Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band,

Transcription

1 Response to Industry Canada Paper Entitled: Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, December 18 th, 2014 (SLPB ) Attention: Senior Director Spectrum Licensing and Auction Operations Industry Canada 235 Queen Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5 February 26, 2015 Prepared by The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...3 Identification...5 Scope and Structure of Comments...5 Introduction...6 Spectrum is a Public Resource...6 The Question of Efficiency...7 Implications for Content...8 The Question of Public Mandate...9 A Reserve for Public Innovation Implies Local Administration...10 General Recommendations for the Auction Framework : Reserve Spectrum for Public Innovation : Use Proceeds to Promote Digital Literacy...15 Answers to Selected Questions Posed in SLPB Question Question Question Questions Question 6 and Additional Recommendations Arising from the Questions Moratorium on New Broadcasting Services Should Be Lifted 4. Multiplexing Should be Encouraged, to Make Space for New Entrants 5. Broadcasters Should Be Compensated from Auction Proceeds 6. Community Broadcasters Should Be Prioritized 7. as Should the Services They Rebroadcast as RDUs CONCLUSION...26 APPENDIX A

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Radio spectrum is a scarce public resource. Given that: the 600 MHz band was currently devoted to broadcasting, and subject to monitoring and scrutiny to ensure that public benefit accrued to the assignment of spectrum for use by commercial entities (via the CRTC licence application process), and given that spectrum auctions generally involve assigning the same scarce public resource to the highest bidder for commercial gain,...we make seven recommendations: 1. Reserve 10 MHz in the 600 MgHz band from auction for non-emergency public use. 2. Lift the moratorium on new over-the-air licences. New entities should be allowed to launch at their own risk, with the knowledge that they may be reassigned. Otherwise, innovation in over-the-air broadcasting as a sector will be stifled. This would be counter-productive, when the purpose of the spectrum auction is to facilitate innovation and the introduction of new and better services. Digital OTA broadcasting has only just begun to be leveraged. 3. To ensure that there continues to be space in future for new broadcasting ventures, reduce the current size of the 6 MHz allotments or require multiplexing. 4. Compensate broadcasters from the auction proceeds for the costs of moving channel assignment. 5. Consider low-power, community broadcasters primary services for the purposes of the new allotment plan, in view of the unique contribution they make to free expression and to the generation of scarce local and Canadian content. 6. Prioritize the services many community broadcasters rebroadcast as RDUs in remote areas (such as the CBC, TVO and APTN), since these services function as a vital link between these areas and the rest of Canada. 7. To ensure that Canadians can participate fully as citizens, producers and entrepreneurs in the digital information society that is being ushered in by new 3

4 uses of radio spectrum, commit a portion of the proceeds of the spectrum auction to: - establish digital skills training centres within reach of all Canadians. - roll out broadband networks in rural areas that are still on dial-up 4

5 IDENTIFICATION 1) The Canadian Association for Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) was created to help ensure that ordinary Canadians have a voice within our broadcasting system. We represent independent non-profit community TV broadcasters and producing corporations, and the Canadians that use and watch them. 1 We also assist individual Canadians that want to set up new community media undertakings or who wish to access the community channels managed by BDUs. We consider that our mandate refers to all video and multi-media produced by community non-profit corporations and distributed by any means, including new media and wireless networks. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF COMMENTS 2) We have structured our response in two parts: as a discussion paper and set of recommendations to serve non-emergency public-interest users. (We note that the needs of public emergency services were admirably addressed during the 700 MHz auction, with the assignment of a 20 MHz block for their use. However, Industry Canada's decision about how this spectrum will be shared by Category 1 public-emergency users and Category 2 and Category 3 non-emergency users has not yet been announced.) followed by responses to a subset of the specific questions posed by the IC consultation paper, which impinge on our members immediately. 1 For more information about CACTUS, see cactus.independentmedia.ca. 5

6 INTRODUCTION Spectrum is a Public Resource 3) Radio frequency spectrum is first and foremost a public resource, and it is finite. It has a growing number of commercial and social uses, notably increasing peoples access to digital communications and content. 4) The 600 MHz band of spectrum is a valuable resource both to telecommunications companies wanting to expand or launch their wireless businesses in Canada and to the federal government as a source of auction revenue. 5) In addition, this spectrum is a valuable resource for citizen communications and new media innovation. Like the water we drink, spectrum is a public good that can either be bottled and sold to us for commercial gain or offered as a public service on a cost-recovery basis in our taps. 6) Canadian laws that govern the use of our radio frequencies spell out this public policy imperative. Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act affirms that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada s identity and sovereignty. Among the policy objectives include the intent that radio frequencies be used: (a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions; (b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada; ( ) (g) to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field of telecommunications and to encourage innovation in the provision of telecommunications services; (h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services. 7) Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty. 6

