Quebecor calls Bell’s Vrai complaint “desperate” and “devoid of any merit”

Quebecor Inc. wants BCE Inc.’s request to mandate that Videotron immediately remove its Vrai service to “be rejected outright,” Quebecor told the CRTC, claiming that the incumbent’s arguments are “devoid of any merit and relies on an erroneous interpretation of regulatory principles.” Quebecor’s comments came in a Feb. 10 French-language response to the CRTC, after the regulator opened an expedited proceeding at the request of Bell, regarding a November complaint against its Vrai on-demand streaming service. “Being in direct competition with Bell for several decades, Quebecor Media is accustomed to unfounded and deplorable attacks by Bell aimed at discrediting its competitors and preserving its status as a dominant player as a direct result of its history as a former monopoly group,” the company wrote in its response, according to translation. “Let's not be fooled, Bell's intentions are clear: it seeks by all means to prevent healthy competition, both in the Canadian television landscape and in other sectors of telecommunications.” The dispute began in Aug. 2021, when Bell filed an initial Part 1 claim against Videotron regarding the launch and distribution of its new video-on-demand service, by hybrid subscription, Vrai. In its initial application Bell alleged, among other things, that Vrai violated the Video-on-Demand Exemption Order since Vrai was exclusively offered to Videotron and not on a direct-to-consumer basis. Bell claimed that Videotron gave itself an undue preference by depriving consumers of the possibility of subscribing to Vrai. According to Quebecor’s Thursday reply, Bell then “realized that its initial request was doomed to failure since Videotron's Vrai service was, in fact, offered on a direct-to-consumer basis” and Bell withdrew its initial application even before it was published by the commission. In its new Part 1 application, filed on Nov. 17, 2021, Bell claims non-compliance against Videotron because, according to Bell, there are certain differences in the marketing of the Vrai platform on a direct-to-consumer basis compared to the offer intended for subscribers to the cable television service of Videotron. In its response, Quebecor said that Bell intentionally omitted to mention that its customers, and all consumers in Canada, can access the Vrai service through Quebecor’s new QUB web platform which is available to everyone and whose registration is free. Quebecor also argued that the offer of content is exactly the same whether it is accessed through the Vrai platform, offered to Videotron subscribers through Hélix TV, or in a direct-to-consumer mode by accessing it via the QUB platform. “There is no content offered exclusively to Videotron subscribers,” it wrote. Finally, it argued that a “good number” of consumers who are not Hélix customers have already subscribed to Vrai in a direct-to-consumer mode since its launch. It added that Videotron launched a major marketing campaign directed only at consumers who are not subscribers to cable television at Videotron, in order to encourage them to subscribe to Vrai in its direct-to-consumer mode. “Quebecor Media is making considerable efforts to promote its new Vrai brand, regardless of how this new service is distributed,” it argued. Quebecor told the commission that the industry should “rejoice that a major player as Quebecor continues to innovate and has the audacity to launch a new platform for television that gives considerable space to original local productions while promoting local culture” because, in its view, the Canadian broadcasting ecosystem is threatened by the boom of foreign online broadcasting companies and changes in television consumption. “Unsurprisingly, and faithful to its usual old-timer modus operandi, monopolistic group Bell, seeks instead to put a spoke in the wheels by all means to its competitors who innovate and seek to establish a real competition in the marketplace for the benefit of all Canadians,” the company wrote. Quebecor took the opportunity to “denounce the unfounded and malicious attacks” it said Bell launched against the company during the commission’s hearings into Rogers Communications Inc.’s acquisition of Shaw Communications Inc., which Videotron did not intervene in and, therefore, could not reply to at the time. In one comment, Bell executives stated before the commission at the hearings, that Videotron took actions to harm Bell by repackaging Super Écran three years ago which allegedly reduced its subscribers and penetration. And about a year after that, Videotron allegedly also refused to pay Bell’s commercial rates for multi-platform rights, which resulted in them no longer offering Super Écran video-on-demand on their set top boxes. According to Videotron’s Thursday reply, Bell omitted to mention at the hearings that the commission dismissed the complaint it had filed against Videotron alleging undue preference regarding Super Écran, finding that it complied with all of its regulatory obligations. “Incidentally, it was Bell itself who unilaterally chose to withdraw Videotron's multi-platform rights for Super Écran, thereby creating a significant drop in subscribers to this service, which has become much less attractive. Bell is the craftsman of its own misfortunes and has only itself to blame for the decline of its channel,” Quebecor wrote. It said that Bell’s comments at the hearing “reflect Bell's bad faith” and accused the incumbent of repeatedly failing to meet its regulatory and legal obligations in the very recent past. “It is ironic to say the least, to see Bell attempting to give lessons on the risks of slippages of too great a concentration of ownership in broadcasting in the Rogers-Shaw hearings,” Quebecor wrote. The company then proceeded to outline a list of some violations and anti-competitive acts it said Bell has committed over the past few years, such as the CRTC finding that sums totalling nearly $18 million in funds, intended for community programming, were incorrectly allocated by Bell; the CRTC finding, twice, that Bell gave itself an undue advantage by not offering TVA Sports within its "good" package; a recent lawsuit against Bell Mobility for failing to protect banking data of its customers, among other points. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca. CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported that Bell had made a claim of abuse of process against Videotron. In fact, Videotron made the claim against Bell.

Quebecor calls Bell’s Vrai complaint “desperate” and “devoid of any merit”

Broadcast | February 11, 2022

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

Quebecor calls Bell’s Vrai complaint “desperate” and “devoid of any merit”

Broadcast | February 11, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus sales people promoting illegal TV pirating service to entice customers, Bell alleges

Telus accuses Bell, Rogers of hindering television rollout at CRTC hearing

Iristel arguments in interconnection fight with Bell, Northwestel dismissed again by CRTC

Bell says broadcasters, streamers should pay into fund for mandatory services

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us