|
|
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2005-35
|
|
|
Ottawa, 18 April 2005
|
|
|
Good commercial practices
|
|
|
In this notice, the Commission announces its determinations following consideration of submissions filed in response to Call for comments on possible requirements for the provision of notice to programming services by distributors of their plans to change packages, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-64, 25 August 2004.
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
1.
|
In Call for comments on possible requirements for the provision of notice to programming services by distributors of their plans to change packages, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-64, 25 August 2004 (Public Notice 2004-64), the Commission invited comments with respect to the provision of such notice and the measures that may be required to ensure that negotiations between the operators of broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) and programmers are conducted in accordance with good commercial practices. The Commission also requested comment on certain other matters concerning the Commission's existing complaint and dispute resolution process. The comments provided in response addressed not only the specific questions in the notice, but a number of other broad policy issues. Many of these were closely related to the overall regulatory environment in which BDUs and programmers operate rather than to ongoing commercial relationships.
|
|
2.
|
Comments were received from Access Communications Co-operative Limited, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership (ExpressVu),1 VDN Cable Inc. (VDN), Câblevision du Nord de Québec inc. (Câblevision), the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc. (CCSA), the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA), Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Crossroads Television System (Crossroads), CTV Inc. (CTV), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS), Pelmorex Communications Inc. (Pelmorex), Quebecor Media Inc. (Quebecor), Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers), Star Choice Communications Inc. (Star Choice), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and TELUS Communications Inc. (Telus) (jointly), and Stornoway Communications Limited Partnership (Stornoway).2
|
|
3.
|
In general, BDU operators considered that their commercial conduct was dictated by the realities of a competitive market, and argued that the discipline of these market forces was sufficient to ensure good commercial practices. Accordingly, BDU operators generally considered that the Commission should become involved only as a last resort, and should otherwise leave negotiations to the parties themselves. Programmers, on the other hand, considered that there was an inherent lack of balance between the relative negotiating positions of programmers and BDUs, and called for increased regulatory intervention to redress this imbalance. In their comments regarding the Commission's existing complaint and dispute resolution process, programmers generally supported active, and potentially increased, Commission involvement in a broad range of circumstances when parties in a dispute are unable to reach agreement after a reasonable period of time.
|
|
4.
|
The topics addressed in Public Notice 2004-64, the specific questions asked by the Commission under each topic, the positions of interested parties in their responses to these questions, and the determinations reached by the Commission following its consideration of the comments received, are set out below.
|
|
|
A mandatory notice period
|
|
5.
|
In Public Notice 2004-64, the Commission asked the following questions:
|
|
|
Should a mandatory notice period be introduced requiring all BDUs, including DTH BDUs, to provide programming services with notice of changes to terms of carriage (including packaging changes) before changes may be made? If the Commission were to introduce such a measure, should it be implemented as part of the regulations or in some other manner?
|
|
|
If the Commission were to introduce such a requirement, is 60 days an appropriate and sufficient notification period, or would a longer or shorter period be preferable?
|
|
|
What information should accompany any notice provided to programmers? For example, in addition to providing timely notice, should distributors be required to provide programmers with comprehensive information concerning such matters as the proposed new terms of carriage and the estimated financial impact on the affected specialty service of any packaging changes, if any?
|
|
|
Summary of comments received
|
|
|
Notice
|
|
6.
|
Most BDU operators strongly opposed the introduction of any new regulatory requirement pertaining to commercial negotiations between programmers and themselves. In this connection, the CCTA maintained that its members, namely the licensees of cable BDUs, must be able to meet their responsibility to provide their customers with the best services, and with the most attractive array of packages, at competitive prices. The CCTA submitted that its members bear a disproportionate share of the risk in offering these services, relative to the risk borne by other parties in the broadcasting system. The CCTA further submitted that packaging flexibility is an essential competitive tool that cable BDUs rely on to respond to the actions of their competitors and to the demands of their customers. The CCTA maintained that the notice requirement proposed in Public Notice 2004-64 would increase both the number of disputes and the number of parties involved in those disputes, and concluded that the Commission would effectively become the packager of services, a role that is neither contemplated nor authorized under the Broadcasting Act (the Act).
|
|
7.
