OTA is Here to Stay
The CRTC preserved an important and affordable alternative to subscription TV (cable, satellite and IPTV) with its decision to require local broadcasters to maintain their Over-the-air (OTA) transmitters. These transmitters are the last bastion for people unwilling to pay soaring subscription TV prices but wishing to stay connected to their local news and communities via television stations.
OTA transmitters are now all-digital (meaning high definition picture quality) modern replacements for broadcasting (TV or radio) delivered via analogue transmitters (think tall-antennas-on-the-roof-of-local-TV-stations) that used to be picked up by viewers with “rabbit ears” or larger home antennas attached to their traditional television sets. This form of broadcasting is the oldest: stations send their broadcasts out over the airwaves, as opposed to running them through cable, satellite or the internet. This method of broadcasting still reaches an estimated 32 million Canadians.
Broadcasters, including the CBC and CTV, had proposed during the CRTC “Talk TV” hearing to eliminate their OTA transmitters as a cost-cutting measure. They argued, in part, that subscription TV has gained so much traction that the need for such transmitters was no longer there. They also argued that they could use the savings for local programming.
Canadians vehemently opposed that idea. When soliciting public comments during Talk TV, the CRTC found that 95% of comments from Canadians consumers supported keeping these transmitters going.
“People want their local news and current events. They want to keep up with their community and that is available from OTA transmissions,” stated John Lawford, Executive Director at PIAC. “If your information needs are really well met by this and it’s free, why would you want to shut this down?”
Another of the issues that the CRTC addressed in Talk TV was local broadcasting requirements. In subscription TV packages, broadcasting distributors are required to carry local stations broadcasting in their “basic package”. The CRTC held, however, that if one of these local stations were to turn its transmitter off it would cease to be a “local broadcaster” and could not, therefore, qualify for carriage in the basic package. However, since some of the local broadcasters were owned by large networks that might be comfortable with removing these stations from basic service, the CRTC added that any local broadcaster that refused to keep its OTA running might lose its right to broadcast on any TV platform (including subscription TV).
It’s fair to say that OTA TV was threatened with extinction in Canada as little as a year ago, however, this CRTC ruling has rewoven it into the fabric of the Canadian broadcasting system. PIAC and the groups it represented in the Talk TV hearing pushed the idea that OTA had a future for Canadians, and consumers backed that statement with an overwhelming response to the CRTC that they wanted it to remain.
“It’s free, it works, and Canadians wanted it to stay,” said Lawford. “The decision is a huge win for the public interest.”
Read the CRTC decision on OTA here.
PIAC commends CRTC “Talk TV” decision to maintain over-the-air television
OTTAWA, January 29, 2015 – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) commends the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decision to require local television stations to maintain over-the-air (OTA) signals.
“Over-the-air television is an important, affordable alternative for all Canadians, and we’re pleased that the CRTC has recognized that,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and Counsel to PIAC. “There was strong public opposition to shutting down OTA transmitters, and the Commission listened to Canadians.”
At the CRTC’s Let’s Talk TV hearing last September, PIAC in a coalition with other public interest organizations advocated for the importance of local television, and opposed allowing any local stations to shut down their over-the-air television transmitters.
“The CRTC recognized that holding an over-the-air local station licence gives a broadcaster many privileges, including a spot in the basic television package and simultaneous substitution. To benefit from those privileges while shutting down over-the-air TV would be unfair to all Canadians,” said Alysia Lau, Legal Counsel at PIAC.
PIAC participated in Let’s Talk TV in a coalition with other organizations named the Groups for the Public Interest. The Groups also included the:
- Canadian Ethnocultural Council;
- Consumers’ Association of Canada;
- Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia;
- National Pensioners Federation; and
- Option consommateurs
PIAC cautions the public however that the spectrum used to deliver over the air television presently is being reviewed by Industry Canada and that Canadians should voice their opinions to the government.Read the CRTC decision here: Over-the-air transmission of television signals and local
programming
For more information please contact:
Alysia Lau
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ×38
alau@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ×25
Mobile (613) 447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
CRTC says communications giants cannot favour own content online
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) and the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) hailed today the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) decision to prohibit Bell Mobility and Videotron from unjustly favouring their own “mobile TV” applications over other internet-delivered content by billing their own mobile TV services at unjustly favourable rates.
“All consumers gain more from an open, fair internet that lets consumers pick winners and losers, not the dominant ISPs,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel of PIAC.
PIAC, CAC and COSCO argued that Videotron, Bell and Rogers (who dropped the practice before this decision was issued) were unjustly favouring their internet-delivered TV programming on consumers’ smartphones, tablets and computers by exempting their own applications’ usage from data caps and higher data rates that consumers would pay if they accessed similar or even identical content from other sources on the Internet.
“The CRTC was right to see through the self-serving arguments of Bell and Videotron,” added Geoff White, Counsel to PIAC, “Since these companies offer internet access, they must abide by the fairness requirements of Canadian telecommunications law and not prefer their own programming.”
To read the CRTC decision, click Broadcasting and Telecom Decision CRTC 2015-26
For more information please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
or
Geoffrey White
Counsel to PIAC
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
gwhite@piac.ca
30 Day Cancellation Fees Cancelled
The past precedent PIAC set when they worked to end 30 day cancellation fees for cell phones will now be the rule through internet, cable TV and wire-line phone services. This is the first decision by the CRTC to come out of the Let’s Talk TV hearings, a process that has been gauging public opinion on Canadian television over the last year.
This sweeping change began as an application against just one service; the 30 day notice charge was a practice by some wireless companies to, upon termination of a contract, charge for an additional month’s services if they were not given a full 30 days of notice prior to the customer changing to a new cell phone provider, effectively double billing them in the last month.
PIAC filed an application opposing this practice and it was ended for wireless services in the Wireless Code. It was not long after this that Eastlink, an Atlantic-region cable company, filed an application complaining that there were no rules to protect consumers from these 30 day advance notice requirements in regards to cable TV, internet and wire-line telephone. Eastlink is an established provider in cable TV, but more recently branched out into wireless, internet and telephone. Their complaint was that the 30 day notice requirements were dissuading customers from leaving their current providers. PIAC immediately supported the application, and submitted their own observations to the CRTC.
Typically, in telephone and in wireless, the CRTC has rules in place where, by the time the consumer confirms their intention of migrating their service to a new provider, there are very strict deadlines. In most cases the transfer of a customer’s account has to take place within about 48 hours. While the carriers, between them, have to migrate service within a very short interval, the customer is then hit with a 30 day charge. The consumer cannot originate calls on the old provider once the line has been migrated to the new service provider.
“The way it’s typically presented to consumers, and usually only when they leave, is that you can terminate your service but we’ll tack on another 30 days of service,” says Jean-François Léger, Counsel to PIAC. “ In theory, with how bundles work, you could be hit with up to four 30 day charges at once when migrating.”
The strong application by Eastlink, combined with PIAC’s intervention and the disapproval of consumers during the Let’s Talk TV proceeding spelled the end for 30 day cancellation fees on the remaining services. As of January 23rd, 2015, there can be no extra charge for a month’s service for television, internet, or wire-line telephone.
Chinese Delegation Visits PIAC to Study Wireless Consumer Issues
PIAC was honoured to have a delegation from the Ministry of
Industry and Information Technology in China visit our offices.
The delegation was seeking information on consumer complaint
mechanisms and redress in wireless service, which PIAC is deeply
involved in.
The Ministry is the telecommunications and internet regulator and
is looking to use a similar wireless code and ombudsman system
for wireless consumers in China. PIAC members fielded questions
from the 23 delegates about the Wireless Code’s implementation
and how it is working for consumers as well as protection of consumers
interests in the wireless sector.
PIAC and the group also had a discussion about related issues such
as increasing competitiveness amongst providers, and establishing
common ground for information exchange between Canada and
China.
PIAC was pleased to participate in this professional exchange of
ideas and wishes the delegation the best of luck with their work.
Paying to Pay Going Away
If you’ve received a paper bill from a communications service provider in the last few years, be it for TV, internet, or phone, it’s likely you saw an extra charge on that bill for the bill. This is the practice of ‘pay to pay’, where companies charge the consumer for the bill that they’re sending. The fee is generally in the $1-$2 range and it can add up for consumers.
This practice was the subject of PIAC’s report “How to Pay the Piper. The fee is generally painted as ‘environmental’; a way to encourage consumers to use online billing. The report recommended that a discount to encourage consumers to switch to online billing. In the meantime, the fee is making companies a lot of money. PIAC estimates that, from this charge, communications and banking industries combined are making between $495 and $734 million dollars annually from this practice. This ends up being costly for people who either can’t afford, or choose not to have, internet service. Especially considering, for many years, sending out a bill was simply considered a cost of doing business for companies.
PIAC took their research and their gauge of the public opinion to the CRTC in the form of a part 1 Application to end the ‘pay to pay’ practice for telecommunications. The concern prompted the government to address the issue in the Throne Speech and it seemed only a matter of time before it was ended. The CRTC, took a different approach. Instead of ruling on PIAC’s application to end the billing, the CRTC ‘closed’ the file and had a closed-door meeting with the companies to try to work out a deal.
“Before the closed-door meeting started we had said that it was unfair that they had this private meeting and that we weren’t invited. We thought that they were going to fail to deliver on what they had promised,” said John Lawford, Executive Director for PIAC.
