BDUs raising TV rates for customers not covered by small basic rate is irrelevant: Bell

BCE Inc. is arguing to the CRTC that it is irrelevant to consider whether a broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) might raise rates for customers who are not covered by the small basic rate constraint in its application to increase the price of basic television service. “Those BDUs have the ability to raise those rates for all those customers, with or without the Commission’s ruling in this proceeding,” Bell wrote in a Monday reply. Bell, Cogeco Communications Inc., Bragg Communications Inc., parent company of Eastlink, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. are seeking a hike in rates that have not been increased since the skinny basic service began in March 2016. The four telecom companies are asking the CRTC to increase the price of basic television service from $25 a month to $28 per month with a yearly indexing mechanism being added to the mix. Quebecor Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Telus Corp. have been made parties to the proceedings and are required to file documentation with the regulator. In December the regulator extended the intervention period writing that the parties collectively submitted that a minimum of 1.5 million subscribers would be subject to the price increase, but “that multiple parties indicated that they had not yet ruled out applying the increase to other subscriber segments, which could ultimately lead to a greater impact on Canadian BDU subscribers.” The CRTC reopened the intervention period for interested parties to make submissions regarding the new information. Bell noted in its reply that according to the CRTC, “ interventions that fall outside the scope of the additional information will not be considered by the commission." As a result, Bell will not comment on the additional consumers that may be impacted, the incumbent wrote. Bell also argued that the affected 1.5 million subscribers account for only 16 per cent of all Canadian BDU subscribers. “We acknowledge that the commission indicated that multiple parties stated an increase in the cost of the small basic service could also impact other subscribers, however, the public record does not allow us to see these statements,” Bell wrote. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the National Pensioners Federation (NPF) submitted a reply maintaining its original position that any increase would affect low-income and vulnerable consumers, including seniors. PIAC-NPF said that regardless of whether there are 1.5 million affected consumers, or 3.6 million as originally claimed, the price increase is unacceptable. PIAC said even with the former figure, BDUs stand to gain at least $54.5 million per year from the $3 increase. “The FRPC asked why the BDUs have not chosen to find $54.5 million in operational efficiencies. PIAC would further ask why the largest BDUs, which consistently claim to be innovative, cannot be bothered to innovate at the most basic operational levels,” PIAC wrote. During the proceedings, the commission also heard from 316 members of the public. All but two opposed the price hike. According to research done by the FRPC, 42.3 per cent of individual intervenors said the increase was not justifiable and 39.5 per cent said the small basic service price was already too expensive. One in ten consumers said they could not afford the increase being proposed. “The Forum shares the views of these interveners, in particular their concern about the lack of justification for the increase, as in our view the fundamental rationale for setting a $25 per month rate for the small basic service was never clearly established both in terms of the degree to which BDU subscribers had since the 1950s already paid for the capital infrastructure necessary not just for the small basic service and other tiers of service, but also for BDUs’ unregulated nonprogramming businesses,” the FRPC wrote in its reply. Bell argued that the current $25 rate set by the commission is less in terms of today's dollars than what it was in 2015. “While we understand that consumers are seeing price increases in other areas of the economy, such increases should not preclude an increase to a rate set by regulation, particularly when inflationary increases are a common practice where rates are regulated,” Bell wrote in its reply comments. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

BDUs raising TV rates for customers not covered by small basic rate is irrelevant: Bell

Broadcast | March 1, 2023

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 raising TV rates for customers not covered by small basic rate is irrelevant: Bell

Broadcast | March 1, 2023

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