|
However, the cable BDUs submitted that section 26 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations) works well to provide advance notice of channel realignment matters. Section 26 stipulates as follows:
|
|
|
If a licensee intends to change the channel on which a Canadian programming service is distributed, the licensee shall not implement the change unless, at least 60 days before the proposed effective date of the change, it sends a written notice indicating the intended date of the change and the channel number on which the programming service will be distributed, to each of the operators of the programming services whose channel placements will be affected by the proposed realignment.
|
|
8.
|
Most Class 1 and Class 2 BDU operators were in favour of applying the advance notice requirement set out in section 26 of the Regulations to all BDUs, including Direct-to-Home (DTH) undertakings.
|
|
9.
|
The CAB submitted that the Commission should introduce a requirement that all BDUs, including DTH undertakings, provide advance notice to the operator of a programming service of any proposed change to the terms of carriage of that service. It was of fundamental concern to the CAB that BDUs can act as gatekeepers, thereby effectively dictating the terms of carriage and leaving programmers with little leverage in negotiations. The CAB advocated that, because issues related to packaging and terms of carriage are central to the ability of programmers to gain full access to viewers, the notification period should be incorporated into the Regulations to ensure that it is respected by all BDUs. CTV submitted that, given a perceived power imbalance between BDU operators and programmers, BDU operators can, for the most part, repackage a programming service, notwithstanding any negative material impact the repackaging may have on that programming service.
|
|
|
Contents of the notice
|
|
10.
|
Most BDU operators were opposed to the introduction of a requirement that they provide information to the operators of programming services, other than a simple advance notice of their intentions. For example, Cogeco submitted that the imposition of a regulatory obligation on BDUs to conduct a financial impact analysis of a proposed change to the carriage of a programming service, for the sole benefit of the programming service provider, would be patently unfair. It also suggested that such an obligation would be largely impracticable because BDUs do not have access to the requisite detailed information concerning the advertising contracts and revenues of the programmer, or access to the terms of carriage extended by the programmer to other BDU operators.
|
|
11.
|
VDN stated that, if the Regulations were to include a more structured framework, it would not be unreasonable to require BDUs to provide some additional information to the programmer related to the new terms of carriage.
|
|
12.
|
The CAB submitted that the Commission should, as part of an advance notification measure, require a BDU to provide sufficient information to enable the programming service to undertake a full analysis as to why the realignment or repackaging is necessary and to assess the financial impact of the realignment, repackaging or other change to existing terms of carriage. In addition, it suggested that the notification should include the measures proposed by the BDU to alleviate such impact where it negatively affects the advertising and/or subscription revenues of the service, where those measures are not already addressed in an existing affiliation agreement.
|
|
13.
|
CTV's submission elaborated on the CAB's approach suggesting that a BDU be required to provide both the affected programmer and the Commission with a written explanation of how the proposed change to the terms of carriage would affect such things as: the retail rates paid by subscribers; the wholesale revenue receivable by the programming service; the number of subscribers to the programming service; and other programming services, including programming services affiliated with the distributor. According to CTV, this report should also contain such other information as would reasonably be required to allow the programmer and the Commission to evaluate the impact of the proposed change. CTV added that, where such measures are not already addressed in an existing affiliation agreement, a description of the measures proposed by the BDU to alleviate such impact, where it negatively affects the advertising and/or subscription revenues of the service, should be included in the report.
|
|
14.
|
Crossroads submitted that DTH distributors should be required to provide programmers with the new channel allocation and comprehensive information concerning the composition of the package or packages in which the program service is to be placed. In its view, if changes in proposed terms of carriage encompass financial considerations, such new terms of carriage should be accompanied by an estimate of the financial impact on the affected programmer.
|
|
|
Length of the notice period
|
|
15.
|
Cogeco submitted that a notification period of any longer than 60 days would be impracticable. Câblevision suggested that it was not necessary for the Commission to establish a formal notification period. VDN suggested that, if a mandatory notice period is introduced, it should be as short as possible in order to provide BDUs with the maximum flexibility to adjust their channel line-ups. VDN also stated that, in the situation where a service would be assigned a new channel location, but would remain within the same package or packages that currently exist, the appropriate notice period should likely be no more than one month.
|
|
16.
|
The CAB, Pelmorex and Stornoway submitted that the Commission should introduce a 90-day advance notification period before the implementation of any channel realignment, repackaging, or other significant change to existing terms of carriage. CTV submitted that the notice period should, in no circumstances, be less than 60 days, while Crossroads submitted that 60 days would be sufficient.
