CRTC proceeds with Bell complaint against Videotron despite “abusive timing” of application

The CRTC has opened a Part 1 proceeding after BCE Inc. filed an undue preference complaint against Quebecor Inc., despite concerns from Videotron that the complaint is a tactic by Bell to extend a standstill order for the continued provision of its French-language services. “Commission staff acknowledges that this extends the application of the standstill rule, despite its best effort to expedite the process, but due process dictates the next steps. That said, Videotron has raised valid arguments about the possibly abusive timing of Bell’s application,” the CRTC wrote in a Sept. 2 letter to both parties. In the Aug. 11 application, Bell alleged that Videotron is providing itself with an undue preference because the latter decided to remove Bell’s French-language discretionary services, Vrak and Z, by the end July. Bell argued to the commission that it would lose a hefty amount from its subscribers base, although the exact estimates were filed in confidence with the CRTC. “For both services, this is a large and unprecedented change in their distribution,” Bell wrote to the commission. “In our view… Videotron, by indicating its intention to cease the distribution of the services, would be conferring an undue preference on its related programming undertaking, TVA Groupe Inc. (TVA) and subjecting Bell Media to an undue disadvantage.” Bell argued that Videotron’s reasoning for dropping the services – low viewership – was flawed because Bell found that there are nine services “with worse viewership” than Z and two “with worse viewership” than Vrak, several of which are licensed or belonging to TVA. “Videotron has not indicated that it will drop any of its own services, nor can they remove any independent French-language programming services without violating the linkage rules found in ,” Bell argued. “Moreover, because the services are only distributed by Videotron on an à la carte basis or in custom packs, dropping the services not only does not save consumers money, it also diminishes consumer choice.” Videotron informed Bell in May that it was planning on dropping its French-language services in the coming weeks. On June 1 Bell filed notice of the dispute with the CRTC and invoked the standstill rule, which requires that a licensee continue distributing programming services at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as it did before a dispute, until the dispute is resolved. The CRTC confirmed the standstill rule applied in this dispute on June 13 and requested both parties provide the commission with more information within that week. According to Bell’s August Part 1 application, the company was asked to provide reasons to justify the commission's involvement in the dispute including any potential adverse impact that lifting the standstill order may have on the services or objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and whether fair commercial negotiations have taken place. “We are presently awaiting the commission's decision on Videotron's request to lift the standstill,” Bell noted to the commission in its Part 1. Videotron, in an Aug. 12 French-language reply, wrote to the commission that “Bell does not bring any argument or new element that it has not already mentioned in the context of its standstill notice,” according to a translation. Videotron argued that "Bell is attempting to force it to continue to pay royalties for services that it no longer wishes to carry and that if the commission accepts the filing of the undue preference application, this will cause Videotron an undue disadvantage.” Videotron requested that the commission dismiss that Part 1 application and instead rule on lifting the standstill order, arguing that Bell brings no new arguments to its Part 1 that was not already addressed in the standstill order. In its Friday letter addressed to both parties, the commission found that its hands were tied by due process, however, “commission staff notes in particular the late filing of the undue preference application before allowing the commission to render a decision on the standstill dispute.” The CRTC will expedite the whole proceeding, with a Sept. 30 deadline for Bell and Videotron to report back on the progress of their negotiations through mediation, and, in regard to the Part 1, a Sept. 12 deadline for interventions and Videotron’s reply, with a Sept. 19 deadline for Bell’s response. The standstill order will remain in effect until the Part 1 complaint is resolved. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca.

CRTC proceeds with Bell complaint against Videotron despite “abusive timing” of application

Broadcast | September 2, 2022

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

CRTC proceeds with Bell complaint against Videotron despite “abusive timing” of application

Broadcast | September 2, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Quebecor seeks to review and vary Bell MVNO decision

Northwestel announces completion of backup fibre loop; acquisition to close in 2025

Union concerned over Bell expansion into United States

Bell sees revenue decline, reports loss for Q3 2024

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us