TV service provider code takes effect September 2017

Television service providers have another 20 months before they are forced to abide by a new code governing their relationship with customers. The CRTC on Thursday released a finalized version of its television service provider code, which will, among other things, require broadcast distributors to provide easy-to-understand information about what channels a customer is getting, clarity about the duration of promotional offers and time commitments a consumer must undertake, explicit information on charges or taxes that might be applied on top of an advertised price, and provide 30 days notice before any pricing changes take effect. “The new code of conduct will empower Canadian TV viewers as they navigate a dynamic marketplace," CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais said in a press release. "It will ensure that they receive information that is easy to understand and that they are notified of changes to their services." The code will become mandatory for all licenced TV service providers with at least 20,000 customers on Sept. 1, 2017, the CRTC said in its decision. "In setting the date, the Commission considered the timeline for the implementation of other Let’s Talk TV policy determinations as well as its experience with the implementation of the Wireless Code," the commission said. "This date will provide TVSPs (TV service providers) with sufficient time to adjust their systems and processes." Other decisions related to the commission's Let's Talk TV review include the need for service providers to offer skinny-basic TV packages for no more than $25 a month starting March 1 this year and full pick-and-pay options by Dec. 1. The wireless code was announced June 3, 2013, became applicable to new contracts signed as of Dec. 2, 2013 and to all wireless contracts as of June 3 last year, regardless of when they were signed. A key provision of that code is that customers can leave contracts with no penalty after two years; three-year contracts had previously been the standard. Alysia Lau, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), said her group would have preferred the code for TV service providers to come into effect sooner. "We would have definitely wanted to see it come into effect much earlier, but it just seems the commission is trying to be cautious, possibly related to potential appeals to the Federal Court, from their experience with the wireless code," she said in a phone interview. "I think a year would have been ideal for PIAC." She noted that during consultation, PIAC was calling for the TV service provider code to come into effect within six months of being announced. Despite the code not taking effect until late 2017, the CRTC encouraged TV service providers to become compliant with it "as soon as possible." The code will require service providers to give 30 days notice when they change the pricing of channels, packages and rental equipment. That requirement was softened from the CRTC's initial proposal that 45 days be used as a benchmark for such notices, and that it also apply if a channel's nature of service was going to change. "A 30-day notification period would enable and encourage customers to react promptly," the CRTC said Thursday. "For this reason and to be consistent with the Wireless Code and with other provincial consumer protection legislations, the Commission is opting for a 30-day notification." As well, the CRTC said it agreed with arguments made by service providers during the consultation that requiring them to notify customers about changes to programming on specific channels is impractical given that the CRTC is phasing out genre-protection for channels, making programming formats of many channels unpredictable. The code includes a provision that service providers must allow consumers to change their programming options, although minimum commitment periods can be included for some channels if the customer agrees to clearly stated conditions in a written agreement. Service providers had previously complained that allowing customers to change their programming options immediately and without condition was unworkable, with BCE Inc. stating in a submission to the CRTC that "it would effectively permit subscribers to turn linear programming services into a video-on-demand offering, at a fraction of the cost.” The commission also backed off on a previous suggestion that the new mandated skinny basic packages must be promoted similarly to the way service providers promote their "first-tier offering." Instead, the finalized code says that service providers must simply make customers aware of their entry-level packages, and their content and pricing. The CRTC's code, in the end, did not include its previous suggestion that service providers commit to four-hour windows for making service calls. Instead, it states that broadcast distributors must provide customers with "a timeframe for when a service call to a residence will begin," specify ahead of time any charges that could apply, and specify how a service call can be cancelled or rescheduled and whether additional charges for such changes will apply. The code, as released Wednesday, also includes a provision requiring that customers with disabilities be entitled to 30-day trials to determine if a service meets their needs. The code states that they can cancel service any time during the trial period without incurring any financial costs or penalty. PIAC's Lau said the TV service provider code is "a good beginning and a good start for consumers, but we would like to see the commission build on this in the future." The CRTC said it would review the TV service provider code five years after its implementation. As an example of where the code fell short, Lau said PIAC would like to have seen companies prevented from unilaterally changing prices on fixed-term agreements as opposed to merely requiring they give 30 days notice. She added that PIAC would have preferred the code stick to requiring service providers to commit to a four-hour timeframe for when service calls start. Ann Mainville-Neeson, Telus Corp.’s vice-president of broadcasting policy and regulatory affairs, said in an emailed statement: “The CRTC’s television service provider code of conduct is good for Canadians as it will help ensure we all have the information necessary to make informed choices about the television services we select. Telus already meets the vast majority of the code’s requirements, as we work to exceed customer expectations for our Optik TV service every day.” Rogers Communications Inc. spokeswoman Jennifer Kett said in an email: “We already meet many of the requirements of the code and will work to implement any remaining provisions by the implementation date.” Jacqueline Michelis, a spokeswoman for Bell, said in an email: “We are already implementing changes in line with the code and will be fully compliant by Sept 2017.” TV service providers such as Shaw Communications Inc. and Cogeco Cable Inc. said Thursday that they were reviewing the code and it was too soon to comment. Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron declined comment without specifying a reason. — With reporting by Derek Abma at dabma@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca CORRECTION: An incorrect date for when skinny-basic packages become mandatory was in a previous version of this article.

TV service provider code takes effect September 2017

Broadcast | January 7, 2016

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

TV service provider code takes effect September 2017

Broadcast | January 7, 2016

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

CBC’s ‘fast pivot’ strategy to capture new audiences online could prove difficult without reprioritizing resources, says media expert

CTA says new criminal legislation will help combat copper theft

UPDATED: CRTC disallows Bell-Cogeco appeal of Quebecor radio deal

Related Stories

NDP critic calls for Rogers to reverse price hikes or be blocked from federal contracts

Rogers, Cogeco, Quebecor challenge ILECs at CRTC hearings

Cogeco defends infrastructure upgrade amid TekSavvy dispute

Cogeco MVNO operations still a ways away

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us