BDUs appeal new distant signal tariffs

The country’s largest TV service providers are appealing an increase in the over-the-air distant signal retransmission tariff imposed by the Copyright Board in December, in part because they argue the decision doesn’t take into consideration the new realities of modern viewing. The board released in early August the reasons for its winter decision, which increased the monthly rate per subscriber by three cents for the rebroadcasting of out-of-market channels for the years 2014 to 2018 -- applied on a retroactive basis. Because the delta between the decision and the reasons for it was beyond the time allowed to file an appeal in the Federal Court, the providers filed a notice of appeal in the court shortly after the decision to reserve their right to challenge the decision after reasons were released. Earlier this month BCE Inc., Cogeco Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Telus Corp., and Quebecor Inc. (BDUs) filed their appeal to the decision in court, arguing the Copyright Board erred in coming to its determination. The argument to set aside the decision hinges on three points that the BDUs argue the board didn’t factor into the new rates: it didn’t account for simultaneous substitution, how frequently people view distant signal programming, and the different ways distant programming is received. The board used the amount that BDUs pay for specialty services to determine what it should pay for distant signals. On simultaneous substitution, the CRTC requires that if a cable, satellite or IPTV BDU is showing the same program at the same time on a local and distant signal, it is required — at the request of the local broadcaster — to substitute the distant signal with the local signal, so that the same program on two different channels will both show the local signal. That, the BDUs argue, should’ve factored into the board’s rate decision, which theoretically would have lowered the rate because there’s less distant signal. Simultaneous substitution is not required for specialty services, the BDUs say, which creates a further discrepancy that isn’t rectified in the decision. The BDUs also argue that in relative terms, distant signal programming isn’t viewed as much as specialty service programming. The board recognized that that may require a change in the tariff, but did not move on it because of issues it had with the evidence presented. Finally, the BDUs claim that advances in technology have diminished the value of distant signals, including those that are rebroadcast for different time zones, because of the common use of personal video recorders (PVRs) and video on demand. Fewer viewers tune into those programs, including those distant signals that are rebroadcast for different time zones, they said. “Most households do not watch any of the programming on the majority of distant signals available to them,” the BDUs argued, asking for a decrease of two cents per year for 2015 to 2018. Those arguments were presented to the Copyright Board, as noted in the latter’s August reasons. They called for declining rates, while the collectives were asking for an increasing slope. The arguments echo similar ones made in 2015, when the TV service providers made a pitch to the Copyright Board based on the same rates in question in asking for a reduction in the distant signal tariff. Other technologies that have been argued by the BDUs to make the distant signals worth less include TV-everywhere services and over-the-top streaming options like Netflix Inc. — With reporting by Ahmad Hathout at ahathout@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

BDUs appeal new distant signal tariffs

Broadcast | November 12, 2019

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

BDUs appeal new distant signal tariffs

Broadcast | November 12, 2019

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Telecom industry players look to Senate for greater copper theft prevention

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us