7 The Question of Efficiency 8) We understand that the primary worldwide goal of spectrum management is to ensure the most efficient use possible of this scarce resource. In this context, we dispute the widely held assumption that broadcasting (a one-to-many application) is less efficient than other wireless operations. Broadcasting may be a relatively inefficient use of spectrum if few people watch a particular broadcast channel regionally or nationally at a given time (which ties up roughly 6 MHz under the old analog system, or between about 1 and 6 MHz under digital, depending on whether the signal is SD or HD). Many more users might have placed cell phone calls or downloaded information on the Internet using the same spectrum for multiple oneto-one transactions. 9) On the other hand, broadcasting is a more efficient use of spectrum for the live sharing of events of national and regional cultural significance, such as newscasts, live cultural events, political rallies, public debates, and so on, when everyone can tune in at the same time using the same 1-6 MHz of spectrum. It would be spectrum-wasteful for millions of people to download simultaneous copies of the same thing in real time. Verizon has admitted that such events bring their networks to a grinding halt, and has coined the term wireless broadcasting to describe how they intend to handle such events in future. The company has declared its intent to 'broadcast' such events through their wireless networks at a particular time (i.e. oneto-many TV under a new name). They performed their first test of their LTE Multicast service to a local audience at the Indy 500 in ) The question becomes doubly relevant when we recall that much of the pressure for more wireless broadband is driven by the desire for video-based applications for distribution to wireless devices such as phones and laptops. It s simply TV with a different delivery format... on the move, rather than plugged in at home by antenna, cable, or satellite. We also know (because the trends are already developing) that much of this content will be foreign, consist of light entertainment, and constitute millions of copies of the same thing, which could just as easily be downloaded by users using land lines at home, the office, or places of study. 11) We note comments by Industry Canada representatives at the International Institute of Communications (IIC) conference in November of 2010, that however spectrum is used, it is ultimately finite. If there is genuinely a need for the consumption of vast new volumes of rich data (principally video) while Canadians are on the move as 2 See 7

8 opposed to sitting at fixed terminals, the majority of that volume must be met by technological development: better methods for compression and multiplexing, rather than through access to new blocks of spectrum. Implications for Content 12) This being said, we believe the priority for the allocation of the 600 MHz spectrum band should be to ensure that there is space for local, Canadian, educational, and publicly generated content side-by-side with commercial uses. The availability of commercial wireless devices in the market will continue to shape and drive the habit of consumption of entertainment while on the move. To the extent the Canadians consume more content on those platforms and less on regulated traditional platforms such as TV, there needs to be space reserved for Canadian and public-service content. We reiterate that this spectrum is first and foremost a public resource. Public entities that create the public fora for the educational, political, and cultural discourses that enrich and strenghthen the social fabric (the Telecommunication Act) and maintain and enhance national identity and cultural sovereignty (the Broadcasting Act) should not have to buy back spectrum from private entities that have no mandate to design distribution infrastructures that includes every last Canadian nor to create such public spaces. Some spectrum must be reserved to stimulate alternative approaches to technological innovation: those that approach Canadians as citizens of a collective that need to share information as a collective, rather than solely as consumers who can be served individually. 13) We also raise our concern that as TV (video delivered using the 600 MHz band) shifts from licenced spectrum overseen by the CRTC with public processes that scrutinize such use for the greatest public benefit (the broadcast licence application process) to unlicenced spectrum (the same 600 MHz band will be used to transmit video images with no such scrutiny), that we have no public process for such scrutiny. The idea of an auction as a means of assigning spectrum implies turning it over for use by the highest bidder, based on neither a business plan nor on proposals for public benefit. 14) As audiences for culturally significant categories of content (especially video) are increasingly fractured and managed by commercial entities to the point of eroding broadcasting as a one-to-many use of scarce spectrum opportunities for Canadians 8

