Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB)

advertisement
VIA E-MAIL
September 30, 2002
Mr. Michael Helm
Director General
Telecommunications Policy Branch
Industry Canada
300 Slater St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C8
Dear Sir:
Re:
Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-004-02: Revision to the 1992 Spectrum Policy
Framework for Canada
1.
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) – the national voice of Canada’s private
broadcasters, representing the vast majority of Canadian programming services, including
private television and radio stations, networks, and specialty, pay and pay-per-view television
services – is pleased to provide these comments in response to Canada Gazette Notice
DGTP-004-02, Revision to the 1992 Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada (the Notice).
2.
The Notice announces the release of a revision to the 1992 Spectrum Policy Framework for
Canada (Framework) that, according to the Department, simply reflects current policies and
practices. In addition, the Notice invites public comments with respect to possible future
changes to the 1992 Framework. With this in mind, the CAB’s comments address several
“broad picture” issues that we believe should be considered as new policies and procedures
for spectrum management are developed over the coming years.
ISSUE 1: RECOGNITION THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS THE MAJOR USER OF BROADCASTING
SPECTRUM
3.
The CAB has been concerned for some time that government spectrum managers may lose
sight of the fact that, for a number of radiocommunication services, it is the general public,
and not simply its authorized licensees, that constitute the vast majority of users of the
spectrum in question.
4.
There is a tendency for this to happen especially with respect to the use of broadcasting
spectrum, where only the originating portion of the radiocommunication link (the
Radio / Television / Specialty Services • Radio / Télévision / Services spécialisés
P.O. Box 627, Stn. B C.P. 627, Succ. B 306-350 Sparks, Ottawa, Canada K1P 5S2
(613) 233-4035 Fax: (613) 233-6961 www.cab-acr.ca cab@cab-acr.ca
Broadcasting Transmitting Undertaking) remains licensed by the government. But
radiocommunication in the true sense exists only when there are two ends to the circuit. A
transmission that is not received by anyone is not “communication” at all; rather, it is simply
a tree falling in the forest that no one hears.
5.
An FM or TV broadcaster that is licensed to cover a given area is certainly a spectrum user,
since the broadcaster transmits an electromagnetic signal on a specified frequency or channel.
But there can be millions of additional, simultaneous users of this same frequency. These
additional users are members of the general public who, by operating their own receivers,
make up the other end of the radiocommunication circuit. By virtue of sheer numbers and
hours of use, the public is by far the largest “user” of broadcast spectrum.
6.
Regulatory myopia can occur when significant changes are being proposed to the bands
allocated for broadcasting services. The long-term impact on the public of proposed changes
is often downplayed or overlooked entirely. Instead, the focus is placed on the costs and
inconvenience that will be incurred by the licensees of the affected undertakings.
7.
A classic example of this is the FCC’s policy decision that all US analog TV broadcasting
must be replaced by digital TV by the end of 2006. This decision was based solely on an
examination of the costs and practicalities as they apply to TV broadcasters, as well as the
anticipated up-side benefits to the US federal treasury with respect to spectrum auctioning
revenues. Little attention appears to have been paid to the interests of the majority of TV
broadcast spectrum users – the general public.
8.
Canadian regulators have taken a much more enlightened approach to this particular issue
and have not set an arbitrary “drop-dead” date for analog TV in this country. Both Industry
Canada and the CRTC are to be commended for not following the US lead in this particular
case.
9.
To a certain degree, however, the US approach appears to be surfacing in other spectrum
policy issues arising in this country. This is especially apparent in the project that is underway
within the Department with respect to the re-allocation of portions of the 746-806 MHz band
(TV channels 60-69) to non-broadcasting services.
10.
As recently as 2001, TV broadcasters were being assured that the DTV Allotment Plan,
released after extensive industry and public consultation, would remain in force until after the
DTV transition has been completed. Now they are being told that policy imperatives with
respect to public safety services require a much earlier abandonment by TV of certain TV
spectrum that had been an integral part of the DTV rollout plan for Canada. The effect of
this will be to make it even more difficult than it already is for broadcasters to duplicate local
analog TV services with parallel DTV coverages.