|
|
|
The Commission's determinations
|
|
|
Notice
|
|
17.
|
In the Commission's view, unilateral changes by BDU operators in the carriage of services are at odds with the responsibilities of BDUs, who should, as set out in section 3(1)(t)(iii) of the Act, "where programming services are supplied to them by broadcasting undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements, provide reasonable terms for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services". Such changes could also have an impact on the ability of programming services to fulfil their conditions of licence, and to play their role in fulfilling the objectives set forth in section 3(1) of the Act. Based on the record of this proceeding the Commission considers that BDUs should provide more detailed notice to programming services of proposed changes in the terms of their carriage, packaging or retailing, on a timely basis. The details that should be included by BDU operators in such notice are set out below.
|
|
18.
|
The Commission expects BDU operators to adopt these measures immediately. The Commission has elected, at this time, not to amend the Regulations to put this statement of policy into effect. However, it would be prepared to consider such an amendment should it become evident that these measures are not being observed, to the detriment of the achievement of the policy objectives of section 3(1) of the Act noted above.
|
|
|
Contents of notice
|
|
19.
|
Having reviewed the record of this proceeding, the Commission considers it appropriate that, prior to any proposed realignment, all BDUs should also provide sufficient information to programmers to allow them to analyze the impact of the proposed change on their businesses, including the effect the proposed changes may have on their advertising and subscription revenues. In the Commission's view, the provision of such information should result in better informed negotiations. Additionally, the provision of such information would enhance the ability of programmers to inform subscribers about the details of the proposed changes.
|
|
20.
|
Accordingly, the Commission expects all BDU operators, when they intend to make a change to the distribution of a programming service, to provide the operator of the affected programming service with the following information:
|
|
|
- the intended date of the change;
- the new channel number on which the programming service will be distributed;
- if the channel is moved from one package to another, a full description of the package in which the service will be distributed, including the name of the package, the expected penetration rate, and the retail rate for the package; and
- any change that may be contemplated in the wholesale rate or in the method used to calculate this rate.
|
|
|
Length of the notice period
|
|
21.
|
The Commission considers that reasonable advance notice is necessary for the above information to be useful. Although the Commission is of the view that the CAB's proposal for a 90-day advance notice could pose too much of an impediment in a competitive broadcasting distribution market, it considers that a shortened period of notice would not afford enough advance notice to programmers to enable them to properly inform viewers of the change and/or assess the consequences of the proposed change.
|
|
22.
|
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the 60-day notice period established in section 26 of the Regulations continues to be reasonable.
|
|
|
Dispute resolution mechanisms
|
|
23.
|
The Commission asked for comment in Public Notice 2004-64 on the following questions:
|
|
|
The Commission's policy is that negotiations should be left to the parties themselves, with Commission involvement occurring only as a last resort. In light of this policy, at what point, if any, should any proposed measure nevertheless allow recourse to the Commission's existing mechanisms for dealing with disputes and complaints? Are there certain types of disputes that the Commission should not involve itself in? Please explain in detail for each type of dispute identified.
|
|
|
Summary of comments received
|
|
24.
|
BDU operators generally supported the existing approach, whereby negotiations are left to the parties themselves, with the Commission becoming involved only as a last resort. BDU operators suggested that the Commission should maintain its longstanding policy of not applying its dispute resolution powers in matters that are essentially commercial in nature.
|
|
25.
|
ExpressVu suggested that the Commission should consider becoming involved in disputes that entail a clear breach of regulation, policy, or an existing contract at an earlier stage than it currently does in the case of disputes in general. However, ExpressVu considered that the Commission should generally not intervene in disputes that involve circumstances where a party attempts to assert control in an area that is more properly the responsibility of another party, or where one party is attempting to modify previous Commission regulation or policy through dispute resolution.
|
|
26.
|
VDN submitted that recourse to the Commission's dispute resolution mechanism should always be available to parties in the event of a dispute. VDN submitted that there can frequently exist a significant difference in bargaining power between parties, particularly between a small BDU and a large multi-service programmer, and that it would not want the Commission to withdraw from such proceedings. In contrast, Quebecor suggested that the Commission's dispute resolution mechanisms should not apply where an agreement exists between the parties.
|
|
27.
|
As reflected in the CAB's submission, the operators of programming services generally suggested that, when parties to a good faith negotiation are unable to reach agreement after a reasonable period of time, they should have recourse to the Commission's dispute resolution mechanisms. The CAB noted that this should be the case for significant changes to terms of carriage, including matters such as channel placement, packaging, wholesale rates, affiliate audits and marketing of programming services. In addition, CTV submitted that the Commission should be involved in disputes with respect to any significant term of carriage before the distributor is permitted to take any unilateral action that would negatively affect a programming service. The CAB and CTV also suggested that the Commission should consider the merits of an expedited dispute resolution process that would take less time than the current 45 day process, and ensure that Commission decisions arising from dispute resolution proceedings are binding on all parties.
|
|
|
The Commission's determination
|
|
28.
|
The Commission remains of the view that commercial arrangements between BDU operators and programmers are matters best determined by negotiations between the parties, without its intervention, particularly where the notice requirements set out above have been fulfilled. While there may be circumstances where the Commission determines that it must intervene in the public interest, it expects that this would occur only in exceptional cases where, for example, the attainment of the objectives set out in the Act could be compromised. Evidence of substantial harm caused to a licensed programming service would, in the Commission's view, be a pertinent factor in making such a determination.
|
|
|
Possible suspension of proposed changes in distribution pending dispute resolution
|
|
29.
|
In Public Notice 2004-64, the Commission asked:
|
|
|
If the Commission were to accept a dispute for expeditious resolution concerning proposed packaging or other changes to terms of carriage (pursuant to sections 12 to 15 of the Regulations), should implementation of the proposed change be suspended pending such resolution? If so, what would be the appropriate period of such a suspension?
|
|
|
Summary of comments received
|
|
30.
|
Most BDU operators were opposed to the suggestion that the Commission might suspend implementation of changes to the terms of carriage or to the packaging of services pending resolution of a dispute. However, Quebecor supported consideration by the Commission of possibly suspending such proposed changes on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
31.
|
ExpressVu, while opposed to any suspension, submitted that the onus should be on the party seeking expedited relief to demonstrate its compliance with the steps required by the Commission's dispute resolution framework.
|
|
32.
|
The CAB submitted that the Commission should, in the event of a dispute concerning a change in packaging or other terms of carriage, suspend implementation of the proposed change pending resolution of the dispute. Similarly, CTV submitted that, in order to foster the conduct of negotiations between BDU operators and programmers in accordance with good commercial practices, the status quo must be maintained until the issue is resolved, either among the parties or by the Commission.
|
|
|
The Commission's determination
|
|
33.
|
Because disputes and their impact on the parties and on subscribers vary from one case to another, the Commission considers that the suspension of the implementation of any proposed packaging change pending a final decision from the Commission should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Such assessment will take into consideration whether the notice requirements set out above have been fulfilled.
|
|
|
Prioritizing disputes
|
|
34.
|
In Public Notice 2004-64, the Commission asked:
|
|
|
In view of the potential volume of disputes, should there be some method developed for prioritizing disputes so that those of highest priority are dealt with first? If so, what elements should be taken into consideration for prioritizing the disputes?
|
|
|
Summary of comments received
|
|
35.
|
Quebecor submitted that any method used to prioritize disputes should be based on their financial impact where disputes involve only the parties immediately concerned, and on social impact where disputes affect the public. VDN suggested that one critical question that must be taken into consideration is whether a delay in resolving the dispute would deprive consumers of access to services.
|
|
36.
|
ExpressVu submitted that there is a need for disputes to be prioritized, and proposed that such prioritization be guided by the following criteria:
|
|
|
- Any prima facie violation of existing Commission regulations and/or policies should be considered of the highest priority demanding timely resolution.
|
|
|
- Disputes focused primarily on financial concerns, while of obvious importance, should nonetheless be treated as a secondary priority, unless a delay would cause material, long-lasting damage to the party requesting injunctive relief. In this regard, ExpressVu suggested that, in most instances, resolutions can accommodate adequate retroactive settlements.
|
|
|
- All other matters should be dealt with on a "first-come, first-served" basis.
|
|
37.
|
Generally, programmers submitted that the Commission should deal with disputes on a first-come, first-served basis.
|
|
|
The Commission's determination
|
|
38.