9 to participate and exchange communications with one another in public and shared spaces must be preserved. The Question of Public Mandate 15) Given the movement of the 600 MHz spectrum from a licenced and publicly scrutinized environment of broadcasting to an unlicenced highest-bidder environment, to ensure that the public s need and good be recognized, we recommend that part of this bandwidth be reserved from the proposed auction to encourage innovation by educational, community-based, and public entities. We (and others during the 700 MHz auction) call it a reserve for Public Innovation. Such a reserve will achieve two goals: The Creation of Public and Community Content, Models and Applications: The applications envisioned by public and community entities are different than those generated by the private sector. They are necessary for the healthy cultural life of communities, and also provide an alternative and much-needed form of content competition for the private sector. Examples include public-safety applications, educational content and community media. We note that the Internet s masterful one-to-one data sharing structure (where no one user or entity is in control) was developed by academics, not the commercial sector, which was at that time still fully invested in the one-to-many hierarchical model of broadcasting, in which single owners control and shape content. Wikipedia is another. Non-commercial entities need to have a stake in how the distribution infrastructure develops, because the infrastructure shapes the content. As Canadians, we know that the medium is the message. A Level Playing Field for Service Commercial entities are bound by their shareholder structures to offer service only where economies of scale warrant. In a geographically disparate and challenging country like Canada, bandwidth needs to be retained so that public entities can offer broadband services in localities where private entities are not interested to do so, or are not motivated to do so at competitive rates. 9

10 A Reserve for Public Innovation Implies Local Administration 16) We note that both goals for a Public Innovation reserve are locality-based: Local Content: For example, while Canada s total population tends to be sufficient to guarantee that content of national interest can be generated by public and private bodies (e.g. coverage of national elections, the Olympics, or the development of educational or public-safety software and apps ), this is most often not true on a local level. Private entities have been particularly poor at generating local television except in pockets or without government subsidy, or at adapting localized versions of infrastructure for wireless or Internet services, or localized versions of educational media, virtual town halls, and so on. It is almost always up to local residents, planning authorities, and community non-profits to fill these gaps. We want to ensure that these groups have the tools to do it, and are not ham-strung because spectrum has been auctioned according to regional and national tiers to the highest commercial bidder. We note that in order to offer a municipal wireless infrastructure (which has generated many spin-off communications projects and services), cities like Timmins have had to seek government grants and engage in extensive fund-raising to buy back spectrum from Bell and other service providers. Once this infrastructure was in place, local applications adapted to civic needs became possible; for example seniors computer centres, virtual town squares, college videoconferencing, and so on. 3 Local Service: Similarly, it s not that Canadians as a whole can t expect to enjoy lead-edge telecommunications technologies such as high-speed Internet, it is at the local level that some rural communities lose out and cannot enjoy the same level of infrastructure as those in urban areas. 17) We note that even national public entities such as the CBC that may wish to develop national wireless applications and content over the long term will nonetheless rely on local infrastructure. For example, even though there are CBC nationally broadcast television channels, they are distributed using different parts of the radio spectrum (channels) from individual broadcast towers in each community, depending on local geography. This is the same for wireless and cellular service. Therefore, even national would-be public users of broadband will be reliant on local distribution infrastructure. So we assume that the administration of a spectrum reserve for Public Innovation would have to be administered by local or regional bodies, even if a specific application, user, or item of content were national in scope. 3 For more information, see the web site for Neonet at 10

11 18) Therefore, the call for public reservation of some spectrum in the 600 MHz band is also a call for LOCAL administration and planning for some of that spectrum. 19) In preparing our response to this notice of public consultation (and to the 2011 notice of consultation on the repurposing of the 700 MHz band), we identified and consulted with the following categories of public users that need access to broadband spectrum: The public safety community as identified in the consultation document (whose needs have now been met via the public safety set-aside in the 700 MHz band). Publicly owned telecommunications companies (historically telephone exchanges, but now offering a range of services). These may be municipally, provincially, or co-operatively owned, with a variety of historical reasons for their existence. Most persist because no commercial entities serve the remote areas these public entities do. Some may be in a position to compete in a spectrum auction within a set-aside for smaller players provided tiers are made small enough (although we question whether they should have to do so, since the spectrum is public to begin with and they are attempting to provide service in areas where there is no business case). Others may not. Entities in this category include members of the Canadian Alliance of Publicly-owned Telecommunications Systems (CAPTS), the Ontario Telecommunication Association (OTA), and the Association des compagnies de téléphone du Québec (ACTQ), as mentioned in the consultation document. They typically serve smaller and more remote communities such as Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay, and Kenora. Municipally owned wireless Internet providers such as the City of Fredericton, which wants a stake in how the intellectual and entrepreneurial environment of the city develops, as well as influence over prices residents pay. Such entities regard broadband as the information highway in the same way as they regard their bricks-and-mortar infrastructure. They want to ensure fair access for residents to maximize the educational, recreational, and entrepreneurial potential of their communities. The City of Fredericton currently uses wireless spectrum within the standard and reports that these frequencies are congested beyond their useful limits in urban areas with the proliferation of consumer WiFi devices. 11

