TELUS Buying Mobilicity Bad for Consumers
OTTAWA – Consumers will lose more ground in the cellphone market unless the Industry Minister or the Competition Bureau stops the proposed acquisition of Mobilicity by TELUS, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) said today. Mobilicity, Canada’s second-largest “new entrant” wireless company will be absorbed by TELUS, Canada’s second-largest cellphone company if the agreement announced today is approved by the federal government and the Competition Bureau.
“Losing Mobilicity to TELUS means we are that much closer to the big three being the only three wireless companies in Canada,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC. “Consumers will face noticeably higher prices and less choice if only three major players control the market.”
TELUS must seek permission from the federal government to purchase Mobilicity, a “new entrant”, within five years from the last spectrum auction. The federal auction rules prohibit major cellphone companies like TELUS, Rogers and Bell Canada from buying new entrants or their spectrum until February 2014.
“We call once again for the Minister to clearly tell the major wireless companies that they cannot reduce consumer choice by buying up their competition” said Bruce Cran, President of the Consumers’ Association of Canada.
Lawford noted that wireless is already on the ropes, with WIND Mobile and Public Mobile, two other “new entrants” now are also threatening to sell to the major competition: “Sadly, the wheels are coming off the Industry Minister’s four competitor model.”
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
lawford@piac.ca
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers’ Association of Canada
(604) 418-8139
bcranbiz@telus.net
Bell-Astral 2 Hearing – Day 5
The CRTC hearing on the Bell-Astral merger closed today with a final reply presentation from BCE and Astral. Bell rejected other BDU allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, underlining that there was no evidence to support them. In fact, Bell argued that the compound annual growth rates for its non-sports services were extremely low for cable companies such as Cogeco, Eastlink and Telus. It also maintained with respect to non-linear rights that all BDUs would have the option to select individual services or to simply buy the content from Bell’s TV Everywhere offer. Bell stated that BDUs already had long-term access to The Movie Network non-linear rights and that it would commit to negotiating linear and non-linear rights together in the future. The company also reiterated that it would bring “competitive balance” with Québecor in Quebec, and that Shaw/Corus’ entrance in the market would create a third competitor.
The Commission seemed bent on exploring a range of options with Bell and Astral today. Chairman Blais presented several different scenarios, including an absolute denial of the application, further divestitures – particularly in the movie pay TV sector – and wholesale rate regulation where a dispute between negotiating parties were to arise. Bell and Astral were very hesitant to adopt further safeguards. Astral emphasized that a denial of the application would merely extend uncertainty for its business and employees, and could affect its acquisition of new rights. Bell was resistant to divesting more services, emphasizing that it had made strenuous efforts to come to the divestitures agreed to in the present application. It particularly opposed the idea of wholesale rate regulation, stressing that it represented “too much regulation” and would cause Bell to consider backing out of the transaction entirely. The company did, however, agree to mandatory arbitration where negotiations of affiliate agreements stretched beyond six months. The Commission also questioned Bell’s modifications of the Vertical Integration Code in its proposed conditions of license, but the company insisted it needed flexibility to operate its business competitively and argued that it would be unfair for the Commission to “handcuff” its operations.
Interveners now have an opportunity to submit written comments to the Commission on Bell and Astral’s undertakings until May 15, and Bell will file its final written reply on May 21.
Bell-Astral 2 Hearing – Day 4
The Bell-Astral Hearing
Day 4 (May 9)
Media Access Canada, representing the Access 2020 Group of Stakeholders, kicked off the last day of intervener presentations before the CRTC on the proposed Bell-Astral merger. The group criticized Bell and Astral’s limited commitments to Canadians with disabilities, and requested that $6.3 million of the tangible benefits be moved to the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund to be dedicated to closed captioning and described video.
The production company, Première Bobine, then voiced its support for the Bell-Astral transaction and highlighted the threat of Netflix and the need to regulate Over-the-Top providers (OTTs). Première Bobine argued that Canadian companies with deep pockets were needed to acquire foreign broadcasting rights and to become equal rivals to Netflix.
Two interveners representing cable companies appeared before the Commission today. Québecor Média affirmed its strong opposition to the merger, pointing particularly to Bell-Astral’s dominance in the specialty services and sports markets. It also expressed concern about Bell-Astral’s enormous share of the advertising market. This was particularly worrying since Québecor’s media assets are largely in conventional television, which relies on advertising revenues and is already seeing a decline in audience shares. Though asked by the Commission to suggest further structural safeguards such as divestitures, Québecor maintained that it opposed the transaction as a whole. In its opinion, Bell was already “too big.”
The Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA), which represents approximately 115 independent BDUs, similarly protested Bell’s exceedingly restrictive pricing and packaging conditions, and emphasized that it had no power to negotiate more reasonable rates and terms with the vertically-integrated entity. Smaller cable company owners from Cookshire, Quebec, and Nova Scotia also expressed their challenges in having to rely, at times, on Bell to supply both media content and cable and fibre equipment. The alliance also criticized TV Everywhere as another means by which Bell could control retail pricing set by CCSA members.
There were also groups representing music and television artists in Quebec, including l’Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ). ADISQ did not oppose the Bell-Astral transaction, but asked the Commission to ensure that Bell would be abound by Astral’s PNI requirements, would maintain a local team that would be in charge of French-language radio programming, and would commit to radio benefits equal to more than 6% of the value of the transaction. A presentation by l’Alliance québecoise des techniciens de l’image et du son, l’Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, la Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, and l’Union des artistes noted several concerns about the transaction. These included that decisions related to French-language programming would be made in Toronto, that the value of the transaction had been undervalued by Astral, and that Bell ought be held to Astral’s individual CPE requirements rather than incorporating them into the CPE requirements related to its other services. The group also had certain issues related to the allocation of the tangible benefits, including the English-French split, the TV-film split, and the eligibility of some of the listed recipients.
Other groups appeared as well. The Canadian Council of Music Industry Associations requested that part of the radio Canadian Content Development (CCD) funding from tangible benefits be allocated to its associations. Le Festival international de la chanson de Granby also described the decline of the French-language music industry and expressed its support for the proposed merger.
Bell-Astral 2 Hearing – Day 3
Day 3 of the Bell-Astral hearing saw a series of cable companies, creator representatives and other individual groups present their view of the proposed merger to the CRTC.
Of the cable companies, both Eastlink and Cogeco underlined their opposition to the proposed transaction. Eastlink emphasized their challenges in negotiating commercially reasonable terms for Bell Media’s multi-platform rights, as well as Bell’s imposition of incredibly high rates and restrictive packaging requirements. The company also highlighted the difficulty of being a smaller company with little leverage, particularly in a dispute resolution process against a vertically-integrated entity such as Bell. The Commission spent a longer time engaging with Cogeco, who argued that many of the Commission’s concerns in denying the transaction last fall, including convergence becoming a hindrance to healthy competition, the threat to the availability of diverse programming, and the insufficiency of the vertical integration framework against a high level of market power, continued to apply to this newly proposed merger. It also elaborated on Bell’s incentive to favour its own distribution services. When asked about possible safeguards, both companies emphasized that it would be better to deny the transaction rather than to attempt to corral the behaviour of a larger Bell-Astral.
The Canadian Media Production Association asked the Commission to ensure that a substantial part of the tangible benefits would be committed to English-language theatrical films, particularly since Astral’s pay TV services were “at the heart of the transaction.” The Producers Roundtable of Ontario similarly echoed the need to support Canadian English-language films, noting the marked decrease in the number of Canadian films broadcast on conventional television. L’Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ) wanted assurance that French-language programming decisions would continue to be made in Montreal and that Bell would be bound to commercial agreements between APFTQ and Astral.
Other groups, though not opposing the transaction, expressed concerns about the merger. The Documentary Organization of Canada exposed Bell’s inconsistent support for documentary programming, particularly during periods when tangible benefits funding ran out, and called for Bell to commit 20 to 25% of its incremental PNI programming expenditures to documentaries. On Screen Manitoba noted the loss of an independent broadcaster as a result of this transaction and called for an expectation that Bell’s proposed regional programming development offices would actually be effective in supporting regional development and production.
Finally, several individual groups such as Alyssa Reid, le Centre d’études sur les médias, the Diversity Emerging Music Collective and Vaxination informatique also appeared. Some supported the proposed merger, while others criticized a lack of consideration of cultural diversity in the media industry or expressed concerns about the harms of vertical integration.
Bell-Astral 2 Hearing – Day 2
Day 2 of the CRTC Bell-Astral hearing began with a presentation from PIAC’s Janet Lo and John Lawford, who also appeared on behalf of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, and Option consommateurs. They were joined by Dr. Dwayne Winseck, Professor at Carleton University. The group highlighted their opposition to the transaction, disputing Bell’s claims that its deal would benefit consumers, and emphasized the negative repercussions of vertical integration on consumer choice, affordability, and flexibility.
Rogers also opposed the Bell-Astral transaction and asked the Commission to order Bell to divest The Movie Network if the deal were to be approved. Rogers stated that it did not oppose vertical integration, but that Bell’s acquisition of Astral would place the company in a position where it would have the incentive and the ability to exercise market power against other competitors. Rogers also differentiated between media consolidation (horizontal integration) and vertical integration, which would incentivize companies to favour their distribution services (TV, wireless, internet) when providing content.
