MONTREAL and OTTAWA – It took just five days. And that includes a weekend.
On Tuesday, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre filed a formal complaint with the CRTC against Vidéotron’s Unlimited Music plan, which exempts music streaming services from its mobile data caps.
Vidéotron announced Unlimited Music last Thursday, as we reported. It exempts music streaming services Stingray, Rdio, Google Play, Deezer and Spotify from Vidéotron Mobile’s data caps for people with Canada-wide plans with at least 2GB data, or an Internet and mobile package with at least 1 GB of mobile data. Videotron said no money is exchanging hands, deals with other streaming music providers are in the works, and anyone else is welcome to join in the program. (Except radio stations, for which no reason was given.)
PIAC argues this program is fundamentally similar to Bell Mobile TV and illico TV, which Bell and Vidéotron respectively exempted from their mobile data caps until the CRTC ordered them to stop in January. The Commission ruled that those services constituted undue preferences, which is against section 27 of the Telecommunications Act.
Vidéotron last week it argued that because Unlimited Music is open to all streaming music providers, there is no one to disadvantage.
The company said today the complaint is "without foundation." In a statement to Cartt.ca, it said "Videotron is not conferring an undue preference on itself or anyone else. Participation in the Unlimited Music service is open to all legal and authorized streaming service providers, and Videotron is not receiving any compensation from any provider. This popular, democratic service is already receiving a great response from consumers, and we are confident the CRTC will see it as a fine example of innovation and diversification is the competitive mobile marketplace."
PIAC says that’s just not true. It provides a list of disadvantaged parties, including music services that haven’t signed on, mobile wireless customers who might want to use them, subscribers whose plans don’t quality for Unlimited Music, and competing wireless providers who follow the rules.
The lack of financial compensation and the avowed openness to new agreements are “irrelevant”, it argues.
“Vidéotron’s billing practices for Unlimited Music go to the heart of the concerns the Commission expressed in (the Mobile TV decision) about cultivating the internet’s promise of innovation from the edges, available for all citizens,” PIAC wrote in its filing, a copy of which was provided to Cartt.ca.
If this program is allowed to stand, PIAC argues, it allows Internet providers “not just to pick winners and losers in terms of online content, therefore retrenching the absolute power of network owners, but it will allow network owners to shut out already marginalized citizens who struggle to be connected.”
Does PIAC have a case? It certainly seems similar to the situation the Mobile TV decision put an end to, but there are some differences. Bell and Vidéotron argued that their mobile TV offerings were broadcasting systems, not telecommunications ones. Videotron doesn’t appear to be making the same argument here. Also, Bell and Vidéotron were exempting their own TV services, while here Vidéotron is exempting any music service it can come to an agreement with. The Commission cited the fact that Bell and Vidéotron owned the content in mobile TV. Here, Vidéotron has no rights to the content.
But the CRTC found in its Mobile TV decision that data cap exemptions for certain services “may end up inhibiting the introduction and growth of other mobile TV services accessed over the Internet, which reduces innovation and consumer choice.”
That would seem to apply here as well for audio services. Assuming PIAC can prove that there is at least one service out there that is being disadvantaged, it will then be up to Vidéotron to prove that such disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable. If it can’t, then Unlimited Music will quickly see itself very limited.