12 Other municipalities have responded to this challenge by raising federal and provincial funding to incent private companies that have acquired high quality spectrum in previous auctions to serve remote areas. These are examples of public entities having to buy back spectrum from the private sector (using tax dollars) to serve Canadians left behind by the commercial system. A few Ontario examples include Neonet, Adnet, and Blue Sky Net, serving communities such as Timmins, Sudbury, and First Nations communities. In each case, these projects have generated not just a minimal level of access to broadband in rural areas, but a range of local content and applications, including library portals and municipal GIS systems. Community-based media and content creators such as our own members, who want to ensure that local video content (e.g. digital townhalls, local political, cultural and environmental programming) can be made available to wireless and mobile devices, in parallel to traditional broadcast platforms. Educational Institutions, including K-12, colleges, and universities that want either to offer wireless services on campuses and/or educational content via wireless services. Students as a community are among those most on-themove with demand for such services. Educational users of spectrum now managed by Inukshuk Internet Inc. are examples from this group, and are particularly vulnerable now that the MHz has been auctioned. This band was traditionally reserved for use by the educational sector, and is still used by this sector in the US, notably to offer free wireless Internet throughout the US public school system 4. Where this band is underutilized south of the border, the educational sector can sublease it to commercial entities. This means that the educational sector maintains long-term control and access to this spectrum, and can reinvest earnings generated by the spectrum into educational initatives. We draw attention to this precedent as an instance of reservation of spectrum for particular categories of public users, who maintain control over it over the long term. This principle had previously been recognized here in Canada. Other municipal services, such as libraries, school bus dispatchers, snow removal and so on with a need to share information in real time with each other and with community members. 4 For more information about educational use of the MHz band in the US, see 12

13 While some of these users (the non-emergency, non public-safety users) may be able to use parts of the 700 MHz band set aside for public safety as Category 2 or 3 users, Industry Canada's decision on the public-safety band has not yet been published. How the relationships among emergency and non-emergency users would be managed has yet to be clarified. 20) These are just a few of the users and applications that can be identified today. We note that the intent of reserving spectrum for Public Innovation is the same as allowing the private sector to bid on spectrum today to drive future innovation. An equivalent reserve for Public Innovation must be available to stimulate and generate new applications and innovation to serve public and social needs not addressed by the private sector. 13

14 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AUCTION FRAMEWORK 21) With these factors in mind, we make the following two general recommendations for the 600 MHz spectrum auction, before answering the specific questions posed by Industry Canada in its notice of consultation (we expand on each in subsequent sections): Reserve a band of no less than 2 contiguous 5 MHz in the 600 MHz band for Public Innovation. To ensure that Canadians can participate fully as citizens, producers and entrepreneurs in the digital information society that is being ushered in by new uses of radio spectrum, we ask that a portion of the proceeds of the spectrum auction be used to establish digital skills training centres within reach of all Canadians. Recommendation 1: Reserve Spectrum for Public Innovation 22) We propose that 10 MHz (a pair of continguous 5 MHz blocks) of the spectrum in the 600 MHz band be left out of the auction and reserved for communications and multi-media innovation by a variety of educational, civil, public, research-based and citizen-based initiatives that would not be in a position to compete in a spectrum auction, and whose needs likely won't be met by the public safety set aside in the 700 MHz band. It would be grossly inefficient from a public and economic perspective to require such initiatives to buy back spectrum on a competitive basis from private entities. 23) Why 10 MHz? Because currently most existing send-and-receive technologies depend on having at least 5 MHz for each direction. We envision that multiple public and local entities (equivalent to tier 4s in the 700 MHz auction) could manage and share spectrum within this Public Innovation reserve, and that the particular entities participating would vary from place to place across Canada, depending on differing economic, social, geographic and cultural contexts and needs. If the spectrum were underutilized in a particular community, it could be subleased to commercial carriers to maintain full and efficient use of spectrum, just as the education sector subleases the MHz band in the United States. 14

