OTTAWA — Bell Media has asked the CRTC to dismiss a complaint filed last week by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) that called into question the tied selling of Bell’s CraveTV streaming service to existing TV subscription services.
And in a separate procedural request submitted to the CRTC today, Telus (one of CraveTV’s distributors) asked the Commission “to either return the CraveTV application to PIAC-CAC in order for deficiencies to be remedied or to close the file.”
As reported last week, in one of two applications submitted to the CRTC on February 6, PIAC-CAC challenged whether Bell can restrict access to its CraveTV subscription video on-demand service to customers who already have a TV subscription (from Bell or another TV provider). In a second application, PIAC-CAC made a similar complaint against Rogers and Shaw for tying access to their shomi streaming service to consumption of a Rogers or Shaw Internet or TV subscription.
In response to PIAC-CAC’s application to the CRTC regarding CraveTV, Bell Media submitted today a procedural request letter to the CRTC, asking the Commission “to expeditiously dismiss the complaint”.
“The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and has no reasonable prospect of success. Moreover, the Commission simply does not have the jurisdiction to rule that CraveTV, an already exempt digital media service, must be made available on an unauthenticated basis,” Mirko Bibic, executive vice-president and chief legal and regulatory officer for Bell Media, wrote in his letter submitted to the CRTC.
In its Part 1 application to the CRTC, PIAC-CAC contended that although CraveTV, when accessed via an Internet service, may appear to be an exempt digital media broadcasting undertaking, “the link between CraveTV access and a BDU subscription renders CraveTV an extension of the licensed system, in which case, CraveTV requires a licence and should be held to the relevant conditions of licence and contribution requirements.”
PIAC-CAC further contended in its application that “to sanction the tied selling of CraveTV and BDU services would be anti-competitive, anti-consumer and inconsistent with the broadcasting policy objectives.”
As such, “PIAC-CAC contend that Bell is offering the CraveTV service in a manner which unduly prefers Bell and other BDU distribution services, and unjustly discriminates against standalone competitive providers of Internet service (IS and ISPs) and in a manner designed to circumvent rules in place to promote competition and consumer choice and to mitigate against the harmful effects of vertical integration,” PIAC-CAC wrote in its application.
Calling PIAC-CAC’s complaint “an abuse of process”, Bell’s Bibic further wrote in his letter to the CRTC: “PIAC-CAC’s complaint has failed to apply the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act, or validly enacted Commission regulations. Instead, they are effectively asking the Commission to substitute their business judgment for Bell Media’s as to how to distribute an innovative and popular new service in which we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, and to which our employees have devoted their significant creativity and expertise.”
Bibic went on to write that if the Commission decides not to dismiss PIAC-CAC’s complaint, Bell Media is requesting that the deadline for filing an answer be extended to 30 days following the Commission’s decision on the request.
“The extension is necessary to provide us adequate time to respond to the exceptionally broad range of specious and irrelevant factual, legal, policy, jurisdictional and fairness issues that have been raised,” Bibic wrote.
PIAC-CAC’s application is also called “frivolous” in Telus’s separate procedural request, written by Ann Mainville-Neeson, vice-president of broadcast policy and regulatory affairs for Telus.
In the Telus letter submitted today to the CRTC, Mainville-Neeson wrote that the PIAC-CAC application “is primarily based on unsubstantiated allegations and arguments, which although they can be proven false, create an undue burden on the Commission and respondents; and consists mainly of arguments for amending the existing policies and rules and is thus incompatible with an allegation of undue preference.”
Mainville-Neeson further wrote that PIAC-CAC’s application “shows a demonstrable lack of understanding of the nature of the service in question and the applicable regulatory frameworks. The entire premise of the PIAC-CAC application is that the CraveTV service is (or should be) an over-the-top (OTT) service accessible to any and all carriers. However, CraveTV is no different than the numerous other broadcasting services offered by BDUs which also have a digital media component. PIAC-CAC fail to address how CraveTV is any different from the many conventional, specialty and pay services which also make their content available on-demand and on multiple platforms to authenticated subscribers of their linear services.”
In addition to requesting that the CRTC return PIAC-CAC’s application for deficiencies to be addressed, Telus also asked the Commission to issue a procedural letter “containing guidance on whether any of the policy arguments made by PIAC-CAC will be considered in its determination of this undue preference complaint.”
Furthermore, Mainville-Neeson wrote: “In the event that the Commission considers it appropriate to proceed with this application in any form, Telus reserves the right to respond to the substantive arguments made by PIAC-CAC.”
PIAC-CAC’s Part 1 Application regarding CraveTV can be found on the CRTC’s website in a listing of “All Public Proceedings Open for Comment”. Interested parties will also find a link on the same webpage to submit comments by March 12.
