|
The CRTC has denied a request
to add National Geographic Wild to the lists of eligible satellite
services for distribution on a digital basis. The Commission received a
request dated 16 April 2010 from Shaw Communications Inc. to add National
Geographic Wild, a non-Canadian English-language satellite service, to the
lists of eligible satellite services for distribution on a digital basis.
Shaw described NatGeo Wild as a 24-hour English-language programming
service dedicated to showing wildlife and nature programming, including a
variety of documentaries, series, events and specials.
In Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2010-663, the Commission called for
comments on the proposed addition of NatGeo Wild to the digital lists. The
Commission received comments from High Fidelity HDTV Inc. and CTV Inc.,
both of which were in opposition. The public record for this proceeding
can be found on the Commission's website at www.ctrc.gc.ca under "Public
Proceedings."
CTV and High Fidelity submitted that NatGeo Wild would be at least
partially competitive with their respective Category B specialty services
Animal Planet and Oasis HD. Specifically, CTV and High Fidelity
highlighted several documentary series on NatGeo Wild that are similar if
not identical to series featured on their respective services. In
particular, High Fidelity provided a list of eight programs aired by
NatGeo Wild that were nearly identical to programs broadcast by Oasis HD,
including documentary series exploring the interactions of people with a
gang of monkeys in Jaipur, India and the interactions of wild animals on
the Serengeti plains in Africa, as well as specific programs dealing with
canine intelligence, bears, gorillas, grizzly bears, sharks and lions.
High Fidelity further argued that given the similarity of programming
between its service and NatGeo Wild, NatGeo Wild would appeal to and
compete directly with Oasis HD's target audience, resulting in greater
audience fragmentation and ultimately affecting Oasis HD's ability to grow
and to increase its contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system.
High Fidelity further noted that it is required by condition of licence to
air at least 35% Canadian content, while the proposed service could
operate in Canada without making any such contribution to the Canadian
broadcasting system. Finally, High Fidelity submitted that if Shaw really
believed that the wildlife genre was broad enough to support new
attractive nature and wildlife services, it should simply launch its own
Category 2 specialty service under terms and conditions similar to those
that apply to Oasis HD.
In reply, Shaw argued that despite the shared interest in wildlife and
nature, NatGeo Wild is different than and not competitive with Animal
Planet or Oasis HD. Specifically, Shaw submitted that what differentiates
NatGeo Wild from the two Canadian services is its association with the
National Geographic Society, a scientific organization that is unique in
the way it uses scientists, experts and explorers to further its mission
to inspire people to care about the planet.
Shaw also submitted that the Commission should avoid an overly broad
application of its foreign content access policy. It argued that the
policy is meant to ensure that Canadians have legitimate access to
non-Canadian services where they do not compete with Canadian services,
not to obviate audience fragmentation altogether or exclude unique
services for which there is audience demand. Shaw submitted that unless
the Commission allows broadcasting distribution undertakings to offer the
fullest range of services in attractive packages, the Canadian
broadcasting system will decline in the face of competition from
unregulated and illegal sources.
The Commission set out its general approach to the addition of
non-Canadian English- and French-language services to the digital lists in
Public Notice 2000-173. Under this approach, the Commission assesses such
requests in the context of its general policy, which, among other things,
precludes the addition of a non-Canadian satellite service that can be
considered either totally or partially competitive with Canadian specialty
or pay television services.
The Commission uses a case-by-case approach to determine whether a
non-Canadian service proposed for addition to the digital lists would be
competitive with an authorized Canadian service. Factors considered by the
Commission in its assessment of the competitiveness of a non-Canadian
service include the nature of the service, the language of operation, the
genres of programming provided and the target audience. The Commission
also considers the extent to which a proposed non-Canadian service may be
a program supplier for an authorized Canadian service.
The Commission assesses the factors noted above to determine the amount of
overlap between the sponsored non-Canadian service and the relevant
Canadian services and thus the extent to which the non-Canadian service
might compete with the Canadian services. In general, the more significant
the overlap, the more likely it is that the non-Canadian service will be
found to be competitive with the Canadian services.
Based on its analysis of the nature of the service, the language of
operation, the genres of programming provided and the target audience, the
Commission finds that NatGeo Wild offers programming that is similar to
and would overlap substantially with that provided by Oasis HD and Animal
Planet. Shaw did not, in this case, provide sufficient evidence to
persuade the Commission that NatGeo Wild is unique or different from what
is already available to Canadians through the above-noted services.
In light of the above, the Commission denies Shaw's request to add
National Geographic Wild to the digital lists. As noted by High Fidelity,
if Shaw considers that there is room in the Canadian market for another
television programming service dedicated to this genre, it may apply to
the Commission for a licence to operate a new Canadian Category 2
specialty service. The Commission would assess any such application based
on its merits.
Source: Broadcaster, 02/15/2011 |