Rogers was followed by several interveners representing musicians and creator groups, including Suzie McNeil, the Quebec English-language Production Council (QEPC), the Performing Arts Lodges of Vancouver (PAL), and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA). Some interveners such as the QEPC advocated for the need to support official language minorities and requested that at least 10% of the tangible benefits allocated to English production be spent in Quebec. Others such as ACTRA supported the transaction but expressed concern about media concentration and stressed the importance of preserving diversity of entertainment and scripted programming.
In the afternoon, Telus presented its case against the Bell-Astral merger, citing past and potential anti-competitive behaviour, the inadequacy of the vertical integration framework, and Bell’s sizeable control over television and radio advertising. The Commission pressed Telus about the dispute resolution process, which the company insisted was unable to provide quick, efficient solutions and which intensified any imbalance of power between the disputing parties. Telus also complained that Bell’s unreasonable terms encompassed not only pricing but packaging requirements, which would have compelled Telus to include TSN in its basic package.
The day closed with presentations from l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada (APFC) and Youth eMage Jeunesse. APFC urged the Commission to commit a percentage of the on-screen tangible benefits to independent French-language production outside Quebec and to compel Bell to file an annual report detailing its tangible benefits expenses by genre, geographic region and language. Youth eMage Jeunesse underlined the need for youth expression and representation in the broadcasting system and requested that a portion of the tangible benefits be reserved for Youth eMage’s Virtual Studio for Youth project.
Consumers Ask the CRTC to Deny Bell-Astral’s Second Proposed Transaction
(Montreal) – Five Canadian consumer and public interest groups appear before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today to oppose the second proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. by BCE Inc.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), which also acts as counsel for the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia (COSCO), the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation (NPSCF), and Option consommateurs stated the proposed transaction, even with the proposed divestitures and safeguards, would not benefit consumers.
The groups stated its concerns that the proposed transaction would eliminate the largest remaining independent broadcaster and further concentrate an already heavily concentrated Canadian media market in the hands of a few large vertically integrated players. In particular, the groups noted that the proposed transaction, if approved, would allow Bell to control 59.2% of revenues in the French-language pay and specialty television market.
“Consumers deserve a highly competitive market with a diversity of voices and further media concentration will not provide more vigorous competition that benefits Canadian consumers,” said Janet Lo, PIAC Counsel. “In our view, the market is not meeting the consumer expectation for choice, flexibility and affordability and Bell does not promise to meet these needs through this transaction,” added Lo.
The consumer and public interest groups urged the CRTC to deny the transaction and ensure that vertically integrated television providers make strides to providing consumers with greater choice and flexibility to buy the television services that they want. The groups noted the trend of increasing prices for television services, which continues to outpace the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Link to PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF/OC Oral Presentation:
Download File: oralpresentationbellastral2.pdf [size: 0.09 mb]
Link to PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF/OC comments filed with CRTC on April 5 are at this post
For more information:
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 816-5688 (cell)
jlo@piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Bell-Astral 2 Hearing – Day 1
BCE Inc. (Bell) and Astral Media sat down today to try again and convince the CRTC that the Bell’s proposed acquisition of the independent media company would benefit Canadian creators, consumers and all citizens. Ian Greenberg, CEO of Astral, called attention to the threat of Over-the-Top providers (OTTs) such as Netflix and insisted that Bell is the company that would have the capacity to meet that challenge. George Cope, CEO of BCE, also emphasized that this transaction would better connect Canadian consumers with entertainment, and Kevin Crull, President of Bell Media, re-affirmed Bell’s commitment to Canadian content and independent production. The presentation reiterated some of the key highlights of the proposed package – $174 million in tangible benefits, the divestiture of some of Astral’s English- and French-language TV services, a French-language programming centre based in Montreal, and the sale of 10 radio stations.
The CRTC Commissioners took turns asking the Bell-Astral panel questions about different aspects of the transaction. Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais reviewed BCE’s resulting market and viewing shares in Canada, emphasizing the need to understand that although Bell’s share in the French-language market might only be incrementally higher than Astral’s current stake, these services would now be placed in the hands of a national, vertically-integrated company. The Chairman also considered safeguards to impose on Bell should the transaction be approved, including structural separation and the adoption of individual Vertical Integration Code clauses as conditions of licence.
Commissioner Suzanne Lamarre questioned Bell’s request for an exception to the CRTC radio Common Ownership Policy in order to could keep its Montreal station, TSN 690, as an English, all-sports station. If the Commission were to grant the exception, Bell would own four of the five English commercial radio stations in the Montreal area. Commissioner Lamarre questioned Bell’s views on the public interest of issuing such an exception and explored the possibility of divesting either TSN 690 or another of Bell’s stations.
Commissioner Tom Pentefountas focused on local content, questioning how this transaction would incrementally benefit local programming. Bell replied that the incrementality would be derived from ensuring stability in the radio ecosystem and promoting local talent through multiple, national platforms.
