Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

ARCHIVED -  Decision CRTC 92-249

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Decision

Ottawa, 29 April 1992
Decision CRTC 92-249
Radio One Ltd.
Fredericton, New Maryland and Oromocto, New Brunswick - 911509800 - 911510600
Following a Public Hearing in Halifax beginning on 3 December 1991, the Commission approves the applications by Radio One Ltd. (ROL) to amend the broadcasting licence for the programming undertaking CIHI Fredericton (the originating station), by authorizing the licensee to add low-power FM rebroadcasting transmitters at New Maryland and Oromocto. The New Maryland transmitter will operate on the frequency 95.1 MHz (channel 236) with an effective radiated power of 50 watts; the Oromocto transmitter will operate on the frequency 103.5 MHz (channel 278) with an effective radiated power of 50 watts.
The Commission notes the more than 285 interventions submitted in support of ROL's application to establish the proposed FM repeaters at New Maryland and Oromocto. In addition, the Commission aknowledges the opposing interventions submitted by Radio Atlantic (CFNB) Ltd. (CFNB), licensee of CFNB Fredericton, and the National Campus and Community Radio Association (NCCRA).
CFNB claimed that ROL is seeking a "competitive advantage" by improving and extending CIHI's coverage. The intervener also argued that CIHI's audience loss is not significantly different from that experienced by all other AM adult contemporary radio stations in the Maritimes. The NCCRA suggested that an approval would result in potential duplication of service to some areas and would create a precedent.
In its applications, ROL stated that, because of the severe limitation of CIHI's night-time coverage, between 65% and 70% of the potential listeners reached by the station's 0.5 mV/m daytime contour are not reached at night. ROL also indicated that, while CIHI has a strong position in its central market, its listenership in the station's non-central market has declined. According to ROL, its inability to deliver a consistent 24-hour service undermines CIHI's ability to compete, particularly in view of the small market in which it operates and of the audience fragmentation in that market resulting from the introduction of many other radio services since CIHI first began operation.
ROL also outlined several technical options it had previously considered as possible solutions to remedy CIHI's poor night-time coverage. However, ROL eventually concluded that the solution proposed in these applications is the most cost-effective and will enable the licensee to deliver CIHI's signal consistently on a 24-hour basis to the growing communities of New Maryland and Oromocto.
Having carefully considered the arguments presented by the applicant and the interveners, the Commission is satisfied that approval of these applications will help to alleviate CIHI's night-time coverage problems. It should also enable ROL to secure the station's current audience and revenue share without significant negative impact on other radio stations in the Fredericton market.
This approval is subject to the requirement that construction of the transmitting facilities be completed and that they be in operation within six months of the date of this decision or, where the licensee applies to the Commission and satisfies the Commission that it cannot complete implementation before the expiry of this period and that an extension is in the public interest, within such further periods of time as may be approved in writing by the Commission.
Should the Commission refuse to approve an extension of time requested by the licensee, the authority granted shall lapse and become null and void upon the termination of the last approved extension period.
The Department of Communications (DOC) has advised the Commission that these applications are conditionally technically acceptable, and that Broadcasting Certificates will only be issued once it has been determined that the technical parameters of the proposed transmitters will not create any unacceptable interference with aeronautical NAV/COM services.
In accordance with subsection 22(1) of the Broadcasting Act, the Commission will only issue the licence amendments, and the authority granted herein may only be implemented, at such time as written notification is received from the DOC that its technical requirements have been met, and that Broadcasting Certificates will be issued.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General