Bell Files Application to CRTC to Get Out of Paying Their Fair Share

It seems that Bell wants to get out of their regulatory obligations after it filed an application with the CRTC.

It’s not clear if there is something in the air over at Bell, but they’ve really been on a role lately with blatant hypocrisy. In fact, they’ve been doing such a good job at highlighting their hypocrisy, it almost seems like they just don’t even care about optics at all these days.

One of the things that they, along with other lobbyists, were arguing throughout the Bill C-11 debate was that the platforms need to “pay their fair share”. One lobbyist (not from Bell, but it highlighted the central argument they had well) said that the platforms have crashed on the Canadian couch for years and now the rent is due. This showcased not only just how much the lobbyists were lying through their teeth throughout the debates, but also highlighted the false narrative they were trying to push. That is, the narrative that the platforms were somehow pillaging and plundering Canada while contributing nothing in return.

This should go without saying, but platforms operating in Canada obviously pass along GST/HST taxes like any other large corporation. What’s more, their services have helped propel voices that would otherwise never get a chance to be heard into the international spotlight. Further, platforms often offer programs to help creators become better at their craft. Whether that is through grant programs or training, platforms have been greatly contributing to Canadian culture by enabling Canadians to express themselves. These opportunities are not really otherwise provided by the traditional system which focuses in on aiding the cultural elite in this country while filtering out most voices in this country. More often then not, people turn to platforms when they get pushed out of the traditional system (assuming they tried to be a part of the traditional system in the first place).

One central argument that was pushed by Bell was this idea that the then legislation was about “telling Canadian stories”. They argued that the platforms are robbing Canadians of their cultural identity and replacing it with a foreign one. Without intervention from the government, Canadians will eventually not even know who they are in the first place. It is up to the government to fund traditional broadcasters who basically are Canadian culture and defenders of Canadian culture (facepalm indeed).

Bell’s argument quickly fell apart when they straight up told lawmakers that in order to tell these “Canadian stories”, they needed to be able to more cheaply tell American stories. This by rebroadcasting American programming. The argument is completely senseless, but it is, nevertheless, the argument they actually used. These calls were repeated at the CRTC hearing where they demanded more money and less obligations to tell Canadian stories.

While these calls were completely outrageous, little did we know at the time that Bell was only just getting started.

After Meta dropped news links in response to the then called Bill C-18, the Canadian government, falling for the talking point of Canadian jobs being at risk thanks to this situation hook, line, and sinker, issued massive bailouts to companies like Bell. Having scored what they could, Bell then proceeded to prove that this whole debate was never about saving Canadian jobs. The company responded to the bailouts by slashing 9% of its workforce. Having realized that they had been had, government officials expressed anger towards the company, claiming that those layoffs were not part of the deal.

While Bells response was delayed, Bell would later retort by saying that it’s all the governments fault for not giving them free taxpayer money fast enough. At the same time, though, Bell also raised their dividend payouts to shareholders. That, of course, isn’t exactly a move that is going to win over hearts and minds, that’s for sure. At minimum, it proved that those jobs were as good as cut long before that decision. Bell just wanted to hoodwink the government out of a chunk of taxpayers money first.

Now, we are learning that Bell has gone even further into the extreme hypocrisy side of things. After arguing that the platforms need to “pay their fair share” in both the Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 debates, it seems that Bell itself isn’t exactly in the mood to do the same thing. In an application sent to the CRTC, Bell has filed papers saying that the CRTC should stop making Bell pay their fair share when it comes to satellite programming. In a cover letter (PDF), Bell asked the CRTC to remove their regulatory obligations with their satellite services:

1. Bell ExpressVu hereby files this Application pursuant to Part 1 of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Act Rules of Practice and Procedure.1

2. In this application, we request that the Commission remove an existing condition of service requiring our SRDU to make contributions of five percent of gross broadcasting revenues to Canadian programming.

3. We further ask the Commission to initiate a policy review to consider exempting all SRDUs from regulation.

In a supplementary brief, Bell argued that their satellite services are no longer providing a material benefit to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act:

3. We believe that we should be relieved from this COS in recognition of:

– the significant challenges facing the traditional broadcasting industry in general and SRDU undertakings more specifically;
– the fact that our SRDU does not currently make a meaningful contribution to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act (the Act); and
– the fact that the COS in question is both unfair and inconsistent from a policy perspective because it does not apply to small broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) and competitive terrestrial relay distribution undertakings (TRDUs), which operate under exemption orders.

16. This request aligns with the intent of section 9(4) of the Act, which states that the Commission can exempt undertakings from licensing requirements when those requirements will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of broadcasting policy.

17. Our SRDU business has declined significantly since the Commission last considered the need for licensing.1 Revenues were # # in 2016 and are now only # #, which represents a # # decline in revenue (or # # in absolute terms).

18. In our view, a business generating # # in broadcasting revenues cannot make meaningful contributions to broadcasting policy. In 2023, our SRDU contributed only # # towards the creation of Canadian programming – a large decline from the # # that our SRDU service contributed in 2016. Clearly, our SRDU service is no longer capable of providing meaningful support to the broadcasting system.

25. The Commission has periodically reviewed the need to licence SRDU services. In fact, it considered exempting SRDUs in 20081 and 2012.2 However, in both cases, the Commission declined to exempt SRDUs reasoning that: 1) the annual contribution of SRDUs to Canadian programming was material to the objectives of the Act, and 2) there was insufficient competition from TRDUs in the areas served by SRDUs.3

26. As discussed above, it is clear that our SRDU no longer makes a material contribution to Canadian programming. We suspect that this is also case for Shaw Broadcast Services, the other licensed Canadian SRDU service. The Canadian SRDU market has been in steady decline since the Commission last considered the possibility of exemption. Given the significant decline in the market, the Commission’s previous determination that SRDUs make meaningful contributions to Canadian programming is no longer applicable. SRDUs are niche wholesale businesses that no longer make material contributions to Canadian programming or to the broadcasting system.

27. The second reason the Commission did not previously exempt SRDUs from licensing was the claim that there was insufficient competition in the market for the distribution of program signals. In 2012, the Commission acknowledged that there had been increased competition between SRDUs and TRDUs in urban areas, but claimed that this competition was still insufficient to permit exemption.4 However, since the Commission’s last review, Canadian telecom companies, including Bell Canada, have invested billions of dollars deploying advanced networks across the country. These networks now provide significant additional TRDU competition to SRDUs. Moreover, these networks are now extensively available outside of urban areas.

It’s kind of remarkable reading these documents. A company that is known for making billions of dollars is here claiming poverty, saying that this part of their business is only making some tens of millions of dollars and, as a result, can’t meaningfully contribute to the system and, therefore, they ask that they be exempt because they are just a lowly downtrodden small business just struggling to make ends meet.

I mean, if I were a CRTC commissioner and I saw this application, then looked at the news of the same company raising dividend payments to shareholders, I would look at a company like Bell and say, “seriously?” before rolling my eyes and slapping a “REJECTED” stamp on the application. What an absolute joke.

(Via Commission Miner)

Edit: An earlier version of this article said that platforms pay corporate taxes. This was written in error as I was thinking of GST/HST when I wrote that. Those are two different kinds of taxes, so I have corrected the article accordingly.

Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook.