GATINEAU – The CRTC shouldn’t bow to pressure from the vertically integrated (VI) entities and loosen any regulatory measures on their activities, according to comments from the non-VI broadcast distributors.
In comments to the licence renewals of the large English and French-language ownership groups (for which a public hearing is coming in November), the non-VI BDUs tell the Commission that in fact it needs to strengthen regulations ensuring the VI companies (Rogers, Bell and Quebecor) don’t exhibit any anti-consumer and anti-competitive behaviour.
Telus says the Commission has rules to ensure carriage contracts for TV channels are done on reasonable terms. However, “there is a missing link to this policy framework” and that is “all programming services owned by vertically integrated entities be offered to non-affiliated BDUs,” says the company.
This is particularly important considering the consolidation of category A, B, and C services and the removal of mandatory carriage for many channels, adds Telus.
The company notes that it’s concerned that the Wholesale TV Code, combined with the removal of carriage obligations for discretionary services could allow a VI company to decline to renew carriage agreements with competitors.
“The Commission should impose a condition of licence as part of this renewal process that requires all vertically integrated programming undertakings to make their services and content available to any BDU in accordance with the Wholesale Code. This should extend to all discretionary services, whether licensed or exempt, formerly a Category A, B or C service, and whether new or renewing,” argues Telus.
Telus and Bragg Communications (Eastlink) also question the appropriateness of Bell Canada’s request to remove some of its conditions of licence (COLs) – those put in place from the Astral acquisition – and rely solely on those established in the Wholesale Code. “Given that the COLs that Bell is seeking to delete were a condition of the Commission’s approval of its acquisition of Astral, Eastlink submits that they should not be deleted for as long as Bell retains ownership of those assets,” says its submission.
Telus adds that if Bell’s COL #8 were deleted, and thus leaving it to rely only on section 12 of the Wholesale Code, Bell could choose to not make multiplatform or video on demand rights available to competing BDUs simply by not developing this opportunity for its own broadcast distributor. This would “significantly hamper” the development of a single subscription for multiple devices model.
“To be clear, granting the request to delete this condition of licence would mean that distributors that want to innovate and provide value and convenience to their subscribers by making content available on demand and on-the-go through a single subscription could be prevented from making such an offer available,” argues Telus.
“Lack of choice is what the Commission would be facilitating if it were to approve Rogers’ proposal.” – SaskTel
The company says this type of situation is playing out now with respect to Rogers’ control of NHL hockey game distribution through NHL Centre Ice and NHL GameCentre Live. Rogers refuses to negotiate multiplatform rights for out of home viewing with BDUs for Centre Ice, says Telus.
Cogeco is also concerned that anti-competitive safeguards may be “diluted or circumvented” by VI companies as a result of this proceeding. It argues that COLs relating to the VI companies must continue to apply for the duration of their licence terms. When it comes to access rights, Cogeco says the Commission should take steps to ensure VI programming is made available to independent BDUs once access rights start to disappear on September 1, 2017. It suggests the following provision:
“Where a programming service provides a related BDU with its existing linear programming service, it shall offer reasonable renewal terms, based on fair market value, to other BDUs for continued distribution of the programming service on their distribution undertaking.”
Non-VI broadcast distributors also take aim at Rogers’ request for mandatory carriage of OMNI Regional (explained in our coverage here). Eastlink says Rogers’ application doesn’t meet the criteria required for mandatory carriage. For example, a service has to be of “exceptional importance” to the Canadian broadcasting system. It adds because there is an abundance of ethnic programming already available, OMNI isn’t of exceptional importance. Besides, the Commission has denied applications for mandatory carriage from ethnic channels in the past.
SaskTel wonders why the OMNI service needs mandatory distribution when Rogers itself acknowledges that there are a variety of pay and specialty ethnic programming services available to Canadians. “Rogers, with their correct assertion that there exist many options for Canadians to choose from to access ethnic programming, prove the point that OMNI is not unique, not rare, and certainly not exceptional,” says the company.
It adds requiring OMNI to be distributed by all BDUs would run counter to the Commission’s more-choice-is-better approach to local TV. “Lack of choice is what the Commission would be facilitating if it were to approve Rogers’ proposal. Lack of choice is what customers do not want,” says SaskTel.
Telus acknowledges that Rogers proposed the new OMNI prior to the release of the new local TV policy, but adds that its application should be rejected because, under the new local TV policy, Rogers has greater flexibility to fund its OMNI channels that way. For example, Rogers can now redirect money previously allocated to community TV in Toronto to its OTA OMNI stations.
Cartt.ca will have more on this proceeding following the release of the VI companies’ replies. They are due on August 25.
