorized in New video-on-demand
service for Saskatchewan, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-451,
5 September 2003, as amended from time to time; |
|
"pay-per-view service" means the
pay-per-view programming undertaking authorized in Pay-per-view
service, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-491,
8 September 2006, as amended from time to time: |
|
"contribution to local expression"
means the eligible expenses for local expression made in accordance
with Public Notice CRTC 1997-25,
entitled New Regulatory Framework for Broadcasting Distribution
Undertakings, as amended from time to time; |
|
"local expression" refers to programming
that qualifies as local expression in accordance with the conditions of
licence applicable to the programming service. |
|
"contribution to Canadian programming" shall have the meaning set
out in section 29(1) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.
|
|
Appendix B to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490
|
|
Amendments to the broadcasting licence issued to Saskatchewan
Telecommunications (SaskTel) to carry on a regional, Saskatchewan-based
video-on-demand programming undertaking
|
|
1. The licensee shall continue to be subject
to the conditions set out in New video-on-demand service for Saskatchewan,
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-451,
5 September 2003, with the exception of condition of licence 1, which
is replaced by the following condition: |
|
The licensee shall adhere to the Pay Television Regulations,
1990, with the exception of section 3(2)(d) (commercial
messages); section 3(2)(e) (programming produced by the licensee);
section 3(2)(f) (programming produced by a person related to the
licensee); and section 4 (logs and records).
|
|
2. The condition of licence approved in
Max Front Row – Licence amendments, Broadcasting Decision CRTC
2006-132, 5 April 2006 is replaced by
the following condition: |
|
The licensee shall not include as part of its video-on-demand
offering any program containing a commercial message except as
otherwise provided in the conditions of licence relating to local
expression, or where:
|
|
a) the message was already included in a program previously
broadcast by a Canadian programming service;
|
|
b) the program’s inclusion as part of the video-on-demand
offering is in accordance with the terms of a written agreement
entered into with the operator of the Canadian programming service
that broadcast the program; and
|
|
c) the program is offered to subscribers on an on-demand basis
at no charge.
|
|
3. (1) Subject to 3.(2) and 3.(3) below,
the following programming will qualify as local expression for the
purpose of contributions to local expression by a broadcasting
distribution undertaking: |
|
(a) community programming;
|
|
(b) a public service announcement;
|
|
(c) an information program funded by and produced for a federal,
provincial or municipal government or agency or a public service
organization;
|
|
(d) the question period of the legislature of the province of
Saskatchewan in which each of SaskTel’s BDUs’ licensed areas is
located;
|
|
(e) a still image programming service as described in Public Notice
CRTC 1993-51, entitled
Exemption Order Respecting Still Image Programming Service Undertakings,
if the service is produced by the licensee or by members of the
community served by the undertaking and does not contain commercial
messages, other than commercial messages contained within the programming
service of a licensed radio station; or
|
|
(f) the programming of a community programming undertaking.
|
|
(2) The community programming offered
pursuant to 3.(1)(a) above may include: |
|
(a) an announcement providing information about the community
programming that is offered as local expression;
|
|
(b) a commercial message that mentions or displays the name of a
person who sponsored a community event or the goods, services or
activities sold or promoted by the person, if the mention or display
is in the course of, and incidental to the production of, community
programming relating to the event;
|
|
(c) an oral or written acknowledgement, that may include a moving
visual presentation of no more than 15 seconds per message,
contained in community programming that mentions no more than the
name of a person, a description of the goods, services or activities
that are being sold or promoted by the person, and their address and
telephone number, if the person provided direct financial assistance
for the community programming in which the acknowledgement is
contained; and
|
|
(d) an oral or a written acknowledgement contained in community
programming that mentions no more than the name of a person, the
goods or services provided by the person and their address and
telephone number, if the person provided the goods or services free
of charge to the licensee for use in connection with the production
of the community programming in which the acknowledgement is
contained.
