Rogers wants Corus’ undue preference allegations dismissed by CRTC

Rogers Communications Inc. is asking the CRTC to dismiss allegations of undue preference raised against it by Corus Entertainment Inc. related to the promotion of Disney+ deals for customers. Rogers argued to the CRTC in a response to the Corus application that the complaint has “no merit” and lacks supporting evidence. Earlier this summer, Corus alleged Rogers has “weaponized its more dominant position by aggressively targeting Corus and other independents with unduly disadvantageous treatment,” More specifically, Corus has concerns about Rogers’ promotion of Walt Disney Co.’s Disney+ to its customers by way of free access to the streaming platform for Rogers clients, distributed as part of its Ignite Streaming online undertaking, and bundling the ad-supported version of Disney+ with traditional programing packages through Rogers’ BDUs. Corus alleges Rogers’ actions put Corus’ Disney-themed channels at a disadvantage because of promoted free access to Disney+ on Rogers’ electronic program guide, “directly below the program listings for the Corus Disney channels.” In a significantly redacted response filed with the CRTC Sept. 11 and released late last week, Rogers said the placement of such in-grid promotions are randomly reassigned within the guide over the course of the promo. While the Disney+ promo might have appeared below Corus’ Disney-themed linear services at the time of the complaint, by Sept. 9 it was BCE Inc.’s Crave streaming service being promoted below Corus’ services. It also states that “at any given time” it has a number of in-grid promotions on the guide, “and we display these promotions at regular intervals throughout the guide.” “To be clear, Rogers’ promotional offering of Disney+ to Ignite BDU subscribers is designed to compete with other BDUs and online undertakings, innovate, and offer a compelling value proposition to Canadian consumers,” Rogers states in the response signed by Pamela Dinsmore, the company’s vice president of regulatory matters. “They are not designed to target the services, nor is there any evidence that they have done so in practical effect.” When it comes to whether or not Corus Disney-themed offerings are similar to the Disney+ service promoted by Rogers, the incumbent argues Corus has provided the CRTC with no evidence to support the application. “It is revealing how sparse the complaint is in actual evidence, analysis, or specificity…,” Rogers states. Part of the remainder of that statement was hidden as a redaction. “Corus’ attempt to mischaracterize the services as comparable to the Disney+ online SVOD/AVOD service, based on its vague assertion of some degree of program similarity and overlap of a few titles, must be rejected,” Rogers states. Rogers charges that if the CRTC were to find the two are comparable, that decision would “harm consumer choice and affordability; and undermine the development of a healthy and dynamic Canadian broadcasting system under the modernized regulatory framework.” Rogers argues that Corus’ services are traditional Canadian linear programming, while Disney+ is a non-Canadian online undertaking that operates on a direct-to-consumer basis. Rogers states that Disney+ and Corus’ services involve different pricing models, different viewing and navigation experiences, and have “vastly different” programming investment levels. It also alleges they serve different audience segments and have popularity and viewership levels that are “anything but comparable.” They also differ in how they reach Canadian audiences, Rogers argues. It states the linear distribution of Canadian discretionary services by Rogers’ broadcast distribution undertakings is “in no way analogous to Rogers’ role as an app aggregator,” through which it allows people access to direct-to-consumer apps such as streaming services via its Ignite TV platform and user interface. “It would be extremely misguided and damaging for these two types of offerings to be conflated under the regulatory framework, as they reflect very different underlying economics,” Rogers wrote. Rogers wants to see Corus’ application dismissed in its entirety before the CRTC gets into analysis. Rogers points to precedent for such a dismissal in a previous decision by the CRTC to dismiss allegations of undue preference from Bell before considering the claims within that company’s application because it did not include enough relevant evidence proving the comparability of the services. But if the CRTC were to find the two services similar, it would set a “regressive and unfair” precedent, Rogers argues. Rogers further alleges that, even if the services were found to be comparable, Corus still has not proven that Rogers put it at a disadvantage. It goes further to claim that even if the CRTC did find Corus was disadvantaged, “it would not be undue.” Rogers additionally points to other limited-time subscription offers it made for other streaming services, such as Apple TV+. “Expecting BDUs to defend these promotional offers, and in the absence of clear evidence of direct and tangible harm identified by a complainant, would set a very dangerous precedent that would deter service innovation, reduce choice, and increase prices within the Canadian broadcasting system,” Rogers wrote. “There is no basis to find that Rogers or any other BDU has conferred an undue preference simply by virtue of providing access to a highly popular third-party app, like Disney+, on its platform,” Rogers wrote. “Such an outcome would amount to an extremely regressive form of regulatory intervention that would prevent the Canadian broadcasting system from evolving and modernizing to the detriment of Canadian consumers.” A Corus spokesperson told The Wire Report that the company is “confident the regulator will share our concerns.” “Corus filed this complaint to address plainly prejudicial treatment and violation of regulatory laws from Canada’s dominant vertically integrated broadcasting distributor,” the spokesperson stated in an email. “Rogers’s Chief Financial Officer recently characterized the company’s actions as an effort to ‘cut out the middle company,’ which flies in the face of laws and regulations that prioritize fair competition and a healthy market.” The spokesperson said Corus would file its reply to Rogers’ allegedly “unfounded” arguments next week, “and will continue to explore all potential remedies to address Rogers’ unfair, anti-competitive conduct.” - Reporting by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca

Rogers wants Corus’ undue preference allegations dismissed by CRTC

News |
By Hannah Daley
| September 17, 2024

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

Rogers wants Corus’ undue preference allegations dismissed by CRTC

News | By Hannah Daley | September 17, 2024

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

ILNF recipients want Corus excluded from the pot until CRTC conducts wider policy review

Unions opposed to broadcasters’ calls to lighten regulatory load until C-11 is fully implemented

Corus still feeling effects of advertising recession

Broadcasters want policy direction on C-11; streamers want their algorithms left alone

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

News |
By Hannah Daley
| September 17, 2024