|
Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2006-2
|
|
Ottawa, 5 April 2006
|
|
Introduction of service standards for certain broadcasting
applications
|
|
In this circular, the Commission
announces new service standards for its processing of certain types of
applications filed after 31 March 2006. These include applications for
licence amendments and licence renewals currently processed using the
public notice approach, as well as applications processed using the
administrative approach that does not entail a public process. |
|
Background
|
1. |
In Call for comments on the Commission’s
service standards, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-16, 10
February 2006 (Public Notice 2006-16), the Commission proposed service
standards for the issuance of decisions on broadcasting applications in
a timely manner and in accordance with a predictable schedule. The
Commission also announced that it was introducing streamlining measures
specifically to address the processing of applications that are dealt
with administratively, as well as applications for licence amendments
and renewals that are dealt with by public notice. |
|
Summary of comments received
|
2. |
In response to Public Notice 2006-16, the
Commission received comments from the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters (CAB), CanWest MediaWorks Inc. (CanWest), Quebecor Media
Inc. (QMI), Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers), Bell Canada and
Bell ExpressVu1 (Bell),
and from a group consisting of MTS Allstream Inc., SaskTel
Telecommunications and TELUS Communications Inc. (MTS et al.). In
general, the comments received from the industry supported the
Commission’s commitment to ensure that decisions on broadcasting
applications are issued in a timely fashion. According to the parties,
improved efficiency and accountability in the Commission’s licensing
activities would provide for greater certainty in a rapidly-changing
industry. Certain parties called for even more stringent service
standards than those proposed and suggested that additional measures
should be put in place by the Commission to streamline its procedures.
|
3. |
The Commission also received comments from
the following organizations and individuals: C.M.E.S. Community Media
Education Society, Pacific Foundation for Diversity, Lynda G. Leonard,
Jim McGibbon, Sean Maguire and Alexander F. Forbes. These organizations
and individuals called upon the Commission to, among other things,
render the application filing process less cumbersome; maintain a strong
regulatory presence in support of Canadian content; ensure that
procedural streamlining not be achieved at the expense of the public’s
ability to express its views and concerns; and conduct more public
hearings in the regions. |
|
General comments about Commission processes
|
|
Positions of parties
|
4. |
Bell submitted that there was no discussion
in the Commission’s call for comments of the streamlined procedures or
operational efficiencies that will be put in place to assist the
Commission in meeting its proposed service standards. It sought more
clarity in this regard, and suggested that the pre-determined timeframes
for consideration of applications should include the deficiency process,
where one is required. |
5. |
Bell further submitted that the absence of
any mention in Public Notice 2006-16 of applications that raise policy
matters would indicate that such applications will be dealt with outside
of the proposed six- or eight-month timeframe. In the interest of
greater certainty, Bell, the CAB, CanWest, QMI and Rogers proposed a
notification procedure whereby the Commission would advise applicants of
all cases where applications will require a longer process than that
contemplated under the service standard, and provide projected deadlines
up to and including that for the release of a decision. Bell suggested
that an applicant should be apprised of a potential delay within 30 days
of the Commission’s receipt of an application. |
6. |
Rogers, Bell and the MTS et al. indicated
that, while not completely comparable, the streamlined process adopted
by the Commission with respect to telecommunications tariff approvals
should be matched on the broadcasting side. QMI suggested that the
processing of applications considered under the Broadcasting Act
and Telecommunications Act should be harmonized to take advantage
of all possible streamlining measures. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
7. |
In Streamlined processes for certain
broadcasting applications, Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2006-1, 27
March 2006 (Circular 2006-1), the Commission announced the introduction
of procedural changes to streamline and expedite the processing of
certain applications. These changes include an expedited process similar
to the one implemented for telecommunications tariff approvals. The
measures outlined in Circular 2006-1 should provide clarity with regard
to most of the questions raised in the comments received in the current
proceeding. |
8. |
In addressing the general comments received
in response to Public Notice 2006-16, and specific comments discussed
later in this circular, the Commission is mindful that its ability to
process applications in an efficient and timely manner is governed by
the factors addressed below. |
|
Process requirements
|
9. |
Certain applications are dealt with without
a public process provided that there are no concerns raised by the
applications. Such applications include those requesting extensions of
time to implement service, changes to authorized contours or cable
service areas, or changes to the services authorized for carriage by
broadcasing distribution undertakings (BDU). However, where an applicant
proposes to add, delete or amend a condition of licence, and where the
condition of licence does not provide for an administrative approval,
the Broadcasting Act requires that the Commission conduct a
public process. The processing route affects the number of steps that
are required (the number of steps being reduced if a public process is
not required). |
|
Complexity of applications
|
10. |
The complexity of an application dictates
the extent of the analysis and research that will be needed to dispose
of the application. Licence amendment applications dealt with by public