Commissioner Elizabeth Duncan questioned different aspects of the Bell-Astral’s valuation of the entire transaction, which could have resulted in a lower sum of tangible benefits.
Finally, Commissioner Peter Menzies asked Bell-Astral to elaborate on the proposed tangible benefits package. When asked what it thought of PIAC’s suggestion of assigning a portion of the tangible benefits package to consumer research rather than to a consumer broadcasting education program, Bell replied that the benefit was not intended to be advocacy-based. Bell appeared to suggest that the $2.7 million could be placed in a separate fund which would operate in a similar way to the Broadcast Participation Fund. Commissioner Menzies particularly honed in on how Bell would ensure that the benefits package would be truly “tangible” or would truly enhance the Canadian broadcasting system.
PIAC to represent consumers during CRTC hearing on the proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. by Bell Canada
On May 7, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia (COSCO), National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation (NPSCF) and Option consommateurs (OC) will appear before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to oppose the proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. by Bell Canada, a division of BCE Inc.
In comments filed on April 5, the groups argued that Bell and Astral’s new proposed merger is not in the public interest and thus should be denied. The 5 groups stated the deal would be bad for consumers and outlined several concerns. More information and links to the full written intervention are at this post
WHO:
Janet Lo, Legal Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
WHEN:
Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 9:00 AM
WHAT:
Appearing at the CRTC public proceeding “Application by Astral Media Inc. (Astral) for authority to change its effective control, and control of its licensed broadcasting subsidiaries, to BCE Inc. (BCE). CRTC Application 2013-0244-7.
WHERE:
Hôtel Gouverneur Place Dupuis
1415 Saint-Hubert Street
Montréal, Quebec
Hearing Room: Room Capitale
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
Media Contacts:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 816-5688 (cell)
jlo@piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Consumers Ask CRTC to Keep Basic Television Affordable – Few Services Deserving of Mandatory Distribution on Basic Television Service
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OTTAWA – Consumer rights group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said today that basic television service in Canada is not affordable and that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) should not further burden consumers with unnecessary “mandatory carriage” services.
PIAC represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO), and National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation (NPSCF) before the CRTC in an oral hearing today on applications for mandatory distribution on basic television service. PIAC urged the CRTC to balance consumers’ interest in access to truly exceptional services and maintaining consumer choice and affordability. PIAC asked the CRTC to grant mandatory distribution only in exceptional cases.
“Canadian consumers are concerned about the increasing cost of basic television services,” said Janet Lo, Counsel for PIAC. “Each additional service the CRTC requires distributors to carry leads to higher prices for consumers and restricts consumers’ ability to select the broadcasting services they want,” she added.
PIAC’s presentation called on the CRTC to scrutinize basic television service prices offered to consumers. PIAC noted the trend of increased cost and size of basic television service packages offered in the market.
“Television providers have said to the Commission that approval of any services for mandatory distribution would significantly increase consumer cost and reduce consumer flexibility,” Lo said. “Canadians deserve transparency if the television providers will use this excuse to increase the cost of basic service.” Lo further noted, “Television providers themselves control the level of packaging flexibility offered to consumers.”
PIAC opposed the majority of the applications for mandatory distribution on basic television service. PIAC supported only a few select services that meet the high bar of the Commission’s criteria: Canadian Public Affairs Channel, Accessible Media Inc. Television, Accessible Media Inc. Audio, and the Legislative Assemblies of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. PIAC conditionally supported other applicants with reservations about their proposed wholesale rates: the Aboriginal Peoples’ Television Network, Canal M, AMI-tv Français, Avis de Recherche, and All Points Bulletin.
Read the PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF oral remarks to the CRTC:
Download File: 91hpresentation_final.pdf [size: 0.04 mb]
For more information:
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
mobile: (613) 816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
Media Advisory: PIAC to represent consumers during CRTC hearing on mandatory distribution of television services
OTTAWA – In its continuing efforts to address consumers’ concerns with television services, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO), and the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation (NPSCF) will be appearing before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to discuss the applications for mandatory distribution on cable and satellite distribution systems. The eight-day long hearing begins on Tuesday, April 23 at 9:00 AM. PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF will appear on Friday, April 26, 2013.
For more information, please see the full written intervention filed by PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF to the CRTC on February 27, 2013 at:
Download File: piac_cac_cosco_npscf_bnc2013_19_intervention_27feb2013.pdf [size: 0.38 mb]
WHO:
Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre will be at the hearing.
WHAT:
Appearing at the CRTC public proceeding “Applications for mandatory distribution on cable and satellite distribution systems pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act”
WHERE:
Gatineau, Quebec
Conference Center
Portage IV, 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec
Canadians will be able to listen to a live audio feed of the hearing and by going to http://www.crtc.gc.ca
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
Media Contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 24
Mobile (613) 816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
