TNAG-2079-FCO40-2959-Hong-Kong-press-coverage-and-reports-1990 — Page 41

lalj

fact functionally identical and since, under HutchVision's proposal, TVRO systems would satisfy all of the licensing exemption criteria that characterise private SMATV systems, there would appear to be no need to draw a distinction between the two for regulatory purposes. No regulatory distinction is drawn between the two types of receiving sys- tem either in Canada or the US.

7.3 Private SMATV Exemption Criteria

In HutchVision's view, SMATV systems that satisfied the fol- lowing regulatory criteria should be deemed to be "Private" and should be exempt from further licensing or other regulatory requirements.

7.3.1 Individual Property Developments

Private SMATV systems should be located entirely on land owned by a single property owner or group of owners, for example condominiums or co-op developments. This cri- terion was included in the Government's proposed SMATV liberalisation policy originally conveyed to the cable television applicants last year, and is consistent with the rule in Canada as well as the United States.

7.3.2 No Crossing Public Streets or Highways

To further ensure that private SMATV systems are con- tained within individual property developments, they should not be permitted to cross public roads or highways. Precisely the same rule applies in Canada.

7.3.3 No Subscription Fees

There should be no subscription fee charged to the house- holders. In HutchVision's view, this is central to the distinction between private and commercial SMATV. In this regard HutchVision notes that the letter of July 18th 1989 referred to earlier, informing Hutchison Cablevision of the Government's policy, indicated that the Government was considering adding the condition that the licensing exemption for SMATV should only be allowed on condition that commercial fees are not levied.

It is envisaged that a private SMATV system would be owned and operated by the owner (or owners)

(or owners) of the prop- erty development on which it was located, and/or by their tenants, for the use and enjoyment of the residents in the development. It would thus be essential that a pri- vate SMATV system would not be operated for commercial gain.

However, following the Canadian model, it should be poss- ible for the system owner to contract with third parties for the provision of services in connection with establishing or operating the system, and to pass those third party costs through to the householders connected