notice, and that are subject to interventions that raise issues, take
longer to process than more routine applications. In addition,
applications that represent important precedents or policy exceptions
would also require more time than routine applications. |
|
Number and clarity of applications
|
11. |
Based on an average of the three previous
years, at any given time the Commission has some 500 broadcasting
applications in hand at various stages of processing, including: initial
review, public notice comments stage, and decision-making. The challenge
is to ensure the availability of resources to review all applications
upon receipt and at various stages of the process. |
12. |
In Circular 2006-1, the Commission
indicated that, subject to certain exceptions, it would not generally be
disposed to review, on an expedited basis, applications for licence
amendments that are received within two years of (a) the date that a new
service has been implemented, or (b) the date of a Commission decision
relating to an amendment concerning the same or a similar matter. |
13. |
With a view to increased efficiency, the
Commission will also review how it processes applications for licences
to carry on new category 2 specialty programming services. In each of
the past two years the Commission has received several hundred
applications of this type, and has devoted a substantial portion of its
resources to process them. While most of the applications have been
approved, only some 15 % of the proposed services have launched, and a
large number of the approvals issued in respect of Category 2 specialty
services have lapsed due to the failure of applicants to begin
operations within the Commission’s specified deadlines. Clearly, the
Commission must find ways to ensure that the resources it currently
expends in processing these applications are utilized in a more
effective and efficient fashion. |
14. |
The clarity of the applications received
is an important element in expediting the processing of
applications. The success of the expedited process will greatly depend
on receiving applications that are clear and contain all relevant
information. To assist applicants in this area, all application forms
are currently being reviewed by the Commission and the revised forms
will be available shortly, beginning with those for licence amendments. |
|
Applications that are not processed via public notice
|
|
Positions of parties
|
15. |
MTS et al. suggested that more applications
should be dealt with administratively, i.e. without a public process.
The parties questioned whether the public interest is served by
announcing applications to add new service areas to a regional licence,
given the long-standing policy favouring competitive entry by multiple
BDUs. They also noted a recent public process involving the amendment of
a video-on-demand (VOD) licence to allow the distribution of programming
that includes commercial messages, and suggested that since a similar
proposal had previously been approved by the Commission, there did not
seem to be a need for a public process. |
16. |
MTS et al. further submitted that the
Commission should expand the practice adopted by the Commission for
transfers of ownership applications2
that do not raise policy issues and that are consistent with
previous applications. In such cases, applications are approved by
letter of approval and the details of the applications are published
every two months in a public notice. These parties suggested that taking
two months to process applications administratively was excessive. |
17. |
According to the CAB, these applications
are routine and should all be treated within two months of receipt in
the Commission. QMI expressed its support of the Commission’s proposal
in this area, while noting that some administrative corporate
reorganizations may need to be dealt with more expeditiously. Rogers and
Bell indicated that, in order to provide applicants with greater
certainty, the Commission’s service standards should be made more
comprehensive. For example, while the Commission’s existing proposal
sets out service standards identifying within what period 80% of
applications in a given category should be processed, the Commission
should also specify timeframes within which other percentages such as
75%, 90% or even 100% of applications should be processed. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
18. |
An application can be processed without a
public process in certain cases such as when a licensee’s condition of
licence contemplates that exceptions may be made by way of Commission
authorizations without a public process, and the application does not
raise concerns. This would not, however, be the case for amendments
involving the addition of conditions of licence to a VOD licence as
suggested by MTS et al. Such amendments must, pursuant to the
Broadcasting Act, be processed by public notice. The Commission will
continue to review its processes to identify other areas where
conditions of licence could provide for exceptions by way of Commission
authorizations. Such requests for authorization could be processed
without resorting to a public process. |
19. |
In Circular 2006-1, the Commission
announced that it had adopted a process similar to that applied to
applications for transfers of ownership in its consideration of other
types of applications that do not require a public process. The list is
provided in Circular 2006-1. Most of these applications are currently
being processed within two months of their receipt. |
20. |
Based on the above, the Commission has
adopted a service standard for applications that do not require a public
process, including transfers of ownership, whereby 80% of applications
will be processed within 2 months and 90% within 3 months. |
|
Applications processed by public notice excluding licence renewals
|
|
Positions of parties
|
21. |
Rogers did not propose any other service
standards, but indicated that the service standards should apply to 90%
of the applications. |
22. |
QMI proposed that the Commission amend its
process to ensure that 80% of the applications are processed: |
|
- within 40 days for those that do not raise concerns;
- within 18 weeks (4.5 months) for those that raise concerns; and
- within 8 months for those raising policy issues.
