|
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-51
|
|
Ottawa, 19 April 2006
|
|
Request to repeal section 22 of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations
|
|
In Call for comments on a request
by the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association to repeal section
22 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting
Public Notice CRTC 2005-74, 25
July 2005, the Commission invited comment on
a proposal that section 22 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations
(the Regulations) be repealed. |
|
The Commission, based on its examination
and analysis of the record of this proceeding, has determined that
retention of all of the requirements of section 22 is no longer
appropriate or necessary, and will amend section 22 of the Regulations
to require only that Class 1 BDUs, and those Class 2 BDUs that elect to
distribute audio programming services, distribute local community,
campus and native radio stations, as well as at least one CBC radio
station operating in French and one in English. |
|
Background
|
1. |
The Commission received a request from the
Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) for the repeal of
section 22 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the
Regulations). Section 22 states that: |
|
22. (1) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, a Class 1 licensee, and any Class 2 licensee that elects to
distribute an audio programming service in a licensed area, shall
distribute in the licensed area
|
|
(a) the programming services of all local radio stations; and
|
|
(b) if they are not distributed under paragraph (a),
|
|
(i) the programming services of at least one radio station
that broadcasts in English and at least one that broadcasts in
French that are owned and operated by the Corporation, and
|
|
(ii) the educational radio programming service of an
educational authority designated by the province in which the
licensed area of the undertaking is located.
|
|
(2) Despite subsection (1), a licensee is not required to
distribute the programming service of a local digital radio station
that is licensed on a transitional basis.
|
2. |
In its request, the CCTA argued that very
few subscribers are aware that they can receive the services of radio
stations from Class 1 and Class 2 broadcasting distribution undertakings
(BDUs) and that even fewer subscribers listen to these services. To
support its position, the CCTA submitted the results of a telephone
survey conducted on behalf of Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers).
The results indicated that, while 36% of the subscribers reached by the
survey are aware that they can access the radio services delivered by
Rogers, only 9% of the subscribers surveyed have ever accessed those
services, and only 4% of the subscribers surveyed have accessed those
services recently. |
3. |
The CCTA noted that interference-free
analog channels on which to distribute these radio services are scarce
in many markets, and that the licensing of new AM and FM channels
exacerbates this scarcity. In its view, the analog capacity generally
used for these services could better be "harvested" for use in the
digital distribution of television programming services. It estimated
that this analog capacity could be used to distribute as many as 30
additional standard definition digital television services or six high
definition services. |
4. |
The CCTA also argued that, even should
section 22 be repealed, Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs may choose to continue
to offer at least some local radio stations due to competitive pressure
and subscriber interest in particular services. Further, it noted that
direct-to-home (DTH) satellite BDUs, with whom Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs
compete, are not required to distribute the services of any radio
stations. |
5. |
The Commission issued Call for comments
on a request by the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association
to repeal section 22 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations,
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2005-74,
25 July 2005. Following a subsequent request by the CCTA for an opportunity
to file reply comments, the Commission issued Broadcasting Public
Notice CRTC 2005-74-1, 3 October
2005, in which it permitted all interested parties to file reply comments.
A total of 26 parties filed comments and/or reply comments in response
to these notices. |
|
Positions of parties
|
6. |
L’Alliance des radios communautaires (ARC)
opposed the CCTA request and argued that many people access the
programming of radio stations via cable BDUs. In its view, cable
distribution is an important tool for the development of community and
campus radio stations, particularly since many small radio stations
initially commenced operations as cable-only services, and that,
although now licensed and available over the air, these stations have
continued to depend on cable distribution to provide service in areas
where there are reception problems. |
7. |
L’Association des radiodiffuseurs
communautaires du Québec (ARCQ) also opposed the CCTA request. According
to ARCQ, distribution by cable BDUs is essential to community radio
stations and is a vital complement to AM or FM broadcasting, since a
significant number of listeners living in the service area of a
community radio station would otherwise be unable to receive these
stations due to such factors as their use of low-power transmitters, the
elevation of the listener’s home, or the presence of buildings or other
structures that obstruct the signal. It noted that, at present, new
community stations that obtain an FM licence are limited to the use of
frequencies that, in its view, inadequately serve the needs of the
communities to which they are targeted. ARCQ also noted that cable
distribution enables cultural or linguistic communities not living in
the core area served by a community radio station to receive radio
programs produced in their language. |
8. |
While recognizing that BDU capacity is not
unlimited, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) opposed the
CCTA request and argued that the CCTA has not provided a compelling
argument for the repeal of section 22. In the CAB’s view, the principle
set out in section 3(1)(t)(i) of the Broadcasting Act (the
Act), that BDUs should "give priority to the carriage of Canadian
programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local
Canadian services," is furthered by the requirements of section 22, and
this principle should remain a cornerstone of broadcasting policy. It
considered that cable carriage is important to local radio stations, and
particularly to AM stations, since the quality of the signal received
via cable BDUs is often much better than that received over the air. It
further argued that the level of tuning to a Canadian programming
service does not constitute a legitimate argument for the removal of the
requirement to distribute the service. The CAB further argued against
the repeal of section 22 on the grounds that its requirements provide a
de facto safeguard against undue preference by ensuring that both
affiliated and non-affiliated services are distributed by BDUs. |
9. |
As an alternative to the repeal of section
22, the CAB proposed that the section be amended to require that the
signals of all local radio stations be distributed on a digital basis.
The CAB argued that this would not only free up analog capacity and
eliminate interference problems, but would also allow these stations to
be more easily accessed by subscribers and provide additional
promotional opportunities through the BDUs’ interactive programming
guides. In order to implement this option, the CAB considered that only
the definition of "basic service" in section 1 of the Regulations would
need to be amended so as to remove the reference to section 22. |
10. |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
also opposed the CCTA request and argued that section 22 plays a role in
helping the CBC achieve its mandate as a public broadcaster. In its
view, the CCTA has failed to make a case for "blanket removal of
regulatory oversight in this area," or to demonstrate that any
particular BDU is burdened by capacity or interference problems related
to the distribution of these radio signals. Further, the CBC disputed
the findings of the study submitted by the CCTA, and noted that Board of
Broadcast Measurement (BBM) data from its Spring 2005 study indicated
that "a quarter of Canadians receive AM and FM radio stations through
cable TV." |
11. |
The CKUA Radio Network (CKUA) supported the
CCTA request, provided that BDUs be required, by condition of licence,
to distribute community and campus stations on a digital basis, and that
all BDUs be required to contribute a percentage of their gross annual
revenues to a new Community Radio Fund. In general, CKUA noted that
there are substantial differences between the for-profit commercial
radio sector and the not-for-profit community and campus sector. While
commercial stations have sufficient capital to establish and maintain
substantial over-the-air transmission facilities, community and campus
radio stations do not possess the same financial resources, nor do they
receive government funding like the CBC. According to CKUA, its proposed
Community Radio Fund would have a significant positive impact on the
struggling community and campus radio sector, and would redress
inequities between these stations and their commercial and CBC
counterparts. |
12. |
Mark MacLeod of Re: Radio Consulting
opposed the CCTA request. Mr. McLeod stated that, as an independent
consultant specializing in non-commercial radio, he has experience with
"many community and campus groups where inclusion of distribution on
‘cable FM’ is a major inspiration for their pursuit of a broadcasting
licence." In particular, Mr. MacLeod noted the importance of cable
distribution to new community stations in mid- and small-size markets
where the FM band is becoming congested. He argued that the distribution
of the signals of campus stations by cable BDUs permits reception by
students and faculty residing off-campus, and also provides
revenue-earning opportunities that make these stations less dependent on
student fees. He noted that both types of stations benefit from cable
distribution where terrain limits reception. |
13. |
In its comments, the National Broadcast
Reading Service (NBRS) asked that the Commission confirm that its
service, which is distributed under an order issued pursuant to section
9(1)(h) of the Act, would continue to be distributed in a digital
environment and would not be affected by a repeal of section 22. NBRS
also recommended a number of other amendments to the Regulations for the
purpose of ensuring that "mandatory audio programming services" are
treated in the same manner as mandatory television programming services,
are accorded digital distribution, and are listed in the interactive
programming guides of BDUs. |
14. |
The National Campus and Community Radio
Association (NCCRA) opposed the repeal of section 22 of the Regulations
on the grounds that this would have an adverse impact on campus,
community, native, French-language, developmental and instructional
radio stations. The NCCRA was concerned that, in the absence of the
section 22 requirements, some radio services would cease to operate,
particularly those that are available only via cable BDUs. In its view,
BDU distribution is an important tool, particularly for campus and
community stations that have few resources, operate in markets where
only a limited amount of spectrum is available, and/or have a limited
range due to geographical factors. It noted that the stations of some of
its members are available to more potential listeners via cable than
over the air and considered that, although the proportion of cable
subscribers that access radio stations via cable may be small, a
significant number of those subscribers may be doing so in order to
receive community or campus stations. The NCCRA also submitted a list of
14 services that are distributed solely by cable BDUs, and 53 stations
that are distributed both on FM frequencies and by cable BDUs. |
15. |
Sixteen individuals submitted comments in
this proceeding. Thirteen of these opposed the CCTA request based on
their specific concern that, if the request was granted, the service of
Seaside FM (CFEP-FM, a Type B community radio station originating in
Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia) might no longer be available to them via
cable. These parties noted that CFEP-FM is a low-power station whose
signal they are unable to receive directly over the air. |
16. |
Of the other individuals, Mike Shacklock
opposed the CCTA request due to concerns that it would limit the
availability of low-power community stations, particularly in high-rise
buildings where over-the-air reception is limited by "concrete and
steel" construction. Mr. Shacklock specifically noted problems with the
over-the-air reception of CJCH in Bedford, Nova Scotia. Neil Wood
opposed the CCTA request, arguing that it would result in the "denial of
a community’s right to have access to all means of information, which is
vital in times of emergency." Denis Labreche, however, supported the
repeal of section 22 of the Regulations, provided that the services of
local stations are distributed digitally by cable BDUs. |
17. |
Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI) fully supported
the CCTA request. Based on its own experience, QMI supported the CCTA’s
position that very few subscribers are aware that radio stations may be
received from BDUs and that fewer still make use of these services. It
further agreed with the CCTA that repeal of section 22 would permit BDUs
to free up much-needed analog capacity for the distribution of
television services. QMI also suggested that it was unfair that cable
BDUs be required to operate under section 22 of the Regulations while
multipoint distribution system (MDS) and DTH satellite BDUs have no
similar requirements. |
18. |
TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) also
supported the CCTA request. TELUS noted that the requirements of section
22 are 30 years old.1
It contended that radio is a mature and robust industry, that radio
stations do not depend on their distribution by Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs,
and that the requirements of section 22 do not serve any useful purpose.
It claimed, in particular, that section 22 does little to increase the
penetration of radio stations, since their services are much more easily
and inexpensively accessed over the air. It concluded that the very
small benefit that the requirements of section 22 of the Regulations
provides for radio stations should be weighed against the significant
costs borne by BDUs in making these services available. |
19. |
The CCTA argued in its reply comments that
its request is consistent with section 3(1)(t)(ii) of the Act,
which states that "distribution undertakings should provide efficient
delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most effective
technologies available at reasonable cost". It also viewed its request
as being consistent with the objective set out in section 5(2)(c)
of the Act, which states that the Canadian broadcasting system should be
regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that is "readily adaptable
to scientific and technological change." The CCTA argued that the
requirements of section 22 represent an inefficient use of technology,
and impose a burden on the channel capacity of Class 1 and Class 2 cable
BDUs to which other types of BDUs are not subjected. |
20. |
The CCTA noted that the majority of radio
stations distributed under section 22 are private commercial stations
that, in its view, would not be affected by a repeal of this section of
the Regulations. With respect to community and campus radio stations, it
argued that their signals are meant to reach the communities or campuses
that they are licensed to serve, and that they should not rely on cable
carriage to reach other audiences or a broader geographic area. It noted
in this regard that each radio station is subject to a general condition
of licence requiring that it be operated on the basis of the contours
approved in its application. The CCTA further noted that the majority of
the stations identified by the NCCRA as being potentially affected by
the CCTA’s request are actually closed-circuit programming undertakings
that Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs are not required to distribute under
section 22 of the Regulations. |
21. |
The CCTA disagreed with the CAB’s
contention that section 22 serves to safeguard against undue preference.