|
As noted above, the impact of a dispute on the parties and/or on subscribers varies from case to case. For this reason, the Commission has, to date, generally exercised its own discretion in prioritizing dispute files. In the Commission's view, the record of this proceeding provides no evidence of a compelling need to establish specific criteria for the prioritization of disputes.
|
|
39.
|
The Commission notes in this connection that it recently had occasion to employ an "expedited hearing process" to deal with an allegation of undue preference raised under both the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act. The process followed was that described in Expedited procedure for resolving competitive issues, Telecom Circular CRTC 2004-2, 10 February 2004. The public hearing took place on 21 March 2005 and the Commission announced its determinations regarding this matter in a decision issued the following week.3 The Commission is confident that the use, when appropriate, of a similar expedited hearing process for broadcasting disputes will help it deal on a timely basis with such disputes. The accelerated procedures that the Commission will use in conducting such public hearings are outlined in Expedited procedure for resolving issues under the Broadcasting Act, Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2005-463 of today's date.
|
|
|
Other Issues
|
|
40.
|
In Public Notice 2004-64, the Commission asked:
|
|
|
What measures, instead of or in addition to the provision of detailed and timely notice, may be required to foster the conduct of negotiations between distributors and programmers in accordance with good commercial practices?
|
|
|
Summary of comments received
|
|
41.
|
A number of the parties that responded to this question, and the CAB in particular, raised a number of other issues and questions not specifically canvassed in Public Notice 2004-64. These included: the issue of consent when BDU operators repackage analog programming services on a digital basis; and the question of whether the terms of an affiliation agreement should remain binding on the parties upon the agreement's expiry or following the transfer of the ownership or control of one of the parties through a transfer of equity or through an acquisition of assets. Also included were requests that the Commission elaborate on such subjects as the undue preference test; equitable financial disclosure; cost separation reporting; and the definition of "subscriber". A discussion of each of these issues follows, along with the Commission's determinations.
|
|
|
Consent
|
|
42.
|
In its submission, the CAB maintained that, where a BDU's proposed realignment, repackaging, or other significant change to existing terms of carriage may result in material harm to a programming service, there must be agreement between the BDU and the programming service before the BDU implements the proposed change. Consistent with this position, the CAB (supported by CTV) submitted that the Commission should ensure that the principles developed jointly by the programming and distribution industries, and announced in Principles for the launch of Category 1 and 2 Digital Services, Public Notice CRTC 2001-57, 25 May 2001, are adhered to with respect to the digital repackaging of analog programming services and, in particular, that no instance of duplication or migration of an analog programming service occur without the consent of the programming service in question.
|
|
43.
|
The Commission notes in this regard that, in Determinations with respect to the establishment of rules to govern the distribution of specialty services on the basic service of fully digital cable undertakings; and call for proposals for a framework to guide the migration of pay and specialty services from analog to a digital distribution environment, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2005-1, 7 January 2005 (Public Notice 2005-1), it invited comment on whether a programmer's consent should be required prior to the migration of its analog service to digital distribution on cable BDUs and, if so, under what circumstances. At that time, the Commission also invited comment on the circumstances under which it should expect a programmer to provide consent to such a change by cable BDUs.
|
|
44.
|
The Commission expects to reach a determination on the issue of consent as part of the proceeding undertaken in Public Notice 2005-1. As a result, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to make a determination on this issue in the context of the present proceeding.
|
|
|
Terms of existing affiliation agreements
|
|
45.
|
The CAB noted that there are currently no guidelines with respect to whether, and to what extent, an expired affiliation agreement should continue to be binding on programmers and BDUs pending the completion of negotiations on a new agreement. The CAB further submitted that this situation, coupled with the Commission's policy precluding a programming service from withdrawing or withholding its signal upon the expiry of an affiliation agreement, serves as a disincentive for the timely conclusion of commercial negotiations on a new, mutually acceptable affiliation agreement. Consequently, the CAB called on the Commission to amend the Regulations to provide that, "upon the expiry of an affiliation agreement, existing terms of that agreement shall continue to be binding until a new agreement is reached or a dispute resolution decision is rendered." CTV supported this position. The CAB also submitted that the Commission should amend the Regulations to specify that, when ownership or control of a BDU is transferred, whether through a transfer of equity or through an acquisition of assets, the terms and conditions of any existing affiliation agreement between the operator of a programming service and the former licensee or owner of the BDU will continue to apply to the new owner or licensee.
