Bell accuses Rogers of undue preference over Shaw Direct channel placements

BCE Inc. is joining the roster of companies which have filed undue preference claims against Rogers Communications Inc. in recent weeks. Bell’s application, dated Feb. 14 but published by the CRTC April 24, alleges that Rogers is giving Shaw Direct, its satellite broadcast distribution undertaking (BDU), undue preference for two of its channels in comparison to Bell’s discretionary USA Network and Oxygen True Crime channels. Bell announced USA Network and Oxygen True Crime in December and January, after Rogers picked up the rights for channels previously held by Bell in a deal with Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. last June. In that deal, Rogers got the rights to multiple Warner brands formerly used by Corus Entertainment Inc., as well as the Discovery, Velocity, Science, Animal Planet, and I.D. brands formerly run by Bell. The USA Network and Oxygen True Crime channels are carrying the “same popular Canadian programming and the same U.S. programming licensed from studios other than Warner Bros. Discovery…,” plus other programming, Bell says. Bell states that since January, it has found out Shaw Direct is giving all subscribers of certain English packages all of the discretionary services licensed to Rogers Sports and Media but not “affording the same packaging” to Bell’s USA Network and True Crime channels. To get those channels, customers have to individually decide to get them as additional channels, Bell says. “This includes the new channels that launched to accommodate the content that they obtained from Warner Bros. as well as their pre-existing non-sports discretionary services. Critically, our rebranded services are not automatically included as part of these packages,” Bell notes in its application. “Critically, our rebranded services continue to be highly relevant to subscribers, particularly given that they will air the same genre of programming as they did prior to being re-branded, carry the same popular Canadian programming and same U.S. programming licensed from other studios – both of which drive consumption and therefore continuity for viewers – as well as new foreign programming, all of which we have invested in substantially,” Bell alleges. Rogers allegedly told Bell it wanted to move Bell’s USA Network and Oxygen True Crime channels from their place on its guide, which were the places originally held by Discovery and Discovery ID when Bell had those rights. “In doing so, would be profiting from the goodwill that Bell Media built up for those channels and expropriate the audiences Bell Media developed over decades. In other words, is using its control of the distribution platform to disadvantage Bell Media and provide an unearned advantage to by allowing them to profit from Bell Media's years of investment. Notably, no independent distributor plans to do the same,” Bell alleges. Bell says interest in its channels is “high, particularly as compared to services.” The company asserts that its channels are “still home to key content that aired on Discovery Channel and ID before the rebranding.” Bell points in its application to comments made by Rogers CFO Glenn Brandt during a quarterly earnings call held by the company in July, in which Brandt said Rogers wants to source leading programming customers watch and make it available at lower margins, cutting out the middle company and doing so directly. “In other words, is saying that, as the largest BDU in the country, it is now in the position to cut out the middle company, i.e., all non- owned programming undertakings, by using its financial heft to acquire content directly from foreign studios and then providing it to its retail customers through its BDU operations or ,” Bell alleges. “To be clear, we are not trying to maintain a de facto access right for the rebranded services. However, we believe the commission must closely scrutinize self-interested actions, and that it must consider the significant negative impact that actions will have on diversity of programming and consumer choice,” Bell alleges. Rogers alleges Bell is being hypocritical In Rogers’ view, Bell is being hypocritical by demanding carriage of its channels but not carrying Rogers’ channels on its own broadcast services. “We’re focused on bringing the most-watched lifestyle and entertainment content to Canadians,” a Rogers spokesperson said in an emailed statement to The Wire Report. “Bell's complaint is without merit, and part of their ongoing strategy of regulatory gamesmanship. They’re trying to force us to carry their services, while refusing to carry our services that offer the popular content Canadians actually want to watch,” the statement alleges. Other undue preference claims against Rogers ongoing at the CRTC Corus Entertainment Inc. has made similar allegations against Rogers regarding channel placement following the Warner deal. That dispute is headed to the Federal Court of Appeal, after Rogers was granted leave to appeal two decisions by the CRTC, which found the company cannot make changes to the packaging or channel placement of some of Corus’ programming shown on its TV service without breaking the standstill rule. Rogers is arguing to the court that moving the two Corus channels is necessary so that TV subscribers looking for content that was once offered by Corus but is now offered by Rogers “are not confused following Corus’ loss of the branding and content for these channels.” But Corus asserts that leaving its Home and Food channels in their longstanding positions in Rogers’ guide is more appropriate. Rogers argues it has the contractual right to package services as it sees fit. Rogers is also facing undue preference allegations from OUTtv Network Inc. over channel packaging. The LGBTQ+-focused network says Rogers has unfairly repackaged its channel. According to Rogers, it is ready and willing to negotiate a new agreement with the network. OUTtv claims Rogers had unfairly “moved OUTtv from a relatively widely distributed general interest package, into extremely low penetration packaging,” and has asked the CRTC to force Rogers to return it to the most “suitable” package. Rogers’ response was to argue that repackaging OUTtv was a “necessary business decision” it made because OUTtv has allegedly refused to renegotiate a new wholesale rate. Rogers hinged part of its response to OUTtv on its statement that OUTtv is available in its “Variety” and “Lifestyle & Entertainment” channel theme packs. Because those packages include other entertainment and lifestyle services Rogers carries, it claims those are the “best available theme packages” for OUTtv. In a reply to Rogers’ arguments filed with the CRTC this week, OUTtv asserts that it has not agreed to that “extremely marginalized” theme package. According to the network, of the 13 services in the “Variety” package and the 38 in the “Lifestyle and entertainment” package, OUTtv is the only one not also offered in the Ultimate package. “In fact, it is the only service not offered in any pre-assembled package,” it alleges. “OUTtv is not being treated differently from just one or two services – but essentially all other discretionary services distributed in the relevant theme packages and that could be distributed in the relevant pre-assembled package,” it argues. There was another undue preference application against Rogers filed by The News Forum, which argues it should be included by Rogers in the same packaging as CTV News Channel and CBC news network, as well as being included in packages used by institutions, businesses, and hotels, airports, and so on. The News Forum says it has faced barriers to entering the market, including the strength of incumbent news brands. It believes national news services should have the “best available discretionary packaging” for “wide distribution consistent with genre.” “Without fair distribution and equitable wholesale rates, The News Forum will not be able to compete fairly in the Canadian national news marketplace,” it said in its application dated March 12. Rogers does not believe it subjected The News Forum to an undue disadvantage. “We have treated fairly and continue to distribute its service in the manner agreed to in the parties’ affiliation agreement,” Rogers wrote in a response to that application. “In fact, pursuant to the national free previews of the service that have been in place since 2022, we are making it available to vastly more subscribers than we are contractually required to do under this agreement.” Meanwhile, Toronto-based DHX Television Ltd., which operates WildBrain Television, has accused Rogers of giving preferential treatment to its competitors in children’s programming in another ongoing proceeding at the CRTC, allegations which Rogers denies. hdaley@thewirereport.ca

Bell accuses Rogers of undue preference over Shaw Direct channel placements

Broadcast |
By Hannah Daley
| April 25, 2025

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

Bell accuses Rogers of undue preference over Shaw Direct channel placements

Broadcast | By Hannah Daley | April 25, 2025

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Supreme Court rules CRTC cannot grant telcos access to public property to install wireless equipment

Google asks court to reverse Streaming Act contribution decision

Music Canada looks to intervene in appeal against CRTC streaming service levy

Rogers disputes OUTtv’s undue preference arguments, says it wants to negotiate

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Broadcast |
By Hannah Daley
| April 25, 2025