11.
While this will certainly have an impact on the TV broadcasters directly affected, again it is
the public that will experience the greatest impact. Canada’s DTV allotment plan already
represented a significant technical compromise, even when all the channels allocated for TV
(Channels 2 through 69) were available for use. Removing several previously planned DTV
channels and substituting allotments that have been even more forcefully crammed into the
2
remaining spectrum will make it that much more difficult for the public to reliably access new
DTV services.
12.
This is particularly unfortunate at a time when early public acceptance of this new technology
is crucial. There is general agreement that accomplishing a smooth DTV rollout is critical to
achieving more efficient use of scarce radio spectrum in the long term. It follows that policy
actions that will frustrate the broadcasters’ ability to reach this goal are actually counterproductive.
13.
In summary, the CAB believes that the Department’s future spectrum policy development
guidelines must take greater account of the interests of individual, general public users of
radio spectrum. This would apply particularly in cases such as broadcasting, where the public
owns and operates equipment that is unlicensed.
ISSUE 2: RECOGNITION OF BROADCASTING SERVICES AS AN INTEGRAL AND VITAL PART OF
CANADA’S NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
14.
A common thread throughout the Department’s discussion paper describing the revised
Framework is the expectation that radiocommunication will play a greater future role in
protecting our national security. The CAB agrees with this and wishes to comment on the
contribution that broadcasting can make in this regard.
15.
We believe that the Framework should be updated to make explicit reference to the role of
both private and public broadcasting in communicating with Canadians in times of national,
regional and local emergencies.
16.
Section 5.3 of the discussion paper states:
Access to spectrum for services involving the security and sovereignty of the country and the
safety of life and property, such as those provided by National Defence, police, fire and
ambulance, assume primary importance, compared to other services.
17.
Spectrum that is allocated to DND, or to public safety organizations, will only allow these
organizations to establish radiocommunication facilities enabling them to talk among
themselves – not to communicate effectively with the public.
18.
One of the highest responsibilities that governments bear is to warn the public of events that
may impact upon them and advise what action individuals should take. The events of
September 11, 2001 demonstrate how vital it is for the public to be able to receive warnings
and advice from their governments with minimum delay.
3
19.
At the present time, the only communications infrastructure that is capable of providing
timely public safety warnings to large masses of people, regardless of where they may be
located, is the over-the-air (OTA) public and private broadcasting system.
20.
Moreover, with the advent of OTA digital radio and television facilities, there will be a
substantial improvement in these capabilities. Digital technology makes it possible to target
messages to specific geographic locations more effectively. It will even be possible for new
digital broadcasting stations to provide highly secure, point-to-multipoint communication
links for internal use by public safety agencies. And all this can be done simultaneously with
the broadcasting of regular programming, plus emergency messages targeted to the general
public.
21.
The CAB believes that the Department’s spectrum policies and procedures should make
explicit reference to the fact that the safety and security of Canadians depends to a great
extent on the ability of the authorities to communicate effectively and simultaneously with
large sectors of the general public in times of emergency.
22.
It is our view that Policy Guideline 3 should be modified and expanded to ensure that
broadcasting is recognized as an essential radiocommunication category with respect to safety
and national security. The following wording could be used to expand upon the statement of
intent:
Over-the-air broadcasting facilities, essential for mass communication in times of
emergency, along with radiocommunication systems vital to national sovereignty
and security, national defence, law enforcement and public safety, will be granted
high priority and support in the access and use of the radio spectrum.
ISSUE 3: DISCONTINUATION OF POLICIES PROMOTING NON-SPECTRUM ALTERNATIVES
23.
Broadcasters strongly support the Department’s decision to abandon its previous policy of
encouraging the use of non-radio alternatives. To a certain degree, this policy had
constrained broadcasters from using wireless auxiliary facilities, such as point-to-point
program delivery links, to improve their services.