|
|
(3) The programming offered as local
expression will qualify as local expression for purposes of the
contributions to local expression by a broadcasting distribution
undertaking if: |
|
(a) the licensee establishes an independent programming
committee, in accordance with the terms of reference set out in
Appendix C to this decision, as amended and approved by the
Commission from time to time, with a view to ensuring that the
licensee enjoys freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and
programming independence in the pursuit of its objects and in the
exercise of its powers;
|
|
(b) the programming is offered to subscribers on an on-demand
basis at no charge;
|
|
(c) the licensee devotes not less than 60% of the programming
offered as local expression for each licensed area to local
community television programming;
|
|
(d) the licensee devotes not less than 30% of the programming
offered as local expression to community access television
programming;
|
|
(e) the licensee devotes from 30% to 50% of the programming
offered as local expression for each licensed area to community
access television programming, according to requests;
|
|
(f) where one or more community television corporations are in
operation in a licensed area, the licensee makes available to them
for community access television programming, on an equitable basis,
up to 20% of the programming offered as local expression for each
licensed area;
|
|
(g) where, during an election period, the licensee offers
programming in a licensed area that is of a partisan political
character, the licensee shall allocate an equal number of titles of
equal duration for all accredited political parties and rival
candidates; and
|
|
(h) the licensee shall not offer any programming of a partisan
political character during provincial election periods.
|
|
4. The licensee shall retain a clear and
intelligible audio-visual recording of each program offered as part of
the programming that qualifies as local expression for a period of: |
|
(a) four weeks after the latest date on which the program is
offered; or
|
|
(b) eight weeks after the latest date on which the program is
offered, if the Commission receives a complaint from a person
regarding the program or, for any other reason, wishes to
investigate, and so notifies the licensee before the end of the
period referred to in paragraph (a).
|
|
5. If before the end of the relevant period
referred to in condition of licence 4, the Commission requests from a
licensee a clear and intelligible audio or audio-visual recording of a
program, the licensee shall immediately furnish the recording to the
Commission. |
|
For the purpose of these conditions, |
|
"community access television programming",
"community programming", "licensed area", and "local community
television programming" shall have the meaning set out in section 1 of
the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations. |
|
Appendix C to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490
|
|
Terms of Reference for the Independent Programming Committee
|
|
In order to ensure programming
independence, the licensee will establish an Independent Programming
Committee in accordance with the following: |
|
1) There shall be a committee of nine (9)
persons, one person from each of the broadcasting distribution
undertakings’ licensed areas, to be known as the Independent Programming
Committee that shall be responsible for making all programming
decisions. |
|
"Programming decisions" means all decisions
relating to or affecting the programming offered as local expression by
the PPV and VOD undertakings, and includes decisions relating to the
content and presentation of this programming. |
|
2) The Independent Programming Committee
shall ensure the programming is in conformity with any applicable
conditions, regulations, and policies of the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), as well as with the
Broadcasting Act. |
|
3) The licensee shall seek nominations of
individuals from non-profit cultural, sporting, and recreational
organizations who have strong associations within the communities they
reside and a strong desire to showcase a balanced view of their
community. |
|
4) To ensure a high level of citizen
participation and community involvement in the outlet for local
expression, members of the Independent Programming Committee shall seek
opportunities for program proposals and encourage submissions that
reflect the makeup of their communities from within the communities they
represent. |
|
5) No member of the Independent Programming
Committee shall be a member of the Board, a director, or an employee of
the licensee or any of its affiliates. |
|
6) All of the members of the Independent
Programming Committee shall be residents of the serving community they
represent. |
|
7) Members of the Independent Programming
Committee shall be appointed for a period of two (2) years. |
|
8) A quorum of the Independent Programming
Committee shall be a majority of its members. |
|
9) Decisions of the Independent Programming
Committee shall be made by a majority of the members present at a
meeting of the Committee, either in person or by telephone. |
|
10) No change shall be made to these
criteria unless prior CRTC approval is obtained. |
|
Footnotes:
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-18,
16 February 2006 incorrectly listed Melfort as one of the Saskatchewan
communities in which SaskTel is licensed to carry on a BDU undertaking.
|
Date Modified: 2006-09-08 |