|
23. |
Bell considered that the Commission’s
proposal did not address or provide assurances on expected timeframes
for applications that raise policy issues. It, therefore proposed that
applications be processed with the following timeframes: |
|
- 80% within 6 months and 100% within 8 months for applications
that are not the subject of opposing interventions or do not raise
policy issues;
- 80% within 8 months and 100% within 10 months for applications
that either are the subject of opposing interventions or raise
policy issues; and
- 80% in 8 months and 90% in 10 months for applications that are
both the subject of opposing interventions and raise policy issues.
|
24. |
The CAB indicated that the Commission
should revisit the proposed service standard for the processing, within
six months, of 80% of all applications that are not the subject of
opposing interventions. It suggested that the service standard for
applications that do not raise policy issues, whether or not they are
the subject of opposing interventions, should be 80% in four months
rather than six; and where applications are the subject of opposing
interventions that raise policy issues, the service standard should call
for processing 80% of the applications within six months. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
25. |
The Commission has noted the comments
offered with respect to the proposed service standards and has also
considered the historical information on its past performance. Results
for the first three quarters of the current fiscal year indicate that,
to date, the Commission has been able to achieve the following: |
|
- 60% of applications that did not give rise to opposing
interventions were processed within 6 months and 90% were processed
within 9 months;
- 50% of applications that did give rise to opposing interventions
were processed within 10 months and 90% were processed within
approximately 15 months.
|
26. |
Applications raising policy issues, whether
or not they were also the subject of opposing interventions, have not
been tracked separately. |
27. |
The Commission expects that the expedited
process described in Circular 2006-1 will provide for some efficiency in
this area, allowing the Commission to offer assurances with respect to
the processing of applications that it has been unable to offer in the
past. |
28. |
After consideration of comments received in
this area and the streamlining measures that it has introduced, the
Commission has adopted the following service standard for applications
processed via public notice, excluding licence renewals: |
|
- 80 % of applications that do not give rise to opposing
interventions or policy issues will be processed within 6 months and
90% within 8 months; and
- 80% of applications that give rise to opposing interventions,
but that do not raise policy issues, will be processed within 8
months, and 90% within 10 months.