According to the CCTA, the prohibition against providing an undue
preference in section 9 of the Regulations is a sufficient safeguard,
and it is inappropriate to assume that an undue preference would take
place should section 22 be repealed. |
22. |
The CCTA and TELUS also disagreed with the
suggestion that section 22 should be amended to require the digital
distribution of local radio signals. The CCTA noted that section 22
already permits Class 1 BDUs to distribute local radio signals on either
an analog or a digital basis. The CCTA further argued that, contrary to
the suggestion by the CAB, this proposal could not be implemented by
simply removing the reference to section 22 contained in the definition
of "basic service" in section 1 of the Regulations since, in its view, a
new obligation cannot be imposed by amendments to one of its underlying
definitions. |
|
Commission’s analysis and determinations
|
23. |
The Commission notes that the issues raised
in this proceeding involve potentially competing objectives of the Act.
For example, the CAB and Mr. MacLeod were of the view that the
requirements of section 22 of the Regulations are consistent with
section 3(1)(t)(i) of the Act, which states that "distribution
undertakings should give priority to the carriage of Canadian
programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local
Canadian stations". The CCTA’s position, however, was that its request
to repeal section 22 is consistent with section 3(1)(t)(ii) of
the Act, which states that "distribution undertakings should provide
efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most
effective technologies available at reasonable cost." The CCTA also
considered its request to be consistent with the regulatory objective
set out in section 5(2)(c) of the Act, which states that the
"Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a
flexible manner that is readily adaptable to scientific and
technological change." |
24. |
In the Commission’s view, the distribution
of all local radio stations by Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs does not
generally represent the most effective or efficient use of distribution
technology. The primary means of reception for radio stations is
over-the-air reception, and cable serves as a supplement to that
reception. Thus, based on the objective stated within section 3(1)(t)(ii)
of the Act, it would be reasonable to amend or repeal section 22 of the
Regulations. |
25. |
However, as noted above, certain parties
argued that listeners make significant use of certain radio signals
delivered to them by BDUs. They disputed the conclusions of the study
submitted by the CCTA. Having reviewed the BBM data available, the
Commission is of the view that this data does not provide sufficient
information to determine, in any meaningful way, the extent to which
Canadians access radio stations through BDUs. Similarly, while the
survey submitted by the CCTA clearly indicates that only a small
proportion of Rogers subscribers access radio stations through Class 1
or Class 2 BDUs, none of the parties who submitted comments in this
proceeding provided any quantitative evidence of the extent to which
subscribers in other regions not served by Rogers make use of the radio
signals distributed by their cable BDU. Thus, this evidence does not, in
and of itself, support the repeal of section 22 in its entirety. This is
discussed further below. |
26. |
With respect to the suggestion by some
parties that section 22 be amended to require the digital distribution
of local radio signals, the CCTA noted correctly that section 22 already
permits BDUs to distribute local radio stations on either an analog or a
digital basis. However, Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs have generally
distributed the signals of local radio stations in the manner in which
they are received, i.e., analog distribution of analog signals and
digital distribution of digital signals. As noted by TELUS, because most
radio stations currently broadcast only in analog, converting their
signals for digital distribution would involve on-going additional costs
for BDUs, including the purchase of specific equipment, such as FM
demodulators and digital encoders, for each signal to be distributed in
this manner. Digital distribution would also mean that subscribers
currently accessing these services would no longer be able to tune to
these stations in the manner to which they are accustomed, i.e., via
their existing radio receivers. In the Commission’s view, requiring the
digital distribution of all local radio signals would place additional
costs on Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs, but would yield no additional
benefits. Consequently, the Commission rejects this alternative.