15 24) While the particular 10 MHz need not be the same country-wide, a single Tier 1 national allocation for Public Innovation would simplify the sharing of innovative applications and technologies that are developed in one place with initiatives in other places. Recommendation 2: Use Proceeds to Promote Digital Literacy 25) To ensure that Canadians can participate fully as citizens, producers and entrepreneurs in the digital information society that is being ushered in by new uses of radio spectrum, we ask that a portion of the proceeds of the spectrum auction be used to establish digital skills training centres within reach of all Canadians. 26) As CACTUS proposed at the CRTC's community television policy review in April of 2010 ( ), many community-based organizations already exist in Canadian communities that are doing part of the job of full multi-media digital access, training and production centres, but they need more resources to bring such access and skills training within reach of all Canadians. Examples include: independent community TV channels, that can function as digital town halls on all platforms including cable, satellite, over-the-air television, the Internet, and new mobile TV platforms. Former CAP (Community Access Program) sites, many of which are still maintained by their host organizations; for example, public libraries. Many of these sites are already collocated with hot spots and points where the public can access the Internet for free, either via land lines or wireless networks. public, college, and university libraries (many of which are collocated with former CAP sites and/or with campus TV and radio facilities) other existing community media hubs where media skills are disseminated, including community radio channels and film and video co-operatives. the high-tech hubs that are members of the Canadian Digital Media Network. 27) These digital skills training centres would be one of the users of the spectrum reserve for Public Innovation, and could take the lead in small communities if no other party (municipality, public telco and so on) is in a position to do so. 15

16 28) In the CACTUS proposal presented at the community TV policy review in 2010, it was established that 250 such centres (building on existing resources) could reach 90% of Canadians (all communities over 10,000 residents) as well as 70 additional regional centres to serve less densely populated areas, and could be made operational with annual funding of approximately $113,000,000. We provide more details about this proposal in Appendix A. 29) If Industry Canada collects yearly lease payments from spectrum leasees (as opposed to one lump payment), a portion could be directed to these digital skills training centres, assuring steady funding for them. 30) The full "Digital Dividend" can only be realized if all Canadians have the opportunity to participate fully in the digital economy. It is appropriate that taxpayers see direct and on-going benefit of their lease of scarce radio spectrum to the private sector, rather than it being dispersed on a glut of general program spending in a single year that can t be sustained. 31) The establishment of digital community media centres was recommended in the report by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled Emergency and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges. Recommendation 8 was: 8. Examine the proposal of the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) for the establishment of community operated multimedia centres and access to its material online as a way of encouraging people to develop digital skills. Recommendations 9, 12, 14, and 17 also endorse this proposal: 9. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development [should] review its policies and programs in order to ensure that priority is given to training in digital skills. 12. Examine ways of supporting new digital enterprises (start-ups) as they develop their business models. 14. Review the system of grants and contributions in order to encourage innovation in the digital media sector. 17. Reinvest some of the money it receives from the next spectrum auction in a digital strategy. 16

17 ANSWERS TO SELECTED QUESTIONS POSED IN SLPB ) In this section, we answer selected questions posed in SLPB that we are qualified to comment upon and which directly affect our members. In some cases, our comments repeat or reinforce opinions presented in the foregoing discussion. Question 1: Industry Canada is seeking comments on the overall proposal of repurposing the band to include commercial mobile broadband and the initial step of participating in a joint repacking process with the United States. 33) This question is really two questions: Should we re-purpose part or all of the 600 MHz band from broadcasting to mobile broadband? And secondly, should that process be conducted jointly with the US? 34)As presented in the foregoing discussion, yes, commercial mobile broadband services are hungry for more bandwidth; however, history has shown that the vast majority of new data-carriage needs will be met by improvements in compression and multiplexing technologies. Therefore, it is our view that spectrum previously used by television broadcasting (services regulated by the CRTC to make sure they meet the public-interest goals of the Broadcasting Act) should only be re-purposed to the extent that the public-interests met by broadcasting are not compromised. Of primary importance is that the additional channel-carrying capacity of the digital environment be leveraged within the broadcasting band, so that there is space for new entrants in every market, including at least five channels for public broadcasters (one national and one provincial educational channel in each official language, and one channel for the provincial legislature), as well as one for community broadcasters. 35)In other words, we support re-purposing the band, but only if broadcasting incumbents aren't allowed to 'sit on' unused bandwidth, preventing new entrants. This is currently the case in tight markets such as Toronto. The bandwidth assigned to existing broadcasters should be no more than they need to offer one HD signal (i.e. 3 MHz or less). This would double available space for broadcasting instantly. This could be accomplished by: reducing the size of channel allotments from Industry Canada (for example, from 6 MHz to 3 MHz) incumbents could be asked to share one 6 MHz allotment via a multiplex (e.g. in instances where services are commonly owned), or 17

18 incumbents could be asked to add new entrants as subchannels on existing allotments. 36) An embedded assumption in the first part of the question is also whether broadcasting spectrum should be repurposed for commercial mobile broadband. As discussed previously, 10 MHz (two blocks of 5 MHz each) should be set aside for innovation and use by public entities, administered and implemented at the local level. There is an underlying assumption that innovation happens only in the commercial sector, when in fact history shows that many innovations in the publicinterest originate in the public sector. It is universities that created the Internet. It is a community broadcaster that was the first to multiplex TV signals in Canada, despite the sector's limited resources. 37) We answer the second part of question 1 in our answer to question 3, below. Question 2: Industry Canada is seeking comments on the future spectrum requirements for OTA TV broadcasting, taking into consideration the overall changes to the broadcasting industry, and noting that the CRTC Let s Talk TV hearing recently closed. 38) As stated in response to question 1, we recognize that even if there were only MHz channels left after a 600 MHz spectrum auction for digital TV broadcasting, it would be plenty for the needs of OTA TV in Canada, but only if those 30 6-MHz channels are deployed effectively, by multiplexing current and future services, or by creating smaller allotments. 39) If existing and future channels are not expected to multiplex or to share 6 MHz allotments, we would oppose an auction that would limit future expansion of OTA broadcasting. We believe that the potential of digital over-the-air broadcasting has been largely untapped to date. Its introduction has had the net impact (counterintuitively) of reducing public-interest services available to Canadians, thereby squandering much of this potential. We have seen: the CBC and TVO go 'off air' in rural areas, because these public broadcasters couldn't meet the costs of the digital upgrades costs that might easily have been met from the proceeds from the 700 MHz auction the CBC's second-official language broadcast discontinued in major Canadian cities and provincial capitals, when they might easily have been multiplexed with the majority-language service. 18

19 CBC towers and transmitters pulled down and put in dumpsters, because government agencies failed to recognize the potential of this infrastructure to deploy rural wireless broadband and to deliver remote broadcasting services, when all that was needed was a co-ordinated communications outreach effort to offer the infrastructure to communities to maintain themselves. CACTUS did what it could in this regard, but we were only one small under-resourced voice. 40) The potential of multiplexing of free-to-air services has barely begun to be explored. Only four years into digital broadcasting, it is too early to conclude that demand is static. Residents of the communities in which our members offer community TV services and rebroadcast remote services from community-owned towers are 'in the driver's seat' because they can plan what services they want, at what price. This is a freedom that should be maintained at all costs, to create competition for and balance the power of the large vertically integrated entities that will compete for the 600 MHz spectrum. Our members (and more than 100 other small radiodistribution understakings or RDUs) have been offering their communities vital links with the world outside their communities for more than thirty years, using multiple analog transmitters per tower. Our members are just now 'catching up' and are beginning to transition to cheaper and easier-to-maintain digital transmitters, as they are able to raise the money for the transition. There must be space set aside for public-interest entities, so that they can offer telecommunications services that would not be via private entities, especially in rural areas. 41) We note that the CRTC's recently concluded Let's Talk TV process identified strong support for the continued availability of free-to-air signals, even from the large vertically integrated entities for whom free-to-air TV poses the most competition. We note also that on February 17 th, 2015 Ipsos Reid reported that While the media landscape continues to provide endless new ways to watch, listen and browse content, Canadians mainly engage with live television 5. People like a digital townhall... they like feeling that they are engaging with one another in public fora in real time. They also like consuming long-form documentary and fictional programming formats in the comfort of their own homes, in HD, and on large screens. These fora must be maintained, at the local, regional, and national levels. 42) It is also hardly surprising that the demand for OTA channels is 'static', when there has been so little official support for them since the digital transition, and no 5 For the full report, see 19

20 promotion of the benefits of multiplexing. Furthermore, with no financial support from the 700 MHz auction to maintain a network of OTA CBC channels and repeaters (nor the network of APTN or TVO towers), the shrinking number of OTA channels out there makes it a less appealing distribution platform. Who is going to buy an antenna if so few channels are available? The broadcasting industry as a whole is in limbo, in the absence of strong policy leadership to exploit the many benefits of digital OTA TV. 43) Finally, we would like to reiterate our concern that a shift in official support for and promotion of innovation and uses for live OTA broadcasting and for licenced spectrum toward unlicenced distribution of video content poses a threat to Canadian cultural sovereignty. We are handing control of increasing amounts of spectrum and content distribution to private entities, with less and less oversight of 'what goes in the pipe'. Is what they're going to offer with this bandwidth what we want as a nation? This notice of consultation underscores that the framework for any spectrum auction must maximize both the economic and social benefit to Canadians. Question 3: Industry Canada is seeking comments on the Department s proposal to: adopt the U.S. 600 MHz band plan framework; and commit to repurpose the same amount of spectrum as the United States, as determined in the FCC s incentive auction. 44) Certainly, it makes sense to co-ordinate our own frequency usage with that of the US because 90% of our population resides within 100 km of our common border. However, the US population is 10 times the size of Canada's. The demand for bandwidth in a Canadian city will never rival that in a US city the size of NY or LA. Our own band plan should reflect the needs for bandwidth in both the Canadian broadcasting and wireless sectors, respectively, which are not the same as those south of the border. Our populations are much more remote and geographically isolated than in the US, and our need to reaffirm identity and cultural sovereignty through the production and effective distribution of Canadian content is different. The US is a production powerhouse. US populations are awash in US-produced content on every platform already. 45) Therefore, it is appropriate to develop a band plan appropriate to our needs, not simply to adopt the US 600 MHz band plan framework. While there may be some loss of efficiency if we develop a different approach, the onus should be on Industry Canada to demonstrate that the loss in efficiency would have an 20

