|
|
|
Ottawa, 30 June 1993
|
|
Public Notice CRTC 1993-100
|
|
Riverport Satellite T.V. Limited
|
|
LaHave, Riverport and surrounding areas, Nova Scotia
|
|
Call to Public Hearing
|
In CRTC-Notice of Public Hearing 1992-17-1 dated 18 December 1992, the Commission called Riverport Satellite T.V. Limited (RSTV) to appear at a public hearing in Moncton beginning on 17 February 1993, to discuss the licensee's failure to respond to complaints from subscribers, as well as to correspondence from the Commission and the Department of Communications (DOC). The Commission also indicated that it wished to discuss the licensee's apparent failure to provide service to a significant portion of its authorized service area.
|
|
RSTV is licensed to provide a low-power, over-the-air subscription television (STV) service to LaHave, Riverport and surrounding areas. Currently, RSTV's system serves approximately 200 to 235 subscribers.
|
This system was originally licensed in Decision CRTC 86-152 dated 3 March 1986 and commenced operation on 24 July 1987. In Decision 90-917 dated 19 September 1990, the Commission renewed RSTV's licence until 31 August 1995.
|
|
Subscriber Complaints
|
|
Over the course of the current licence term, the Commission has received complaints from subscribers regarding RSTV's poor customer service and business practices. A number of subscribers alleged that the licensee does not respond to their telephone calls or to their letters, and that the part-time service-person is often unavailable. Other subscribers submitted complaints to the Commission regarding the licensee's policy of requiring a refundable deposit from new customers. Not only did RSTV fail to respond to these subscribers, it failed to reply to repeated inquiries from the Commission asking the licensee to resolve these complaints.
|
|
At the hearing, RSTV advised the Commission that it was considering hiring another service-person, either on a full-time, or part-time basis, to ensure more timely service to customers. RSTV stated that it would make a decision on this issue by no later than 31 March 1993.
|
|
Subsequently, in a letter dated 31 March 1993, RSTV indicated that none of the applicants who had responded to its advertisement for a part-time installer and trouble-shooter had the necessary technical skills. RSTV added that it was, therefore, planning a training program in conjunction with Employment and Immigration Canada, to prepare a potential candidate for the specific requirements of the position. To date, RSTV has not notified the Commission that it has hired an additional service person.
|
|
RSTV agreed to provide documents to the Commission, within one month of the end of the hearing, reflecting a resolution of all outstanding subscriber complaints, including the issue of the refundable deposit.
|
|
On 5 May 1993, the Commission received correspondence from RSTV regarding the various outstanding complaints. The Commission notes, however, that this correspondence did not disclose whether or not the complainants had received a copy of the licensee's reply. Moreover, the Commission does not consider that the correspondence forwarded by RSTV does, in fact, respond to the complaints. For example, in dealing with the refundable deposit in the case of one complainant, RSTV wrote:
|
|
This letter is with reference to a $50.00 security deposit refund, and this matter has been previously dealt with, and as stated previously, the security deposit issue was cumbersome in our day to day functioning and this policy was eliminated in June of 1991.
|
|
Such an answer does not, in the Commission's view, meet the commitment made by RSTV at the hearing to provide the Commission with documents confirming that an outstanding complaint has been resolved. The answer does not confirm that the customer has, in fact, received a refund of the deposit. As an example, the Commission would consider an acknowledgement of receipt of the refund signed by the customer to be satisfactory confirmation of resolution of the issue.
|
|
RSTV advised the Commission at the hearing that it had already eliminated the requirement that new customers provide a deposit. RSTV also made a commitment to refund deposits to all customers who requested such a refund. The Commission notes, however, that this commitment does not address the issue of refunding the deposits of all subscribers, not just of those who have so requested. Accordingly, the Commission expects RSTV to address the issue of refunding deposits to all subscribers from whom such deposits have been collected.
