ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 9 April, 2009
Abridged Document Attached
By E-Mail
Our File No.: 8622-C151-200905102
Ms. Susan Wheeler
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Rogers Media
susan.wheeler@rci.rogers.com
Ms. Alyson J. Townsend
President and CEO
Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc.
atownsend@ccsa.cable.ca
Dear Mesdames:
Re: Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc. (CCSA) request for Final Offer Arbitration to resolve a commercial dispute between the CCSA and Rogers Sportsnet Inc. (Rogers)
Interrogatories with respect to the above referenced proceeding are attached.
Rogers and CSA are each to file responses to the interrogatories addressed to their respective organizations and serve copies on each other by Wednesday, 5:00 p.m. ET, 15 April, 2009.
Interrogatories in Attachment1are to be responded to by CCSA. Interrogatories in Attachment 2 are to be responded to by Rogers. Certain interrogatories to be responded to by Rogers relate to information which was filed in confidence with the Commission only. Pending a final determination by the Commission on matters relating to confidentiality, these interrogatories are provided as Attachment 3, to Rogers only, for their response.
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must actually be received, not merely sent, by that date.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Gerry Lylyk
Director Dispute Resolution
CC: K. Taylor, CRTC,
Ken Engelhart, Vice President Regulatory Law, RCI
Aivy Reinfelds, VP Television Development and Distribution, RSN
Tony Viner, President, RSN,
Doug Beeforth, President, RSN
doug.beeforth@sportsnet.rogers.com
Chris Edwards, VP Corporate & Regulatory, CCSA
Attachment 1
Interrogatories to CCSA
1. Please submit CCSA’s most recent expired affiliation agreement with Rogers. Include all rate cards and any other appendices.
2. At paragraph 36 of its 2 April 2009 submission, CCSA states that, “Sportsnet’s proposal has a wide-ranging and dramatic impact on CCSA Member Companies and their subscribers”. Further, paragraph 6 of Appendix C of CCSA’s submission states that, “…CCSA Member Companies that have distributed Sportsnet only on the basic level of service would suffer immediate and catastrophic financial impacts”.
For each of the CCSA’s Member Companies, and for each broadcast year up to and including 2012-2013, please provide financial projections that take into account Sportsnet’s latest proposal. At a minimum, total revenues, operating expenses, number of subscribers, and all assumptions should be provided.
Provide the information requested in (2)(a) above but with respect to CCSA’s proposal referenced in Appendix E of CCSA’s 2 April 2009 submission.
CCSA has alleged that the Rogers proposal to eliminate the equivalization of bulk subscribers will have a serious impact on many of its Members. Please elaborate and quantify the impact of eliminating the equivalization of bulk subscribers on CCSA’s Member Companies.
Indicate which CCSA Member Companies would suffer immediate and catastrophic financial impacts and what these impacts would be.
3. At paragraphs 8 and 9 of its 2 April 2009 submission, CCSA states that, “the pricing model in Sportsnet’s proposal of June 12, 2008 was vastly different from the previous CCSA/Sportsnet distribution contracts” and “that pricing model was also fundamentally different from any other model ever received by CCSA from any programmer in the industry.”
Clearly indicate how the pricing model of June 12, 2008 was “vastly different” from previous CCSA/Sportsnet distribution contracts.
Clearly indicate how the pricing model was “fundamentally different” from any other model ever received by CCSA.
4. Appendix E of CCSA’s 2 April 2009 submission references a “New CCSA Commercial Proposal”.
a) When did CCSA first make Rogers aware of this proposal?
b) Please provide a copy of CCSA’s previous proposal.
5. If the rate increases proposed by Rogers to CCSA were passed on in their entirety to CCSA subscribers, what would this translate into in terms of a monthly monetary rate increase per subscriber? Provide all calculations and assumptions.
6 Indicate which CCSA Member Companies currently provide the primary feed of Sportsnet on a basic package?
7. For each of those CCSA Member Companies who do not provide the primary feed of Sportsnet on a basic package, indicate what the penetration rate is.
Attachment 2
Interrogatories to Rogers
1. Please provide a concise listing, organized by year of contract, of the rates being offered by Rogers to CCSA Member Companies for the Sportsnet primary signal, the Sportsnet regional signals, the Sportsnet high definition television signals and the Sportsnet signals in Francophone markets.
2. Indicate and provide justification (including quantifiable justification) for Rogers’ proposed year over year rate increases for each CCSA Member Company for each of the Sportsnet signals referenced in (1) above.
3. At paragraph 28 of its 2 April 2009 submission, Rogers states that, “…the CRTC should determine rates reflecting the best comparator companies which are identified in Appendix A…”. What criteria did Rogers employ and/or what rationale did Rogers use to determine the “comparator companies”?
4. Has Rogers eliminated the equivalization of bulk subscribers, as characterized by CCSA in its 2 April 2009 submission, with any other BDU? If so, identify which ones and provide details and rationale for elimination.
5. At paragraph 25 of its submission CCSA states that, “…Access Communications was required to pay Sportsnet just over $(confidential number) of “retroactive” fees – representing payment from January 1, 2009…”.
At paragraph 33 of Rogers’ submission, Rogers states that, “…if the Commission decides to set rates, these rates should apply as of the time of termination of the previous contract, namely September 2008”.
Explain why in the first reference payments would be from January 1, 2009 and in the second reference, rates would apply as of September 2008?
6. In Appendix E of its 2 April 2009 submission, CCSA states, “in the spirit of compromise and to illustrate good faith, CCSA proposes the following rates for a contract commencing as of April 1, 2009 and expiring on August 31, 2013.” Please provide comments on this proposal.
Attachment 3
Abridged Pending Further Notice
Confidential Interrogatories to Rogers
- Date modified: