GATINEAU – Consumer representatives say the CRTC’s proposed TV Service Provider (TVSP) Code of Conduct should mirror many aspects and be “as consistent with the Wireless Code as possible.” The broadcast distributors, on the other hand, say that while having a standard set of practices for all TV providers is a worthwhile initiative, using the wireless code as a template just won’t work.
The TV providers Code of Conduct idea is something that came out of the CRTC's Let's Talk TV, TV Policy Review.
In a joint submission, the National Pensioners Federation (NPF) and Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) argue that using the Wireless Code as the basis for a TVSP Code “would prevent any unnecessary consumer confusion about their rights, and ensure the greatest protections for all communications customers.”
For instance, the group says that BDUs shouldn’t be able to change terms and conditions of a contract. NPF-PIAC suggest a myriad of elements that should be included in the TVSP Code, including the prevention of unilateral channel lineup changes (unless the service is no longer offered) and price changes while the contract is still in force.
The group picks up on consumer frustration in this regard in their original May 25 comments.
While TV providers can increase rates and change the channel lineup even if a consumer signed a contract, the consumer is still bound by the early cancellation fees of the contract. Essentially, consumers are wondering why they have to be bound by the contract, yet their TV providers aren’t.
“NPF-PIAC believe these types of comments reflect reasonable consumer confusion with fixed-term contracts – that while customers are bound to the terms and costs of the service to which they agree to subscribe, their TV service providers are not bound by the same pricing and packaging responsibilities to which they had originally agreed,” says NPF-PIAC.
Broadcast distributors take issue with the consumers’ suggestion that channel packages shouldn’t change during a contract. They say there are a number of elements at play and in many cases the BDU doesn’t control the programming service. And since the elimination of the genre exclusivity rules, many channels are likely to change their nature of service and therefore may no longer fit in pre-assembled or theme-based packages.
“Unlike wireless services, in which the service provider is in complete control over the input costs and other aspects of the services provided to end-users, TVSPs are subject to ongoing changing circumstances and conditions given the permutations of distributing multiple independent channels, the vast majority of which are not in control of the BDU,” says Shaw Communications in its June 4 reply comments.
Similarly, Rogers Communications adds it only makes sense that a BDU be able to modify packages to provide customers with relevant programming.
The relationship between customer and provider in the TV business is very different from that which exists in the wireless industry.
“As long as BDUs disclose in their service agreements and terms of service that they may be required to modify the packages they offer to address such changes, subject to sufficient advance notice, this should be permitted regardless of whether the customer subscribes under a fixed-term or month-to-month service arrangement,” says the company.
When it comes to allowing customers to change the channel lineup of their TV service, NPF-PIAC prefer giving consumers the ability to change packages without any restrictions (this is Option A in the CRTC’s proposed code). BDUs agree but add that they should also have the right to offer individual discretionary channels or packages of channels that can’t be changed for a specific period of time (Option B).
Shaw notes that Option A would allow customers to “consume any channel on a daily ‘a la carte’ basis” and “would preclude TVSPs from managing their package offerings in conformity with their contractual obligations to content providers.”
According to Bell, the first option would change the linear television business into a video on demand (VOD) model for a fraction of the cost by enabling consumers to subscribe to channels on a per-day or per-program basis.
Overall, the BDUs are opposed to the wholesale transfer of the Wireless Code into a TVSP Code. They say it would result in an unworkable situation because the relationship between customer and provider in the TV business is very different from that which exists in the wireless industry. While the mobile market is governed by a set of principles that are similar for other wireless carriers, this simply isn’t the case in the TV distribution business, says Shaw.
“There is far less homogeneity and uniformity with respect to the scope of issues arising in the customer-TVSP relationship, relative to the provision of wireless services. The imposition of fixed, prescriptive provisions by way of a Code in the TVSP-customer setting would be problematical,” writes the company.
Telus adds in its June 4 reply comments that importing lock, stock and barrel the Wireless Code of Conduct for the TV business fails to recognize key distinctions between the two industries.
“One example of an ill-conceived attempt to transpose the Wireless Code to the TVSP Code is PIAC’s proposal regarding equipment rental and a mandatory ‘rent to-own’ option relating to TVSP equipment,” said Telus noting that there is no such thing as a rent to own option in the wireless business.