DOC's Report
|
|
Another area of concern discussed at the hearing was RSTV's failure to respond to correspondence from both the Commission and the DOC regarding an inspection report of the system conducted by the DOC at the Commission's request.
|
|
During the current licence term, the Commission received complaints from subscribers regarding the poor technical quality of service and the unavailability of service within certain parts of the STV system's offical Grade B contour. For this reason, the Commission asked the DOC to conduct a field investigation and analysis of the system in order to estimate its actual coverage area. The DOC's report, dated April 1992, indicated that the system's current transmitting antenna configurationdoes not conform to that specified in RSTV's technical brief of 14 September 1985, that was approved by the DOC. In addition, the DOC's report revealed that RSTV's system "does not provide Grade B coverage to a significant portion of the area identified as the official Grade B contour".
|
|
In a letter dated 28 May 1992, the DOC forwarded a copy of this report to RSTV and asked the licensee to correct the situation, either by returning the system to the operating parameters specified in the 1985 technical brief, or by applying to have the service area revised to reflect the system's actual operational parameters. The Commission has been informed that RSTV did not respond to the DOC's letter, nor did it respond to correspondence from the Commission requesting the licensee to comment on the DOC's report.
|
|
At the 1993 hearing, RSTV stated that, following complaints from subscribers experiencing difficulty receiving the signal, it had rotated the antenna slightly to increase signal strength to certain areas of the system's official Grade B contour. According to RSTV, the reconfiguration noted in the DOC's report was caused by this slight rotation. RSTV also stated that it had hired a consulting engineer to conduct a field study and to identify and implement whatever changes might be necessary to the antenna to ensure that full Grade B coverage is maintained throughout the service area.
|
|
In a letter dated 16 April 1993, the consulting engineer advised the Commission, on behalf of RSTV, that his investigation of how to improve coverage to subscribers in certain outlying areas indicated that there appears to be no way to readjust the antenna system to conform to its originally approved parameters without adversely affecting other subscribers. The consulting engineer also suggested that these outlying areas would be best served by cable. The Commission considers that a determination of whether certain areas should be served by cable should be made only after steps have been taken to ensure that RSTV's coverage area corresponds with the system's approved operating parameters. Accordingly, the Commission expects RSTV to submit the necessary applications in order to reflect the current coverage contour.
|
|
Immediate Measures to Be Taken by RSTV
|
|
The Commission views with grave concern RSTV's continued failure to respond satisfactorily to the concerns of its subscribers, the DOC and the Commission.
|
|
In light of all of the foregoing, the Commission requires RSTV to submit, within three months of the date of this public notice:
|
|
- written confirmation that it has resolved all subscriber complaints relating to RSTV's business practices to the Commission's satisfaction;
|
|
- evidence that it has made the appropriate arrangements (such as hiring the necessary staff) to ensure that subscribers' concerns from a business practice and technical point of view are handled in an efficient manner; and
|
|
- written confirmation that it has made the requisite applications, referred to above, in order to deal with the technical problems identified in the DOC's report.
|
|
The Commission reminds RSTV that the Broadcasting Act (the Act) contains provisions authorizing the Commission to sanction licensees who are in non-compliance. One of these provisions empowers the Commission to issue orders requiring:
|
|
any person to do, forthwith or within or at any time and in any manner specified by the Commission, any act or thing that the person is or may be required to do pursuant to [the Act] or to any regulation, licence, decision or order made or issued by the Commission.
|
|
The Act states that such an order may be made an order of the Federal Court or of any Superior Court of a province and is enforceable in the same manner as an order of the court.
|
|
The Commission puts RSTV on notice that, if it does not fully rectify and address the specific problems and areas of concern set out in this public notice, the Commission intends to issue such a mandatory order and/or to call the licensee to a public hearing to show cause as to why its licence should be renewed at the time of the next licence renewal.
|
|
The Commission acknowledges the concerns regarding poor customer service, poor quality of service and the refundable deposit outlined in the interventions submitted regarding this item, including those presented at the hearing by Messrs. Diamond and Irwin.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|