Without any pressure from PIAC’s application against the practice, the CRTC found themselves with little leverage against the companies. The deal they worked out was not an end to the practice, but just an exemption for certain groups. That left a lot of consumers footing the extra charges because they either didn’t have internet or didn’t want to pay their bills online.
PIAC continued to pursue the issue, pushing for the removal of the fee in the media and with political powers. With all the momentum it had, as well as the promise in the Throne Speech, it was difficult to explain a ‘compromise’ to consumers. It was James Moore who announced the government would be putting legislation into the upcoming budget to finally end ‘pay to pay’ billing in communications services. While there was some dramatic back and forth on the issue, John Lawford says this is textbook public advocacy.
“We did all the groundwork to discover how big the problem was, we looked at the rationale, which they said was ‘environmental’, which wasn’t true. We showed the general displeasure of Canadians, with enough evidence to bring an application to the CRTC,” Lawford stated. “When they closed it, it became a political matter and the government listened to, what I think was, a large portion of the population who didn’t think this was a fair practice. It costs money, is unnecessary and people dislike it, so we helped to get rid of it.”
While unnecessary fees on paper bills for communications have been eliminated for Canadians, there is a looming issue with banks. Banks still charge this fee for account statements and have taken the position that statements are not bills. PIAC believes consumers do not see the difference and continues to work on elimination of fees on banking ‘statements’. While the banks have provided relief for some groups, such as seniors and veterans, this compromise was rejected for communications bills. PIAC is keeping a close eye on this issue to make sure that all Canadians are not financially burdened next by receiving their banking ‘statements’.
Reduction in Telecom Complaints due to Wireless Code, not wireless companies’ efforts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – OTTAWA – The reduction in telecommunications complaints reported by the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) is largely due to the effect of the Wireless Code and not the actions of the various telecommunications providers, cautioned today the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
PIAC noted that a careful reading of the CCTS Annual Report 2013-14 shows that of the 17% overall reduction in complaints, more than half of the reduction is directly due to three changes made by the Wireless Code:
•Roaming charges complaints dropped from 721 in 2012-13 to 527 in 2013-14 (nearly a 27% drop in this category);
•Early cancellation fees complaints dropped from 1,490 in 2012-13 to 1,144 in 2013-14 (a 23% drop in this category); and
•30-day cancellation policy complaints dropped from 1,835 in 2012-13 to only 1,167 in 2013-14 (a more than 36% drop in this category).
“The Wireless Code put a cap on roaming and data overage fees, regulated and capped early cancellation fees, and outlawed the extra 30 day charge” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel of PIAC. “The wireless carriers should not claim they are better actors – they were made to behave by the Code.”
PIAC further notes the CCTS Annual Report shows a disturbing increase in wireless companies for complaints about “non-disclosure/misleading terms” which are “generally situations in which customers complain that they did not receive full, complete and accurate information” about key terms, prices, what was in a plan and extra service fees. This was the second year of over 70% growth of this type of complaint, making it now the second largest category behind billing errors.
“There is evidently a systemic issue in the wireless industry with non-disclosure of terms and conditions to consumers,” noted Jonathan Bishop, PIAC’s Research Analyst. “We expect the CRTC to address this problem with stringent monitoring of the Wireless Code and otherwise.”
For more information please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director/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
or
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×23
jbishop@piac.ca
Federal Government Delivers the End of Paper Bill Fees for Telecom, Broadcasting
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today commended the Government of Canada for following through on its commitment to eliminate fees for paper bills. Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, eliminates the application of paper bill fees for consumers of telecommunication and broadcasting services once these provisions come into force. PIAC recommended the elimination of fees for paper billing in a recent report, entitled, How to Pay the Piper: A Primer on Additional Charges to Consumers in Canada for Paper Billing.
PIAC’s report examined the conduct of service providers in Canada who had begun to charge consumers for a paper bill or statement and the impact of these practices on consumers. PIAC estimates that Canadians are paying between $495 and $734 million annually in fees for monthly bills and statements in paper. “The government listened to consumers who want a monthly bill in the format of their choice without penalty,” noted John Lawford, the Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC.
One outstanding issue remains: the application of fees by Canadian banking institutions to obtain a paper statement each month. On May 27, 2014, the Minister of Finance announced a number of Canadian banks entered into a voluntary agreement to expand their low-cost and no-cost accounts, including free mailed monthly statements, however this fee waiver only applies to those eligible for the low- or no-cost accounts. “We contend consumers do not distinguish between a fee paid for a monthly paper bill and fee paid for a monthly paper statement,” suggested Jonathan Bishop, PIAC’s Research Analyst and author of the report. Bishop suggested that, “It’s time for the Canadian banks to completely stamp out the application of fees for mailed paper statements.”
For more information please contact:
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×25
Mobile (613)447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
PIAC Annual Dinner 2014
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) cordially invites all of our friends and colleagues to the PIAC Annual Dinner 2014. This year we will have a special guest speaker, Mr. Matthew Boswell, Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Criminal Matters and Fair Business Practices Branches.
