CRTC hears plea from Corus for stronger broadcasting rules as Rogers calls for deregulation

As the first week of the CRTC’s hearing on market dynamics in the broadcasting sector came to a close, a divide emerged between major players in the industry, with broadcasters and distributors clashing over whether the CRTC should scale back or strengthen its regulations. The hearing kicked off on Wednesday, June 18 and is part of a consultation launched by the CRTC back in January. The regulator has been seeking comments on a range of issues, but overall it is examining the effectiveness of its regulatory tools in a system that now includes online streaming. While foreign online streamers have presented a unified front against the idea of regulation so far, several domestic broadcasters, programmers, and broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) have opposing views for the role of regulation in the future. The division primarily falls between large, vertically-integrated BDUs — such as Rogers Communications Inc., Quebecor Inc., and BCE Inc. — who are generally advocating for deregulation of the traditional system to allow them to better compete with online streamers; versus independent broadcasters and smaller BDUs — including Corus Entertainment Inc., Cogeco Inc., and Stingray Group Inc. — who are calling for regulations to be strengthened in order to protect their services from both dominant Canadian players and unregulated online platforms. While there is broad consensus that significant changes are needed to maintain the viability of Canadian broadcasting, the disagreement lies in the approach. This was highlighted Friday during appearances from Corus and Rogers, who appeared one after the other. Corus seeks regulatory safeguards for independent broadcasters, programmers Corus argued that Canadian programming services face structural disadvantages compared to vertically-integrated BDUs and foreign streamers. “In the past, broadcast distribution arrangements were often mutually beneficial,” said Corus CEO John Gossling during his opening remarks. “Parties engaged in tough commercial negotiations, but they understood they needed one another, and generally came to equitable terms. And viewers ultimately benefited from natural competition and ample choice. Unfortunately, that equitable and fair partnership model is a thing of the past.” Gossling asserted that the market has shifted to a point where distributors hold significantly more power than programmers. Corus accused BDUs — particularly Rogers, which acquired Shaw Communications Inc. in 2022 — of using its market dominance to manipulate carriage and packaging in ways that hurt independent services. Corus alleged that Rogers now controls more than 50 per cent of the BDU market in English Canada and favours its own channels at the expense of competitors. To address these concerns, Corus called for a suite of regulatory reforms. It proposed updating the Wholesale Code — which governs dealings between traditional broadcasters and distributors — setting minimum carriage thresholds for independent services, and introducing discoverability requirements for both traditional and online BDUs. Corus also supported maintaining the CRTC’s undue preference and standstill rules, which have been at the centre of a dispute over channel placements and repackaging between it and Rogers. Corus emphasized the importance of the standstill rule in helping to “level the playing field” in negotiations with BDUs who might threaten to cut their services. Corus’ regulatory vice president and associate general counsel Matt Thompson urged the CRTC to “respond to requests to remove” a channel “with a healthy dose of skepticism,” alleging that it is often “a tactic in negotiations.” He said the CRTC should push BDUs to provide valid commercial reasons consistent with public interest objectives, adding that the Corus team “ heads at the idea that removing a channel or giving consumers less options can promote consumer choice.” The company also directly opposed calls from Rogers and Quebecor for the standstill to be time-limited or for its applicability to be narrowed, arguing such changes would render the rule redundant. Corus dismissed the argument that declining BDU subscriptions warrant deregulation, noting that many vertically-integrated BDUs remain profitable through the internet services they also offer. Stingray, a member of the Independent Broadcast Group that presented earlier in the hearing, echoed many of Corus’ concerns. It argued that independent services need a “home field advantage” to remain viable, calling for stronger rules around prominence and discoverability across all platforms. Stingray also supported expanding Rogers’ obligation to carry 45 non-Corus independent services to all BDUs with more than 500,000 subscribers. The Independent Broadcast Group agreed that independents face “substantial headwinds” and remain at a disadvantage compared to vertically-integrated services. The group called for updated BDU rules and proposed a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund to support Canadian independent programming. Cogeco also aligned with Corus’ position around stronger protections against large, vertically-integrated companies, and has stated in its submissions that repealing the Wholesale Code would have a “devastating impact on independent BDUs, and could lead to their outright extinction.” It also advocated for the Code to extend to online undertakings. Without the Code and the CRTC’s dispute resolution mechanisms, including the standstill rule, Cogeco believes that vertically integrated companies “would have free reign to deprive their BDU competitors of must-have content or to withhold it until they agree to prohibitive terms and conditions of carriage.” This could result in “blackouts of programming that could affect millions of Canadian homes and viewers,” the company wrote in its