21 overwhelmingly negative impact that would outweigh different bandwidth needs and use patterns that might better support access by all Canadians (including those in rural areas) and the distribution of Canadian cultural content. As an example, suppose that the US spectrum auction frees the maximum of 120 MHz for wireless use, but we as Canadians decide that we really only need an additional 20 MHz because of our smaller populations, yet if we don't align our own usage exactly with the US', we may lose 20 MHz due to a lack of efficiency in the border zones. Well, if we only need 20, and there's 120 available, maybe it doesn't matter if we lose 20. CACTUS doesn't pretend to understand the technical detail of cross-border co-ordination; however, as a general approach, we believe that Canada's geographic and socio-economic structures should drive our bandwidth use, not only what is most expedient or technically efficient vis-a-vis US usage in the border zones. We are a sovereign nation. We should take the time to figure out what we need first. Question 5: Industry Canada is seeking comments on the proposed transition policy for the regular power TV stations. 46) The main comment we would make with respect to question 5 is our surprise that nowhere in Industry Canada's public notice is multiplexing mentioned. While we are reassured to see that IC expects that channel allotments will be found for all existing primary and secondary services, and discusses the fact that they will have to be packed more efficiently than at present, the term 'multiplexing' is not used. 47) It's vital that there be vacant allotments available for new broadcasting services to launch in the future, including in tight markets. For example, no large cities in Canada currently enjoy the services of an over-the-air community broadcaster, and we are working with groups in several large markets to remedy this lack. 48) We therefore oppose Industry Canada's announcement of a moratorium on new overthe-air broadcasting services until the 600 MHz auction and reallotment plan is complete. This could be years, during which no growth and innovation can happen in over-the-air broadcasting, due to a timeline outside our control as a nation (if we tie our band plan to that of the US). This is appalling, given the recent digital transition, and the fact that Canada is poised on the doorstep of what should be a Renaissance for over-the-air TV: It's cheaper than ever to launch a digital channel, and there should be more bandwidth than ever, due to the ability to multiplex. The US itself is benefitting from an explosion in the availability of over-the-air channels thanks to multiplexing, as are other nations. 21

22 Multiplexing should be purposefully deployed, as described in paragraph )We note that it appears to have been a policy choice in Canada to favour the technological upgrade to HD (a highly inefficient use of spectrum) over increased diversity of OTA choices for Canadians. In other countries, including the US, multiplexing is being encouraged to offer as many as a dozen SD channels in the space of one legacy analog signal. Since this is a policy choice and not a technological necessity or limitation, we encourage Industry Canada to work with the CRTC to make sure that new entrants (especially community TV broadcasters, which are underrepresented in almost all Canadian markets), can find spectrum. 50) We see no reason to block new licencees from launching during the transition period, provided they understand the risk that they are likely to be reassigned. We note that Industry Canada assures broadcasters in the public notice that every effort would be made to reassign them only within their current band, to mitigate costs of reassignment. 51) Furthermore, broadcasters that must move channel should be compensated for their costs from the spectrum auction. These costs are a drop in the bucket for the incoming commercial wireless and mobile service providers who will benefit from this bandwidth. It is not fair that broadcasters should bear the brunt of these costs, especially as they underwent the digital transition only four years ago. The 700 MHz auction was timed to coincide with the digital transition, and broadcasters largely accepted those costs because they benefitted from superior signal quality (except for public broadcasters, whose free-to-air service offerings shrank). The same is not true today. There is no benefit to broadcasters of this second auction. 52) The fact that most private broadcasters are owned by the same entities that will benefit from the auction underscores the importance of financial compensation for private independent broadcasters, public broadcasters, and community broadcasters that will be moved channel assignment. 22