|
27. |
The Commission also disagrees with the
CAB’s argument that section 22 is necessary as a safeguard against undue
preference, in addition to the provisions contained in section 9 of the
Regulations. In the Commission’s view, there is little evidence in this
proceeding that BDUs would distribute additional affiliated stations
and/or cease distribution of only unaffiliated stations should the
Commission repeal section 22. Further, the limited evidence concerning
subscribers who access radio stations via BDUs suggests that the
resulting preference or disadvantage of such an action would not likely
have sufficient impact to support a finding of undue preference. |
28. |
In light of the above considerations, the
Commission is of the view that section 22 of the Regulations, in its
current form, is no longer appropriate. The Commission notes, however,
that the "local radio stations" distributed under section 22 include
various types of stations, such as commercial, CBC, educational,
community, campus and native radio stations. These stations operate
under varying economic and technical conditions, as well as distinct
regulatory frameworks. Accordingly, the Commission considers it
appropriate to address the CCTA’s request to repeal section 22 in
relation to its potential impact on each of these distinct types of
radio stations. |
|
Potential impact on commercial radio stations
|
29. |
No compelling evidence was presented in
this proceeding to demonstrate that commercial stations are in any way
dependent upon cable distribution to reach their audiences. By and
large, these stations operate at high power and on protected frequencies
that provide the best quality of over-the-air reception of any type of
radio station, and allow them to serve extensive audiences without the
aid of BDU distribution. |
30. |
The vast majority of radio stations
distributed by Class 1 and Class 2 BDU licensees under section 22 of the
Regulations are commercial radio stations. In the Commission’s view,
there is little reason why these BDU licensees should continue to be
required to devote scarce capacity to distribute the signals of
commercial stations, since they are readily accessible over the air.
Accordingly, the Commission will no longer require Class 1 and Class 2
BDU licensees to distribute the signals of local commercial radio
stations. The Commission notes that the removal of this requirement
alone will free up most of the bandwidth currently used by Class 1 and
Class 2 BDUs to distribute radio stations and will, thereby, enable
these BDUs to make use of this bandwidth for the other purposes noted by
the CCTA. |
|
Potential impact on CBC stations
|
31. |
Much like commercial radio stations, CBC
stations operate at high power, using protected frequencies, thus
enabling high quality over-the-air reception by listeners within their
licensed service areas. CBC stations are thus unlikely to be dependent
on distribution by Class 1 or Class 2 BDUs. However, given the important
objectives served by the programming of the CBC, as identified in
sections 3(1)(l), (m) and (n) of the Act, and
particularly in light of the scarcity of French-language programming
outside of Quebec and the CBC’s mandate for providing such programming,
the Commission considers it appropriate to maintain requirements
relating to the distribution of CBC stations by Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs.
The Commission notes, however, that the CBC operates multiple stations
in many of the markets served by such BDUs. For this reason, the
Commission has decided that it will no longer require Class 1 and Class
2 BDUs to supplement the over-the-air reception of all local CBC radio
stations. In the Commission’s view, the requirement in section 22(1)(b)(i)
of the Regulations that Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs distribute at least one
English-language and one French-language CBC station is sufficient to
ensure access to CBC radio programming. This change will permit BDUs to
free up additional bandwidth for other purposes. |
|
Potential impact on educational radio stations
|
32. |
As noted at paragraph 1 of this notice,
Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs are required to distribute "the educational
radio programming service of an educational authority designated by the
province in which the licensed area of the undertaking is located."
However, there is no longer any radio station that meets this
definition. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the
requirement to distribute such stations should be removed from section
22 of the Regulations. |
|
Potential impact on community and campus radio stations
|
33. |
As a matter of Commission policy2,
the licensees of community and campus radio stations are not-for-profit
organizations. The Commission’s primary objective for such stations is
the provision of programming services that differ in style and substance
from those provided by commercial stations and the CBC, and that add
diversity to the broadcasting system in both music and spoken word. In
the case of community stations, the Commission’s policy emphasizes that
their programming should be "relevant to the communities served,
including official language minorities." While there are some
exceptions, most community and campus stations operate at low-power on
unprotected frequencies, or on frequencies that may be prone to
interference. |
34. |
The Commission recognizes the special role
of all community radio stations in addressing the interests of the
communities they serve, and in contributing to the diversity of the
Canadian broadcasting system. Of the 90 community radio stations
currently licensed, 51 are French-language stations. These stations play
a distinct and important role with respect to the provision of
French-language programming, both within and outside of Quebec. This
role is especially important in those communities served by
approximately half of the French-language community stations, where
French is the official language of the minority. |
35. |
The CCTA was correct in its observation
that community and campus stations are licensed to serve the particular
communities that fall within the official contours of their signals. The
Commission notes that the original intent of the requirements contained
in section 22 was generally to take advantage of the distribution
networks of cable systems to distribute local radio signals and,
thereby, provide improved reception for listeners within the local
community served by those signals. The intent was never to provide
broader coverage for a radio station, and hence, a broader audience
outside of its licensed service area. However, the argument made by
parties opposed to the CCTA’s request was not that community and campus
stations are entitled to broader distribution outside of their licensed
service areas, but that these stations face certain difficulties,
including the technical limitations associated with their use of
low-power unprotected frequencies, that impede their ability to reach
listeners within the communities they are licensed to serve. |
36. |
There is little information regarding the
extent to which listeners access community and campus radio stations
through BDUs, and thus uncertainty regarding how dependent such stations
might be on this form of distribution. The Commission is nevertheless
concerned that these stations may face significant limitations in their
ability to serve the communities they are licensed to serve, leaving
them more dependent on distribution by BDUs than would be other
stations, such as commercial or CBC stations. This concern is heightened
in the case of community stations that operate in the official language
of the minority, since their listeners would generally have access to
relatively fewer services in their official language than those whose
language is the official language of the majority. For these reasons,
the Commission is not prepared at this time to eliminate the regulatory
requirement pertaining to the distribution of the signals of local
community and campus stations by Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs. |
|
Potential impact on native radio stations
|
37. |
Only the NCCRA made reference to the impact
that the implementation of the CCTA’s request might have on native
stations. Sections 3(1)(d)(iii) and 3(1)(o) of the Act
provide that the programming of the Canadian broadcasting system
should serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and
aspirations, of aboriginal cultures and peoples. In the Commission’s
view, native stations may experience difficulties similar to those that
affect community and campus radio stations. In addition, the Commission
notes that, since most native stations operate in areas not served by
Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs, a continued requirement to distribute these
stations would affect relatively few Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs and would
not be unreasonably burdensome. Taking these factors into consideration,
the Commission concludes that it would be appropriate to maintain the
requirement that Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs distribute the signals of
local native stations. |
|
Other issues
|
38. |
Certain issues were raised by NBRS and CKUA
that are not directly related to the substantive issues addressed in
this proceeding. The NBRS asked that the Commission confirm that its
service, which is distributed pursuant to a mandatory distribution order
issued under section 9(1)(h) of the Act3,
would continue to be distributed in a digital environment and would not
be affected by the repeal of section 22. The NBRS also recommended a
number of other amendments to the Regulations for the purpose of
ensuring that "mandatory audio programming services" be treated in the
same manner as mandatory television programming services, that these
services be accorded digital distribution, and that they be listed in
the interactive programming guides of BDUs. |
39. |
CKUA proposed that all BDUs be required to
contribute a percentage of their gross annual revenues to a new
Community Radio Fund, arguing that such a fund would have a significant
positive impact on the struggling community and campus radio sector, and
would aid in redressing inequities between these stations and
commercial/CBC stations. |
40. |
The Commission notes that the amendments to
section 22 discussed in this public notice will not affect the
distribution of the service provided by the NBRS. The Commission
considers, however, that the further amendments proposed by the NBRS are
outside the scope of this proceeding, as is CKUA’s request that the
Commission establish requirements for contributions to a new Community
Radio Fund. |
|
Proposed amendments to the Regulations
|
41. |
In order to give effect to the
determinations in this notice, the Commission proposes to amend section
22 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to replace the
current requirements with a more limited requirement that Class 1 and
Class 2 BDUs distribute local community, campus and native radio
stations, as well as one English- and one French-language CBC radio
station. These amendments, once implemented, will permit Class 1 and
Class 2 BDUs to use the majority of the bandwidth currently dedicated to
the distribution of radio stations under section 22 of the Regulations
for the distribution of other services, such as those noted by the CCTA
in its proposal. The Commission will call for comments on proposed
amendments to the Regulations in a later public notice. |
|
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
|
|
Footnotes:
|