Videotron ‘author’ of own misfortune: consumer advocates

Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron made its bed and now it has to lie in it, according to consumer and digital rights advocates who opposed the company’s request for a delay in complying with the CRTC’s decision rendering its Unlimited Music service was offside. The Equitable Internet Coalition — consisting of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Council of Senior Citizen’s Organizations of BC, and the National Pensioners Federation — and OpenMedia both filed interventions by the June 1 deadline against Videotron’s Part 1 application asking to grandfather contracts of customers already subscribed to the zero-rated music-streaming service or get an extended deadline to wrap up the program, as well as a stay of the CRTC’s April 20 decision until the review-and-vary is dealt with. “Even if one accepts the argument that Videotron could not know its offer was contrary to subs. 27(2) until the decision, it is undeniably the author of its own misfortune,” the coalition said in its submission. It added that the company not only continued to offer the product during the period it was questioned, but signed up new customers “during the 19 months the Commission took to finally decide” on the related applications and differential pricing practices overall. In its intervention, OpenMedia said “Videotron’s current situation was completely foreseeable,” from a variety of starting points, including the initial Part 1 applications and the CRTC’s decision on BCE Inc.’s and Videotron’s mobile TV services. “It is not the Commission’s responsibility to protect a provider from the consequences of its own business decision to forge ahead in the face of clear regulatory risk, and then not be prepared for that risk backfiring.” Videotron has said that some of those consequences include financial implications from customers prematurely cancelling their wireless contracts due to the company making a unilateral change to the terms by removing the Unlimited Music service without the required notice. “Whether Videotron under contract owes customers anything for this service which is now considered void is a matter of civil liability for Videotron but is of no concern to the Commission and is not an appropriate factor to consider in the test for review and vary,” the coalition said, also noting that the CRTC “is under no further requirement to make the implementation of its order ‘fair’ to Videotron customers or Videotron.” The company’s "claims contradict emphasis on the simplicity of Unlimited Music’s mechanism on Videotron’s end and the extent to which Videotron emphasized it was solely a ‘billing arrangement’, throughout the original Unlimited Music proceeding and the proceeding leading to the” differential pricing practices decision, OpenMedia said. “There is also little evidence that mass subscriber cancellation of services has any real likelihood of occurring, especially given the costs of switching, for consumers, and a low-competition mobile wireless market.” Videotron found some support from Telus Corp., the only telecom to intervene in the application, which suggested CRTC give Videotron an extended six-month deadline from the date it issues a decision on the review-and-vary request. “This was not a situation where Videotron was disregarding a known Commission order or regulation at the time it was offering Unlimited Music,” Telus said, adding that the company was “providing a service in good faith.” It didn’t appear to Telus that on its face, the CRTC considered notification requirements as set out in the Wireless Code in its decision. “No mention of the Wireless Code requirements was made. For the Commission to fail to take into account these requirements is an error of fact, which gives rise to a basis to review and vary” the decision, the intervention said. Telus also noted that Ontario and Quebec both have provincial consumer protection legislation “that purportedly regulate the provision of mobile wireless services,” which have their own “requirements and restrictions on unilateral amendment by wireless service providers of existing contracts.” The Wireless Code hasn’t been declared “to be the sole, governing national standard for the provision of wireless services in Canada,” Telus said, which was highlighted as a potential fix to the code during the CRTC’s review. — With reporting by Charelle Evelyn at cevelyn@thewirereport.ca and editing by Ahmad Hathout at ahathout@thewirereport.ca

Videotron ‘author’ of own misfortune: consumer advocates

Broadcast | June 5, 2017

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Videotron ‘author’ of own misfortune: consumer advocates

Broadcast | June 5, 2017

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Rogers asks CRTC to reverse MVNO expansion decision

CRTC will not change temporary wholesale decision; final decision still on the table

CRTC denies Telus’ request for extension on fibre access deadline

UPDATED: Independent Broadcast Group backs Corus in dispute with Rogers over channel placement

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us