By Denis Carmel
OTTAWA – The CRTC today closed two separate complaints made by BCE against Quebecor subsidiary Videotron, deciding in favour of Québecor in one matter and choosing not to get involved at this time in the second matter.
VRAI HVOD service
In the first matter, the Commission issued a decision dealing with a BCE complaint (see also here and here) about Quebecor’s Vrai service which, it argues, was offered in violation of the CRTC hybrid video-on-demand (HVOD) exemption order because it was not being offered to other broadcasting distribution undertakings for television and was being offered as an online direct-to-customer service but at another price.
BCE also argued Quebecor had conferred on itself an undue privilege.
Québecor stated that the Vrai service operates in accordance with the HVOD exemption order and argued BCE’s request is based on a misinterpretation of the regulatory framework.
Additionally, “Quebecor indicated that BCE is alleging that Videotron breached the undue preference clause without, however, providing any arguments or evidence to support this allegation,” reads the CRTC decision.
The CRTC responded, stating “that exclusive distribution is not prohibited under sections 12 and 13 of the HVOD exemption order, provided that the distribution of the Vrai service complies with the requirements set forth in those sections.”
“Sections 12 and 13 of the HVOD exemption orders do not state that the rates or terms and conditions of delivery of the online and BDU must be identical, or even comparable,” the Commission added.
Finally, the CRTC concluded there was a preference but that this preference was not undue.
Roaming: Return to sender
The other dispute relates to the rates and conditions Quebecor must adhere to in its roaming agreement with Bell Mobility.
Bell makes allegations about Videotron’s practice that seem to violate the CRTC tariffs in place.
The CRTC prefaces the letter-decision by stating: “The Commission encourages the parties to engage in good-faith negotiations to resolve the dispute, and to avail themselves of staff-assisted mediation if needed. The Commission also reiterates its expectation that the parties regularly exchange information, discuss matters thoroughly and exhaust all appropriate methods available to them in order to resolve disputes, before submitting applications to the Commission.”
“Bell Mobility’s application indicates a continuing commercial dispute on matters that the Commission has previously indicated that the parties should be primarily responsible for resolving,” the letter goes on.
It concludes a complaint to the Commission is not, at this time, “the appropriate mechanism to resolve this dispute, in view of the Commission’s previous decisions regarding imposing thresholds for permanent roaming.”