The Annual Dinner will be held on Friday, November 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m at the National Arts Centre, Fountain Room, Ottawa
The Evening’s Events include:
6:00 – 7:00 p.m. Cocktails (Cash Bar)
7:15 – Keynote Speaker: Mr. Matthew Boswell, Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition (Criminal Matters and Fair Business Practices Branch), Competition Bureau of Canada
Who will speak on: The Competition Bureau’s role in protecting the public interest.
7:30 – Four Course Meal served with 2 glasses of wine
Throughout the evening there will be draws for a door prize as well as draws for other prizes.
We look forward to a very exciting evening.
Donate at a corporate social responsibility scale of $3,500.00 (includes group table for 9 persons). PIAC will issue a charitable tax receipt for $3,140.00
Purchase a group table for 9 for a value of $700.00. PIAC will also issue a charitable tax receipt for $340.00.
Buy an individual ticket for $80.00 PIAC will issue charitable taxable receipts at $40.00 per ticket.
If you are unable to attend please consider making a donation. PIAC will provide a charitable tax receipt for the amount donated.
Donations and ticket orders can be mailed to:
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
Or by faxing a completed order form with credit card information to (613) 562-0007
Download the order form [pdf file: 0.11mb]
Cheques should be made payable to the PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE.
For more information please contact:
Donna Brady
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×21
dbrady@piac.ca
Let’s Talk TV – Day 5
Day 5 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (the “Commission”) Let’s Talk TV hearing could be categorized as the day with unique perspectives. The last four days has seen relative similarity between the type of intervener (e.g. broadcaster, distributor, content creator) and their positions. By contrast, today saw a number of speakers with different perspectives compared to their counterparts, or speakers with relatively unique roles in the broadcasting system.
First up was TELUS Communication Company (“TELUS”), a relatively new competitor in the broadcasting industry due to their recent entry with IPTV technology (i.e. TV over an Internet connection). They also lack of a content production subsidiary unlike peers Bell, Rogers or Shaw. Despite their lack of vertical integration, TELUS has created significant competition in western Canada, as noted by Shaw yesterday.
TELUS’ position in the market and resulted in a unique submission to the Commission, and was the subject of significant questioning. TELUS noted their current service offerings are already very similar to the Commission’s proposed ‘skinny basic’ and pick-and-pay regime, but like many speakers have noted, they have faced significant obstacles in the wholesale market, preventing them from offering increased choice to consumers. Specifically, they cite the issue of sports programming which have some of the highest wholesale costs and often have the most demanding (or unreasonable) contractual requirements. The Commission’s questioning in the past days have often used sports services as an example of a service causing significant issues in the wholesale market, and TELUS’ submission further confirms this perception.
Second up was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which took the seemingly now-unpopular position of shutting down local Over-The-Air transmitters in order to save costs. They also suggested a few ways to increase funding for the CBC such as a local TV fund and requiring contributions from Over The Top providers such as Netflix, noting declining advertising revenues. The Commission’s questioning probed the CBC’s proposals, noting they seem somewhat at odds with the role of the public broadcaster. Some of the CBC’s answers suggested they had not considered the full implications of their proposals.
Small and regional broadcast distribution undertakings (“BDUs”) Access Communications Co-operative, Eastlink and Groupe V Média inc. also spoke today, highlighting some of the same issues in the wholesale market as others have mentioned earlier in the week. However due to their size, these BDUs face extra challenges in dealing with the vertically integrated BDUs, especially since the vertically integrated BDUs have a competing retail service in the same market.
For this reason, Eastlink suggested the commission create a ‘default’ affiliation agreement that contains standard terms, excluding pricing, that BDUs could fall back on if negotiations break down. This would give smaller BDUs some leverage against the vertically integrated companies who, according to Eastlink, may have no incentive to negotiate in good faith. The Commission seemed interested in this proposal, but questioned whether a default agreement would create a larger regulatory burden.
Offering a wholly different perspective on some of the issues was the TV Nunavut Educational Broadcast Society. They agreed with the Commission’s skinny basic proposal, noting that affordability is a significant challenge in Nunavut, since television service is only available by satellite. The Commission noted that much of the proceeding has been focused on competition in the urban markets, and that it may have been overlooked that the Canadian broadcasting system may not be serving Northern communities at even the most basic level.
Several content creator groups also spoke today, including RNC Media Inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, Stornoway Communications, and Anthem Media Group Inc., who largely echoed the concerns of their peers who spoke before them; mainly that pick-and-pay will make it more difficult for them to be seen in the new broadcasting world proposed by the Commission, and they are all very concerned with the declining revenues available for production and promotion of content (local, Canadian or otherwise).
