CAB questions aspects of proposed mobile broadcasting exemption order

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters is telling the CRTC that it should only exempt unicast mobile TV services – those offered over the cellular networks of Bell Mobility, Rogers Wireless and Telus Mobility – under its proposed exemption order for mobile television broadcasting undertakings. The broadcasters’ association is concerned that new and emerging broadcast-based mobile television technologies – similar to Qualcomm Inc.’s MediaFLO network, the digital video broadcast-handheld (DVB-H) technology being deployed by Crown Castle in New York and Pittsburgh, or the digital multimedia broadcasting (DMB) in use in South Korea – could "readily serve as substitutes" to existing terrestrial broadcasting services. Look Communications Inc. is Canada’s only provider that falls into this category of broadcasting undertaking at present, according to the CAB. While the Milton ON-based wireless cableco offers terrestrial TV and high-speed Internet in a number of markets in Ontario and Quebec, the company has been eyeing a move into the mobile TV arena for some time and recently introduced the service in Milton (RoW, May 4/06). The CAB singled out Look, which recently applauded the CRTC’s ruling that mobile TV services fall under the auspices of the 1999 New Media Exemption Order. Look believes its mobile TV offering should be exempt, but the CAB has a different opinion. The association suggested that it would be unfair competition if Look’s services were exempted from obligations set out in the Broadcasting Act. In an interview with Report on Wireless earlier this year, Look vice-chair and CEO Gerald McGoey said, "We believe our broadcast licence allows us to broadcast and whether it’s received on a fixed device or mobile device is irrelevant to us. That was actually reaffirmed or reconfirmed" in Broadcasting Public Notice 2006-47. The CAB suggests that this type of mobile broadcasting could in fact compete directly with traditional broadcasting services. "A mobile receiver based on such technology can effectively act as a set-top box, feeding good quality digital television signals to stationary, in-home receivers. The potential for negative impact on the obligations for existing licensees is clearly present," writes the CAB in its June 9 response to the CRTC’s call for comments (Broadcasting Public Notice 2006-48). The broadcasters association says it is too early to determine the appropriate regulatory framework for this type of mobile broadcasting service because of the nascent nature of the services and the yet-to-be determined impact on existing broadcasting service. "The CAB therefore urges the commission to defer any decision on a broad exemption order that would cover the new broadcast-based mobile services until more is known about their introduction and potential impact," reads the association’s submission. The CAB also goes on to say that there isn’t anything preventing DVB-H or MediaFLO operators from becoming substitutes to traditional broadcasters. The association notes that in the case of wireless telephony-based mobile TV services, it is likely that they won’t become substitutes, but the same can’t be said for broadcast-based mobile TV. "Because these technologies are so close to broadcasting technologies and because technical innovation continues, there is no technical distinction that can ensure that mobile services based on DVB-H, DMB or MediaFLO do not become substitutes for over-the-air broadcasting," reads the CAB’s submission. Even McGoey notes the quality of the programming is the same as that delivered to the home, but now viewers can watch programs while traveling in a vehicle at 130 km/hr. He also noted that under CRTC regulations, the company can deliver the same programming to both mobile devices and household TV sets. The association also suggests that the CRTC needs to take into account the current frameworks for digital television and digital radio before rushing to a decision on a new mobile television broadcasting undertaking exemption. "The CAB notes that the current ATSC standard adopted for the DTV rollout cannot be effectively received by mobile receivers. The rollout of DTV over-the-air services is expensive and problematic in terms of consumer acceptance. It is unknown what impact a DVB-H rollout would have on DTV; this is a matter that should also be considered in detail before any general exemption for mobile is determined," writes the CAB. The broadcasters lobby group notes that if there is going to be a general trend towards exemption orders, then the commission needs to develop a vision and plan with this goal in mind. This would involve discussions with the large number of industry players, but until such talks have taken place and a new direction set, greater deregulation of the industry would be inappropriate, adds the CAB. "After all, if the exemption is to be employed for mobile television services using broadcast-based technologies, it must be at least considered for mobile radio services and digital over-the-air television generally," read the association’s comments. "There are so few differences among these technologies that any justification applying to mobile television is likely to apply more generally."

CAB questions aspects of proposed mobile broadcasting exemption order

News | June 29, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CAB questions aspects of proposed mobile broadcasting exemption order

News | June 29, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Popular Wire Report stories of 2025

Ericsson seeks to overturn certification of Steelworkers union to represent workers

CRTC rules against Iristel in Northwestel dispute

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us