submissions. Rogers wants more reliance on market forces Rogers’ president of residential services Bret Leech stated that Canadian BDUs are suffering from an “unfair” regulatory asymmetry that is “driving Canadian consumers directly into the arms of foreign platforms.” He cited declining revenues, rising programming costs, and rising rates of cord-cutting as evidence of a broken system. “The regulatory tools that once protected Canadian companies are now the source of our competitive destruction,” added Rogers Sports & Media president Colette Watson. Leech called for a “modernized framework that dramatically reduces regulation on all Canadian BDUs, levels the playing field with foreign streamers, and relies on market forces to achieve broadcasting policy objectives whenever possible.” He proposed capping required contributions from undertakings to five per cent of traditional broadcasting revenues and said BDUs should only be subject to two access rules: the preponderance rule, requiring the majority of the programming services offered to subscribers to be CanCon; and the basic service requirement, requiring BDUs to provide a small, entry-level basic TV package to their customers, including the must-carry services. However, Rogers strongly advocates for lifting the $25 retail price cap on this basic service, arguing that the price cap, which has remained unchanged for years, is an outdated and prescriptive form of retail rate regulation. The company asserts that maintaining this cap, along with other packaging rules, places traditional BDUs at a significant competitive disadvantage against online streaming services that have complete flexibility in designing and pricing their offerings. Rogers contends that the market is now highly competitive, offering consumers diverse programming choices at competitive rates, making such intervention unnecessary. The company opposed new rules, including anti-siphoning provisions to preserve access to key events like sports. It said there is no evidence Canadians are losing access to such content and warned such measures could make Canadian broadcasters less competitive. Rogers also challenged the current undue preference regime, claiming it is “unfairly weaponized” by programming services. The company argued that the burden of proof should rest with the complainant, not the respondent, and called for a preliminary screening process to weed out frivolous complaints. It proposed clearer criteria for what constitutes undue preference, focused on quantifiable harm, anti-competitive intent and commercial justification. A key issue for Rogers is the Wholesale Code, which it wants to see repealed. The company argues it interferes with commercial negotiations and no longer serves the public interest. “ should have empowered customers to choose the programming they wanted, and empowered BDUs to deliver the programming they wanted in the way that they wanted,” said Rogers senior vice president of regulatory affairs Dean Shaikh. “Instead, the code over time has insulated programmers from any risk. It's been part of the regime that we find overly protectionist.” Rogers also contended that its legality is unclear and that its continued use would lead to continued regulatory asymmetry if it is not imposed on online undertakings, which Rogers does not believe the CRTC can or should do. The company opposes expanding or strengthening the Code, asserting that BDUs are already compelled by competitive market forces to respond to consumer demands, making the Code’s promotion of consumer choice unnecessary. On dispute resolution, Rogers proposed narrowing the scope of CRTC involvement and instead relying on external mediation and arbitration. It supported a combined mediator-arbitrator model with tight deadlines and automatic escalation to final offer arbitration (FOA) after 30 days. Rogers said FOA should also apply to groups of services and be limited to commercial metrics such as viewership and investment levels. Rogers was especially critical of the standstill rule, claiming it freezes carriage agreements at outdated rates for years. It proposed limiting the rule to cases where both parties agree to continued carriage but have yet to settle their terms, restricting its duration to 90 days, and excluding cases tied to undue preference complaints. Besides the issue of the standstill rule, Bell largely aligned with Rogers when it presented its arguments earlier in the hearing. It also recommended third-party commercial arbitration with a clear timeline and said commercial negotiations should be free from public policy considerations. Quebecor, which appeared at the hearing Thursday, similarly called for greater flexibility for BDUs, particularly in how they price and assemble basic packages. Quebecor also supported shifting the burden of proof in undue preference complaints to the complainant, while pressing for faster CRTC decisions. The hearing is scheduled to continue Wednesday, June 25, with appearances from Alphabet Inc.’s Google, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, and others. phalentm@thewirereport.ca

CRTC hears plea from Corus for stronger broadcasting rules as Rogers calls for deregulation

Broadcast |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
| June 23, 2025

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

CRTC hears plea from Corus for stronger broadcasting rules as Rogers calls for deregulation

Broadcast | By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald | June 23, 2025

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

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

Telecoms want federal cabinet to overturn CRTC decision on high-speed access

CRTC charging Google $2.71M to cover Online News Act costs

CRTC funds broadband rollout in 18 communities

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Broadcast |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
| June 23, 2025