PIAC asks CRTC to strike CPAC reply from the record
GATINEAU – Rogers Communications maintained in its reply to interventions received regarding its application to acquire Shaw Communications’ broadcast holdings, submitted to the CRTC yesterday, that approval of the application will provide a myriad of benefits to the Canadian broadcast sector and consumers.
“Clearly, the transaction will enhance competition, will benefit consumers, Canadian programming services and independent producers and will, therefore, further public interest and contribute in an appropriate manner to the achievements of the policy objectives outlined in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act,” Rogers’ reply reads.
According to the company, over 325 individuals, producers, businesses and others “expressed strong support for our application and recognized the benefits associated with the merger of Rogers and Shaw. They spoke passionately of their belief that this transaction presents an incredible opportunity to build upon the many achievements our two Canadian entrepreneur-led companies have realized to date.”
Rogers’ reply points to Bell and Telus as the only broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) opposed to its application.
The two companies “are attempting to undermine approval of this transaction in order to avoid competing in markets across Canada with a strengthened rival,” Rogers’ reply reads.
“They are well aware that a combined Rogers/Shaw will be a stronger competitor that will provide consumers across Canada with a broader range of broadcasting products and services, including the leading Ignite TV platform, that will challenge the IPTV-led subscriber growth both Bell and Telus have enjoyed for the past decade in the markets they serve throughout Canada.”
In its reply, Rogers identified and addressed several specific points raised in the interventions submitted to the CRTC, including competition within Canada’s BDU market, diversity of voices in the broadcast system and support for local news.
While submissions by organizations including those from Telus, Bell, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the National Pensioners Federation (NPF), express concern about the level of market dominance the deal would give Rogers, Rogers argues approval of its application will actually enhance competition.
It will do so “by ensuring that a combined Rogers/Shaw will have the resources necessary to accelerate investments in networks, new technologies and services, and by ensuring the combined company can effectively compete with Canadian BDUs, as well as foreign streaming services,” Rogers’s reply reads.
Rogers also argues its application will not affect the diversity of voices in the Canadian broadcasting system because it “will not result in a change in the number of BDUs serving any market in Canada, nor will it result in Rogers being the only terrestrial BDU serving any market.”
Another concern raised in interventions that Rogers addressed in its reply is the impact the deal would have on local news.
Rogers acknowledges interveners “argued that the transaction would have a negative impact on the diversity of voices in local news programming because [it] indicated to the Commission that the funding that Shaw currently provides to Corus will be redirected to Rogers’ Citytv stations in Western Canada and B.C.”
Rogers, however, says its “application raises no concerns regarding local news programming,” and indicates it has plans “to bolster the production of locally reflective and locally relevant news.”
The company argues the contributions it will be able “to divert from community programming to local news will not be lost to the system as a result of this transaction.” Rather, Rogers argues, the money will be used to enhance local news on its own over-the-air stations in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
“This additional funding will be instrumental in helping to build CityNews’ presence and coverage in these markets,” the reply reads. It will also “enhance diversity by ensuring that CityNews has the resources necessary to compete with Corus and Bell in these markets where it is currently ranked third.”
Rogers does not address Corus’ concern about the impact on specific markets served by its Global News but not by Rogers, but does address the concern some interveners had about the Independent Local News Fund (ILNF).
The concern is that if approved, the deal could lead to Corus being newly eligible for ILNF funding (it does not currently qualify as “independent” because the CRTC views it as being vertically integrated with Shaw).
This would mean a much larger pool of applicants for the fund on top of the fact that, according to Corus’s intervention, ILNF funding will not be able to substantially offset the funding from Shaw that will be diverted to CityNews if the application is approved.
Rogers does not believe this is relevant to its application, however, stating “any concerns that interveners have expressed regarding Corus’ news operations and its ability to subscribe to ILNF can only be addressed on an industry-wide basis.”
Furthermore, Rogers indicates if the ILNF needs to be updated to account for Corus’ new independent status “then that should be done in a policy proceeding that considers new measures that would apply to the BDU industry as a whole.”
In terms of possible safeguards or remedies proposed by interveners, Rogers argues they “are unnecessary, would undermine consumer choice and Rogers/Shaw’s ability to compete with BDUs and OTT services, and should, therefore, be rejected.”
On matters related to the telecommunications side of the proposed deal that were brought up by interveners, Rogers says it is “not relevant to this transaction and should not be considered in this hearing.”
Rogers filed the reply on behalf of itself and Shaw and indicated Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) will file a separate reply to interventions relevant to it.
Today, PIAC and NPF sent a letter to the CRTC asking for CPAC’s reply to be struck from the record because only applicants are allowed to submit a reply, according to the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure.
At the time this article was published, CPAC’s reply had not been posted on the CRTC’s website, however PIAC and NPF obtained a copy of the document, which was dated Sept. 23.
For Rogers’ full reply, please click here.