|
29. |
It is, however, possible that, once the
streamlined process has been in effect for a period of six to eight
months and the backlog of applications has been reduced significantly,
the Commission will be in a position to shorten these timeframes. |
30. |
The Commission considers that it is
inappropriate to create pre-established service standards for
applications that raise policy issues. These will be delth with on a
case-by-case basis. It will inform an applicant that its application
raises a policy issue within 30 days of this policy issue being
identified by the Commission. The Commission notes in this regard that,
while some policy issues may be readily identifiable by the Commission
at the time an application is filed, others may only become apparent
upon examination of interventions and replies. |
|
Licence renewal applications processed by public notice
|
|
Positions of parties
|
31. |
The CAB had no objection to the proposed
service standards for processing licence renewal applications within
eight months, but submitted that decisions on licence renewal
applications that neither attract substantive public comment nor raise
significant policy issues should be issued within two months of the
deadline for receipt of interventions. It further urged the Commission
to take the necessary measures to minimize the use of short-term
renewals for administrative reasons because of the uncertainty that it
creates and the impact it has on a licensee’s ongoing operations. |
32. |
QMI proposed that the Commission streamline
the licence renewal process further. It argued that, since a licensee’s
annual reports already contain a substantial amount of information, the
requirement to complete lengthy licence renewal forms is excessive,
especially where no issues are raised. It stated that the current
process is demanding of both applicants and the Commission especially
where a licensee holds multiple licences. It proposed, as an alternative
approach, a public notice on an annual basis providing a list of
licences coming up for renewal and asking for comments from the public.
Where no concerns are raised, a licensee would be asked to confirm that
it wishes to renew its licence, but would not be required to complete an
application form. The Commission could then renew a number of licences
in one decision. |
33. |
QMI indicated that such an approach would
allow the Commission to set a service standard whereby it would
undertake to process 90% of all renewal applications within two months
of the date a licensee provides confirmation that it wishes to renew its
licence. Where concerns are raised and/or where opposing interventions
are received, the service standard should be that 80% of all renewal
applications will be processed within eight months. |
34. |
Bell indicated that the service standard
for licence renewals, with or without interventions, should be 80% in
eight months and 100% in ten months and that issuing a short-term
administrative renewal should not be considered as meeting the service
standard. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
35. |
While the anticipated number of most types
of applications cannot be predicted, the Commission can determine how
many licences will expire in a given year. Thus, the planning for
licence renewal applications is managed in accordance with expiry dates.
A degree of flexibility can, therefore, be built into this process that
is not available for any other type of application. One of the
processing objectives is to dispose of a renewal application within a
reasonable period prior to the expiry of the licence. |
36. |
Accordingly, the Commission adopts a
service standard for licence renewal applications processed by public
notice whereby 80% of the applications will be processed within 8 months
and 90% within 10 months. |
37. |
The service standard will not apply to
renewal applications that raise policy concerns. These will be dealt
with on a case-by-case basis. The Commission will inform the applicant
that its application raises a policy issue within 30 days of this policy
issue being indentified by the Commission. As noted above, some policy
issues may only become apparent upon examination of interventions and
replies. |
38. |
The Commission will make every effort to
dispose of licence renewal applications processed by public notice, and
that do not give rise to any concern or to any opposing interventions,
within two months of the end of the intervention period. |
39. |
The Commission takes note of the
alternative review process suggested by QMI with respect to licence
renewal applications, and will examine this proposal further. As part of
the Commercial Radio Policy review announced in Broadcasting Notice of
Public Hearing CRTC 2006-1, 13 January 2006, the Commission has
undertaken to examine how the current radio renewal process may be
further streamlined. |
|
Additional comments
|
40. |
Lynda G. Leonard indicated that the
Commission should ensure that equal treatment is given to all
applicants. Her concern was that there is an apparent expedited process
for approval of requests by is given BDUs to carry non-Canadian services
in Canada, while Canadian-applicants seeking licences or feedback on
other applications wait much longer for Commission decisions. She stated
that, since non-Canadian services are allowed in Canada, there should be
reciprocity whereby the services of Canadian broadcasters would have
access to distribution undertakings in other countries. She also noted
that public access television is expanding around the world, but not in
English Canada due to a lack of funding. |
41. |
The CAB and Rogers commented on the
Commission’s proposal to extend the streamlining review to include
applications processed by public hearing, and suggested that the
Commission should work toward implementing the service standards for
such applications as soon as possible. |
42. |
Rogers also submitted that the Commission
should give top priority to applications that involve the removal of any
asymmetrical rules that are not associated with protecting a new entrant
against an incumbent service provider. It also requested the Commission
to move quickly on applications and proceedings that have, as their
objective, the removal of barriers to fair competition or innovation.
|
43. |
The Commission acknowledges the comments
received on these matters. They will all be considered by the Commission
in its ongoing review of policies and processes. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document 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 |