|
|
46.
|
In the Commission's view, these matters should be addressed as contractual terms of affiliation agreements themselves, rather than in the Regulations.
|
|
|
Undue preference
|
|
47.
|
A number of programmers suggested that the Commission should provide greater regulatory certainty for all parties to a commercial negotiation by elaborating consistent standards for the application of the undue preference test. Some parties suggested that these standards should take into account the current regulatory and business environment in which programmer/BDU negotiations occur, and should ensure that the standard for demonstrating that a preference is indeed undue is not so high as to lose all meaningfulness. Several parties also noted that the Commission has issued a substantial number of decisions in cases involving allegations of undue preference or disadvantage, and suggested that the Commission establish a catalogue of such precedents so that parties can understand what decisions are likely to ensue in response to certain positions taken in disputes.
|
|
48.
|
The Commission notes that the prohibitions on regulated entities conferring an undue preference or disadvantage and their interpretation have a long history. It notes also that the decisions regarding compliance with these prohibitions require regulators to apply their judgement to the facts of each case. While the Commission's decisions on allegations of undue preference or disadvantage are similarly made on a case-by-case basis, and are fact-dependant, these decisions generally set out the tests and criteria employed by the Commission to reach its determinations on whether or not a particular preference or disadvantage is undue. As these criteria evolve in response to the evolution of the Canadian broadcasting system, the Commission considers that a list of these decisions could be useful to parties. Such a list is accordingly appended to this public notice.
|
|
|
Equitable financial disclosure
|
|
49.
|
The CAB and CTV submitted that the Commission should provide for equitable financial disclosure by all licensees by according confidentiality to the detailed financial information provided to the Commission in the annual returns of specialty and pay programming services. They added that the financial and operating data of BDU operators (which are now largely rate-deregulated) are granted confidential treatment, while the financial and operating data of analog specialty services are available on the public file.
|
|
50.
|
The Commission notes that its staff is currently examining the development of new Commission guidelines with respect to the confidential treatment of annual returns for Category 1 and Category 2 specialty services. The Commission intends to expand the scope of this examination to include the CAB/CTV request.
|
|
|
Cost separation
|
|
51.
|
The CAB and CTV submitted that the Commission should develop and enforce appropriate cost separation reporting requirements for BDUs to ensure that common operating costs and capital expenditures are properly allocated to programming and non-programming services. These parties argued that, given the expanding investment by cable BDUs in digital broadband and telephony, cable BDUs increasingly offer more than broadcasting services. They argued that this underlines the importance of the Commission being able to determine whether common operating costs and capital expenditures are properly allocated. Further, they suggested that the amount and nature of financial information provided to the Commission by BDUs has a direct impact on the financial position of programmers, since they have an impact on the conduct of negotiations between programmers and BDUs.
|
|
52.
|
The Commission notes that this was not an issue specifically raised by the Commission in Public Notice 2004-64, and that, as a consequence, most comments did not address this matter. Accordingly, the Commission considers the record of this proceeding insufficient to make a determination in this regard. Moreover, the Commission notes that, should the issue of cost separation be raised by a party in a future dispute, it could be considered by the Commission in the context of that specific case.
|
|
|
Definition of "subscriber"
|
|
53.
|
The CAB submitted that the current definition of "subscriber", as set out in the Regulations, permits BDUs to remit artificially low affiliation payments in relation to some accounts by counting each commercial and institutional account in the same way as a single residential subscriber. In effect, the CAB maintained that specialty and pay services receive affiliation payments in respect of each commercial and institutional account as if it were a single residential subscriber, even though the total subscription revenue obtained by the BDU from such an account is significantly larger than from a residential customer. Therefore, the CAB submitted that the Commission should amend the definition of "subscriber" in the Regulations to ensure fair payment by BDUs with respect to commercial and institutional accounts.
|
|
54.
|
The Commission notes that the term "subscriber" was defined in the Regulations for its specific purposes, and it does not consider it necessary to amend the definition at this time. While BDU operators and programmers are free to employ the definition in their affiliation agreements, the Commission notes that they are also free to negotiate other definitions that may be appropriate for the purposes of such agreements.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
|
|
Appendix to Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2005-35
|
|
|
List of broadcasting decisions dealing with undue preference and/or disadvantage from 21 July 1998 to date
|
|
1. Transfer of shares - denied, Decision CRTC 98-226, 21 July 1998;
|
|
|
2. Transfer of shares - denied, Decision CRTC 98-487, 23 October 1998;
|
|
|
3. ExpressVu Inc. vs. Rogers Communications Inc., Letter Decision, 18 September 1998;
|
|
|
4. Look Communications Inc. vs. Shaw Cablesystems, Letter Decision, 30 March 1999;
|
|
|
5. Shaw Communications Inc. vs. Look Communications Inc., Letter Decision, 7 April 2000;
|
|
|
6. Rogers Cable Inc. vs. Pacific Place Cable Ltd., Letter Decision, 7 April 2000;
|
|
|
7. Look Communications Inc. vs. Rogers Cable Inc., Letter Decision, 7 April 2000;
|
|
|
8. Torstar Corporation vs. Southmount Cable Limited, Letter Decision, 31 May 2000;
|
|
|
9. Torstar Corporation vs. Cogeco Cable Inc., Letter Decision, 31 May 2000;
|
|
|
10. Torstar Corporation vs. Cableworks Communications Inc., Letter Decision, 31 May 2000;
|
|
|
11. Cogeco Radio-Télévision inc. vs. Star Choice Communications Inc., Decision CRTC 2001-609, 28 September 2001;
|
|
|
12. PrideVision vs. Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. and Star Choice Television Network Ltd., Decision CRTC 2001-612, 28 September 2001;
|
|
|
13. Complaint by Vidéotron ltée alleging that Le Réseau des sports (RDS) inc. contravened section 10.1 of the 1990 Specialty Services Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-254, 29 August 2002;
|
|
|
14. Complaint by Netstar Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Le Réseau des sports (RDS) inc. alleging that Vidéotron ltée. contravened section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255, 29 August 2002;
|
|
|
15. Mandatory Order issued pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act against Vidéotron Ltée and its subsidiaries, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-299, 9 October 2002;
|
|
|
16. Complaint by VDN Cable Inc. against Vidéotron ltée alleging that Vidéotron ltée contravened section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-25, 24 January 2003;
|
|
|
17. Complaint by Novus Entertainment Inc. against Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership regarding access to a condominium multiple unit dwelling, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-275, 18 July 2003;
|
|
|
18. Complaints by Saskatchewan Telecommunications and MTS Communications Inc. alleging breaches of section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations against Shaw Communications Inc. and of section 6.1(1) of the Pay Television Regulations, 1990 against Shaw Pay-Per-View Ltd. (formerly Corus VC Ltd.), Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-408, 21 August 2003;
|
|
|
19. Complaint by Wagg Communications against Shaw Communications Inc. alleging breaches of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-518, 23 October 2003;
|
|
|
20. Complaint by Novus Entertainment Inc. alleging anti-competitive marketing practices by Shaw Cablesystems Company, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-3, 8 January 2004;
|
|
|
21. Complaint by Cablevision TRP-SDM Inc. against Cogeco Cable Inc. alleging contraventions of section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-4, 14 January 2004;
|
|
|
22. Complaint by CTV Television Inc. alleging that Rogers Cable Communications Inc. contravened section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-188, 20 May 2004;
|
|
|
23. Complaint by MTS Allstream Inc. alleging breaches of the winback rules by Shaw Communications Inc., Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-468, 27 October 2004;
|
|
|
24. Complaint by Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership against Rogers Cable Inc. alleging certain anti-competitive practices, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-494, 12 November 2004; and
|
|
|
25. Complaint by Aliant Telecom Inc. against Bragg Communications Incorporated and its subsidiaries alleging breaches of section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations and section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2005-120, 1 April 2005.
|
|
|
Footnotes:
[]Bell ExpressVu Inc., (the general partner), and BCE Inc. and 4119649 Canada Inc. (partners in BCE Holdings G.P., a general partnership that is the limited partner), carrying on business as Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership.
[] Stornoway Communications General Partner Inc. (the general partner) and 1403318 Ontario Limited (the limited partner), carrying on business as Stornoway Communications Limited Partnership.
[] See Complaint by Aliant Telecom Inc. against Bragg Communications Incorporated and its subsidiaries alleging breaches of section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations and section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2005-1, 1April 2005.
|
Date Modified: 2005-04-18
|