Cheaper data for mobile TV not an undue preference, BCE says

BCE Inc.’s mobile TV product is a distinct broadcast distribution business and its pricing structure does not disadvantage competitors' over-the-top video services any more than the pricing of home TV services offered by other Internet service providers (ISPs), the company said in regulatory filings. “Bell Mobile TV service is the kind of innovative, consumer-oriented broadcast service that the Commission intended to encourage when it first created licence-exempt new media broadcasting undertakings,” BCE said in documents filed with the CRTC Thursday in response to a complaint that its mobile subsidiary unfairly prioritizes the mobile TV service. “This type of pro-Canadian, pro-consumer and pro-creator wireless broadcasting service needs to be nurtured, not discouraged.” Ben Klass, a master’s student at the University of Manitoba, said in his November complaint to the commission that Bell Mobility gives the Bell Mobile TV service an “undue preference” over other online video services by allowing BCE’s mobile subscribers to watch videos on the service without it counting against their monthly data cap. He said the practice “results in discrimination which negatively affects all Bell Mobility customers, as well as a number of competitive service providers.” Under BCE’s mobile TV offering, Bell Mobility subscribers can access up to 10 hours of television content on their wireless devices for $5 each month without the data used to transmit that programming counting against their monthly mobile data caps. The company, which has said that more than one million people subscribe to the mobile TV service, does not allow its mobile subscribers to watch videos carried by other over-the-top service providers — such as Netflix Inc. or Google Inc.’s YouTube service — without it counting towards their monthly data allotments. In its response to the complaint, BCE said the mobile TV offering is a distinct broadcast distribution service and should not be confused with its mobile service, which is strictly a telecommunications service. It said the Bell Mobile TV service should be treated in the same way as household TV services offered by telecommunications providers that also offer Internet services. “Bell Mobility’s distinct pricing of broadcasting versus Internet services is no different from the same, long established, pricing practices that exist in the BDU and Internet wireline world,” the company said. It added that Rogers Communications Inc.’s cable TV subscribers can watch TV programming on their home television without it counting against their monthly home Internet data cap, as can subscribers to BCE’s Bell Fibe TV service. “However, watching the same movie on Netflix or via Apple TV, does count against that consumer’s monthly Fibe or Internet usage cap, since this is Fibe or cable Internet access usage, rather than viewing of a TV service.” BCE also rejected Klass’ suggestion that the Bell Mobile TV service unfairly prioritizes content owned by the company’s Bell Media division. It noted that 13 of the 44 TV channels currently available through the mobile TV service are owned by independent broadcasters, while Bell Media channels and others owned by BCE account for 15 of those channels. It said the service also provides a new distribution platform for Canada’s independent programmers, adding that 38 of the 44 channels are Canadian-owned. BCE argued that Klass’ undue preference complaint also failed to prove that the company’s different treatment of other over-the-top service providers has affected the ability of those providers to compete in the market. Both Netflix and YouTube have continued to grow their audience bases since the Bell service launched in late 2011, the company noted. “Bell Mobility’s introduction of Mobile TV has not stifled OTT competition,” the company said. Jean-Francois Mezei, a telecom consultant with Montreal’s Vaxination Informatique, said in an intervention that the CRTC should treat BCE’s mobile TV service as it would any other mobile application. The fact that Bell Mobility subscribers can access the service over WiFi instead of their mobile connection means it is “just a simple internet enabled application” and should be treated the same as “competing applications.” “The Bell TV app is thus just another application that runs on the smartphone and transfers data over the one standard data pipe with no ability to be separated or treated differently,” Mezei said. “It is no different from any other app including the browser, mail or YouTube, Netflix or the NFB app which provides access to its video archives.” In a separate intervention in support of Klass’ complaint, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Canadian Association of Consumers (CAC) said Bell Mobility charges its subscribers “substantially different” rates to view Bell Mobile TV data compared to other types of online services. The groups said BCE’s mobile subscribers pay roughly $1 per GB of data used to watch Bell Mobile TV content for the first 10 hours of monthly service, and $6 per GB to use the service if they go over their monthly allotment. They said Bell Mobility charges those same customers between $8 and $52 per GB to watch other online video content on their mobile devices. “he Bell companies’ pricing for wireless data grants a substantial preference to their own Mobile TV service in comparison with the OTT offerings of competitors,” the groups said. The consumer groups, which asked the commission in December to expand its consideration of Klass’ complaint to include similar mobile TV services offered by Rogers and Quebecor Media Inc.’s Videotron Ltd. subsidiary, also filed on Thursday two additional complaints relating to the Rogers and Videotron services. Klass has until Jan. 20 to file reply comments in response to the interventions. — With reporting by Nicholas Kyonka at nkyonka@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija akarad@thewirereport.ca

Cheaper data for mobile TV not an undue preference, BCE says

News | 01/10/2014 9:24 pm EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Related Stories

Judge rejects broadcasters’ request for increased fine in set-top box case

News | 05/19/2023 2:05 pm EDT

CRTC must implement a reasonable test for FTTP rates: Péladeau

News | 05/11/2023 5:44 pm EDT

CRTC approves claims for broadband rollout

Briefs | 05/05/2023 1:40 pm EDT

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us