24.
Eliminating the need to demonstrate why non-spectrum alternatives (or leased commoncarrier facilities) could not be used for auxiliary broadcast services has allowed our members
to better serve their audiences. This is especially the case with respect to broadcaster-owned
microwave hops, which have permitted audiences in smaller communities to receive locally
relevant programming originating from regional production centres.
4
25.
We believe that abandoning this policy has not resulted in major shortfalls in spectrum, since
technological advances have taken up much of the slack. The revised Framework notes that
common carriers have been able to release microwave spectrum as a result of the
implementation of optical fibre cable links. Moreover, the advent of digital technology for
privately owned radio links has allowed broadcast programming signals to be relayed using
much less bandwidth than older analog systems require.
26.
In supporting the continuance of this hands-off policy, the CAB also recommends that the
Department’s stated philosophy of taking “a neutral position on the choice of types of
communication networks” be applied generally as well.
27.
Over the years, broadcasters have detected a tendency among some government spectrum
planners to assume that broadcast distribution undertakings, such as cable, MDS and DTH
satellite undertakings, will eventually supplant OTA TV broadcasting services. A few have
even gone so far as to suggest that streaming of audio and video services to mobile personal
devices via the Internet will eventually result in the discontinuance of OTA broadcasting
services. To their way of thinking, this means that broadcast spectrum can then be liberated
for other wireless uses.
28.
Broadcasters strongly support the continued existence and expansion of all technologies that
can enhance their ability to serve their audiences effectively. Internet distribution of
programming and service enhancements can play a significant part in achieving the goals
broadcasters have set for themselves.
29.
At the same time, we reject the premise that any single distribution technology, existing or
future, will entirely supplant the OTA broadcasting system used today.
30.
The CAB believes that point-to-multipoint OTA broadcasting continues to provide the most
efficient means of ensuring that all Canadians have free access to a wide variety of
entertainment and information services. We have difficulty understanding the logic of those
who would try to turn the Internet into a replacement distribution vehicle for broadcasting
services.
31.
The Internet’s infrastructure is technically unsuited to simultaneous, point-to-multipoint, oneway communication to large masses of people. Broadcasting, however, already accomplishes
this in a superb manner, as it is currently configured. In short, it is a round peg that does not
need to be re-engineered to fit into the square hole of the Internet.
32.
In developing a new spectrum policy framework, the Department should ensure that OTA
broadcasting continues to be viewed as an essential public service that must remain available
to all Canadians, at no direct cost to them.
5
ISSUE 4: SPECTRUM SHARING
33.
The Department’s discussion paper contemplates that there will be an increasing requirement
for spectrum sharing in the coming years. It promises that this will be accomplished in a
manner that imposes “minimal constraints” on the services involved.
34.
Broadcasters are used to sharing spectrum with other broadcasters. In fact, on a user-perhertz basis, broadcasting represents arguably the most efficient use of radio spectrum
anywhere1.
35.
Recently, the Department appears to have been moving towards a US-style broadcast model
based on a “more is better” approach, with less concern about maintaining the quality of
existing broadcasting services. Specifically, there has been a steady pressure on broadcasters
to accept erosions in the regulatory protection against interference from other broadcasting
services.
36.
While this may allow a few more stations to be licensed, two undesirable effects occur:
the interference-free reception enjoyed by those who tune older established stations
is eroded, especially at the outer fringes of their service areas; and
new services, licensed as a result of the rule changes, are themselves subjected to very
large zones of interference (from the older existing stations).
37.
The CAB questions whether this represents an advance in the art and science of spectrum
management. The Department may consider that reducing service areas for existing stations
is an appropriate response to demands from new players to become part of the broadcasting
system. It is necessary to ask, however, if such actions really serve the public interest, since
established audiences are being compromised in one area in order to provide a greater variety
of services somewhere else.
38.