23 Questions 6 and 7: Industry Canada is seeking comments on the proposed transition policy for LPTV undertakings in the spectrum to be repurposed to mobile use, and for LPTV channels below the 600 MHz band. 53) We reiterate in this section the comments we made regarding primary services: While we are reassured to see that Industry Canada expects to be able to find an allotment for all currently broadcasting 'secondary services', we nonetheless find it odd that there is no mention of multiplexing and the practice of radiocommunication distribution undertakings (RDUs) such as our members using over-the-air frequencies to serve their communities with a low-cost (or free) 'skinny basic' package. Will space be found for the rebroadcast services of the RDUs also? We trust so, as these services are critical to the residents of many remote areas. Many rural Canadians cannot afford satellite service, would prefer to exercise control of the channel line-up themselves, and wish to insert local content by means of an over-the-air community channel. This is what many of our members do. They are prepared to multiplex these services, but need financial assistance to upgrade to digital. As with primary services, we expect that 'secondary services' (including our members) would be compensated if they are forced to vacant frequencies to make way for incoming commercial wireless services. The Importance of Community Broadcasters: 'Low Power' Should Not Imply 'Secondary' 54) As some of our members have noted in their individual submissions to this consultation, the mere fact of having a low-power transmitter should not relegate community TV channels to 'secondary' status, or imply that it is not of equal importance to maintain space for community broadcasters and for services they rebroadcast in the new allotment plan. 55) The community element in the Broadcasting system has a special place under the Broadcasting Act because it enables citizens to participate directly to express their views on issues of public concern. It's the only element in the broadcasting system in which ordinary citizens realize the guarantee of freedom of speech under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it's often the only source of original local programming in towns and communities across Canada, in a broadcasting system that is increasingly strapped to fund local content. 23

24 56) Since the notice deals with high- and low-power broadcasting services in separate sections, and appears to apply different criteria to these sectors, we wish to take issue with the assignment of primary and secondary labels with regard to community broadcasting. These labels appear to have evolved from a commercial assumption that a higher power transmitter reflects a greater financial investment in a service, or that the service will reach more people. Therefore, it should have priority and be able to 'bump' lower power services in the same area. We would argue: A low-power community channel that produces close to 100% unique Canadian content should have priority over a high-power retransmitter of a remote commercial channel that may air mostly network repeats of US programming, and no original or local content. We note that the Broadcasting Act places high value on Canadian and local content, and that the CRTC's recently completed Let's Talk TV process reaffirmed this priority. The broadcast footprint of a channel is no longer an indicator of the size of the audience served, nor how many Canadians would lose the service if that transmitter were turned off, due to the redistribution of OTA services on the services of multiple BDUs far beyond the broadcasting footprint. Furthermore, the identity of those Canadians matter... There are already so few sources of local content in the remote and rural areas that channels such as members serve that it would produce undue hardship to deprive residents of these areas if our members' services were not available. We note that the remote areas in which many of our members operate are the same rural areas where free-to-air broadcasts of the CBC, APTN, and TVO have recently been discontinued, and where highspeed Internet is still often unavailable. Over-the-air community channels often provide a vital lifeline to information about emergencies in real time, protecting life and property for local residents. They are an integral part of the EMO plan in many regions. While a high-power transmitter may cost more in $ terms, if it is a repeater owned by a large vertically integrated BDU, that investment is a drop in the bucket and may be withdrawn at any time as a business decision. A low-power transmitter and community service, on the other hand, represents a one-time capital investment by the community in its own future. It's there 'for the long haul'. To shut down that service or ask it to move to another frequency allotment has the potential to cripple the service. It has always been the case that 24

25 secondary services are expected to finance their own 'move' should their frequency be demanded by a higher power service, but this is counter-intuitive. Entities planning to enter an area to offer a high-power service almost by definition have deeper pockets than incumbent community broadcasters. 57) For these reasons, the label secondary service is not appropriate for community low-power broadcasters. They are low power because that's all they needed at the time they applied for a licence, not because they are of secondary importance. We note that while there is an upper maximum for what constitutes a 'low power' or secondary service, there is no minimum for what constitutes a primary service. Community broadcasters should be considered to be primary services, particularly for the purposes of this consultation on the future of over-the-air frequency use. 58) While the Notice of Consultation appears to reassure both 'primary' and 'secondary' over-the-air broadcasting services that a new allotment will be found for most if not all of them, we wanted to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of community services. As 'low power' services, community broadcasters should not be accorded less consideration than other services that happen to be 'high power' due to the historical accident of the service area they were able to reach free to air. 59) We appreciate that Industry Canada indicates that LPTV stations that are still operating in analog in non-mandatory markets may be able to continue to do so. We note that most of our own members serve remote rural areas where there may be no impact from a 600 MHz spectrum auction. A forced migration to digital would create hardship for most of them. 25