Insofar as sharing broadcasting spectrum with other services is concerned, broadcasters do
not have serious concerns with this concept, so long as equitable sharing rules are applied to
all services using the same frequencies. Unlike other bands, however, broadcasting channels
are almost never idle. There are few opportunities for time-sharing with dissimilar
radiocommunication services. Rules have to be developed that ensure a high degree of
reliability for the broadcasting services in the presence of new interfering non-broadcast
signals.
1
Considering that all those at the receiving end of the broadcasting circuit are also “users” of the spectrum. See
previous discussion on Issue 1.
6
39.
Moreover, as many of Canada’s farmers have learned the hard way, mixed uses of adjacent
properties by widely divergent interests simply do not work very well. Nobody wants to live
in a new residential neighbourhood that has been built next door to a farm. Broadcasters
consider that spectrum sharing with non-broadcasting services will inevitably raise similar
issues. Specifically, they do not wish to be told, after sharing rules have been developed and
non-broadcasting facilities have been implemented, that their high-power operations need to
be reduced, filtered or otherwise adapted to accommodate poorly performing equipment used
by those who share their bands.
40.
If sharing of broadcasting spectrum is to be contemplated on a wider scale, then the
Department must be prepared to set and enforce minimum equipment performance
standards for these new users. This will be especially important where the new application
involves devices that the public will purchase and own.
41.
Likewise, if sharing increases, enforcement action will be required to ensure that incoming
services do not cause unacceptable interference to existing broadcast reception. This will be
especially important if the Department sees fit to endorse the CAB’s previous
recommendation that the broadcasting system be recognized as a vital part of Canada’s
national emergency warning and advisory system.
ISSUE 5: SERVICES DISPLACEMENT
42.
The revised Framework states that the current policies with respect to services displacement
will continue. In the event that a channel, frequency or band must be relinquished to another
user, licensees must do so at their own expense.
43.
The CAB acknowledges the concept that the issuance of a Broadcasting Certificate by
Industry Canada does not confer a perpetual monopoly to use that frequency or channel. But
we do not agree with the premise that an existing authority can or should be terminated
during the term of the licence, even if “reasonable notice” is provided.
44.
CRTC broadcasting licences, and the Industry Canada technical certificates that form part of
the overall authority, are issued for a specific term, to a maximum of seven years. The CRTC
is constrained from issuing a broadcasting licence for a term that exceeds that of the Industry
Canada Broadcasting Certificate.
45.
Private broadcasters are required by the CRTC to develop detailed plans and to make specific
programming commitments that apply during each licence term. In many cases, these
promises flow directly from business plans projecting revenues based on specific technical
7
coverages. It is therefore vital that broadcasters be assured that these coverages can remain
constant throughout the term of their CRTC licences.
46.
Frequency or channel displacements that might be imposed by the Department during a
licence term could jeopardize the ability of that licensee to meet any technical and/or nontechnical conditions of licence imposed by another government agency, the CRTC, through
its own regulatory processes. This situation does not occur with non-broadcasting services,
since the Department has exclusive regulatory power over these licensees.
47.
For this reason, the CAB believes that the Department’s spectrum management policies
should incorporate a special-case status with respect to the displacement of existing
broadcasting services. Specifically, absent voluntary compliance, a broadcast licensee should
not be obliged to disrupt its technical operations during a previously established CRTC
licence term.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
48.
The CAB agrees with the Department that a periodic review of its spectrum management and
licensing polices is vital. We suggest that the rapid changes that are occurring in the
radiocommunication environment in Canada mean that this would best be done sooner
rather than later.
49.
We trust that the comments we have made in this submission will assist the Department in
carrying out its task in a timely manner. Our staff and advisors would be please to meet with
Department officials to elaborate on any of the concepts, comments or recommendations we
have provided.
All of which is respectfully submitted, this 30th day of September 2002.
Sincerely,
Wayne Charman
Senior Vice-President
Television, Specialty & Pay Services and New Technologies
***End of document***
8
Download