dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1056

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

1 edit

elwoodblues

Premium Member

PIAC challenges showmi and cravetv

PIAC has filed 2 part 1 applications with the CRTC challenging the forced tied services for Robellus's "Netflix Killers"

»cartt.ca/article/piac-ca ··· nd-shomi

»www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 2832759/
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

1 edit

HeadSpinning

Member

Paywalled link...

edit: thanks
HeadSpinning

HeadSpinning to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
Seems pretty clear...

»www.competitionbureau.gc ··· 111.html

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26

Premium Member

Except of course Telecom and Broadcasting is regulated under the CRTC. Additionally, OTT is largely exempted from those regulations.

It's also a little early to call it anti-competitive since it's a beta launch right now.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to elwoodblues

MVM

to elwoodblues
Except Shomi and Crave have got exclusive rights to lots of shows (or the shows from entire channels). If Shomi and Crave had the same stuff as eveybody else, it wouldn't be a big deal, but now the only way to see that content is to buy TV and sometimes Internet service from those companies.

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc to BACONATOR26

Member

to BACONATOR26
said by mlerner :

It's also a little early to call it anti-competitive since it's a beta launch right now.

I don't know why you'd say that, since the article has quotes from each duopoly and there's no mention of them offering it to cord cutters. Bhell and Robbers could have the beta label forever, like what Google pulls. Might as well get a complaint in now since the CRTC takes forever.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to BACONATOR26

Premium Member

to BACONATOR26
But its not OTT, I have to subcribe to their television distribution product.
graniterock
Premium Member
join:2003-03-14
London, ON

graniterock

Premium Member

quote:
“The tied selling of streaming services, designed to favour legacy business models and to discriminate against customers who wish to only view programming through an Internet service provider of their choice, is something PIAC-CAC believe cannot be supported in the current rules, nor by Canada’s broadcasting policy objectives,” Geoffrey White, counsel to PIAC-CAC, said in a press release Friday.

(italics mine)

By this definition they would not be happy with vmedia and zazeen being tied to their internet service.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

That's a CRTC requirement
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass to BACONATOR26

Premium Member

to BACONATOR26
said by BACONATOR26:

Except of course Telecom and Broadcasting is regulated under the CRTC.

Interesting use of the tied selling language. The test for that under the Competition Act is much more stringent than the reverse-onus anti-discrimination provisions of the Telecom and Broadcasting Acts: the former requires demonstration of a "substantial lessening or prevention of competition," while in the latter, upon receipt of a credible complaint respondents have to show that their practices to not unduly prefer or unjustly discriminate against any person.

Wonder if certain "competitors" will throw a hat in the ring?

I know that Leiacomm/Pick TV decided not to launch because Bell wouldn't negotiate OTT rights with them...

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26 to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
The product itself is OTT whether or not it's tied to a cable/internet account therefor the new media rule applies.
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

said by BACONATOR26:

The product itself is OTT whether or not it's tied to a cable/internet account therefor the new media rule applies.

I agree but there is substantial uncertainty as to the regulatory status of Crave, shomi, and similar services, given that the appear to be operating as both VOD services as well as DMBUs (digital media broadcasting undertakings -- exempt broadcasting services. Note that this word != OTT in meaning).

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26 to bbbc

Premium Member

to bbbc
said by bbbc:

said by mlerner :

It's also a little early to call it anti-competitive since it's a beta launch right now.

I don't know why you'd say that, since the article has quotes from each duopoly and there's no mention of them offering it to cord cutters. Bhell and Robbers could have the beta label forever, like what Google pulls. Might as well get a complaint in now since the CRTC takes forever.

Well for one I do believe Shomi said after beta launch it would be for all other cable company subscribers not just TV or internet. They also said they are looking at different offerings which may include any Canadian subscribers. But they haven't said for sure either way so making a case with no definitive outcome may not be fruitful at this point. Though anyone is free to try.
BACONATOR26

1 edit

BACONATOR26 to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
said by bklass:

said by BACONATOR26:

The product itself is OTT whether or not it's tied to a cable/internet account therefor the new media rule applies.

I agree but there is substantial uncertainty as to the regulatory status of Crave, shomi, and similar services, given that the appear to be operating as both VOD services as well as DMBUs (digital media broadcasting undertakings -- exempt broadcasting services. Note that this word != OTT in meaning).

In which case there is a telecom and broadcast policy portion and I don't believe anywhere to say there cannot be both with different regulations. From a product perspective they are differentiated and indeed I believe Rogers explicitly said the VOD offering includes a different mix of content than the OTT portion.

I would just theorize that having both a Telecom and Broadcast regulation will provide an interesting challenge on the content. It has not been proven for example the CRTC can or will regulate content agreements for OTT services.

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc to BACONATOR26

Member

to BACONATOR26
said by mlerner :

Well for one I do believe Shomi said after beta launch it would be for all other cable company subscribers not just TV or internet.

Yeah, I recall hearing that too.

They also said they are looking at different offerings which may include any Canadian subscribers. But they haven't said for sure either way so making a case with no definitive outcome may not be fruitful at this point. Though anyone is free to try.

The problem is that Robbers and Bhell haven't made decisions in the past that were neutral. Why dick around and wait for the duopolies who drag BS out, might as well file a complaint now. Just my two cents.

shrugs
@videotron.ca

shrugs to Guspaz

Anon

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Except Shomi and Crave have got exclusive rights to lots of shows (or the shows from entire channels). If Shomi and Crave had the same stuff as eveybody else, it wouldn't be a big deal, but now the only way to see that content is to buy TV and sometimes Internet service from those companies.

in a way I agree.

Anyhow, take videotron for example. They offer club illico (movies and series) via web and app to anyone willing to pay 10$/month, no subscriptions to anything required. That fee is the same if you are a tron customer or not (tron customers get more though I believe). Now I wouldn't pay 10$ for that but....

Crave and the other seems to be subsidized prices at 4$/month (similar to the Mobile-TV thing). Will they offer Crave to everyone for 4$/month or will the cost all of a sudden magically be jacked up?

Treegravy
Premium Member
join:2011-04-21
Canada

1 edit

1 recommendation

Treegravy

Premium Member

said by shrugs :

Will they offer Crave to everyone for 4$/month or will the cost all of a sudden magically be jacked up?

Lol, not so magically. Count on it or they'll just dissolve the product.
My take on this is that it's just a placeholder product to slow down Netflix. They have no intention of offering this to cord-cutters since it cannibalizes their television offering.

Edit: I was pleasantly surprised to read about the filing and hope to see a finding whereby this can't be offered solely to subscribers of traditional television services. If so, watch how quickly this is unwound due to "lower than expected interest", lol.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

PIAC has filed 2 part 1 applications with the CRTC challenging the forced tied services for Robellus's "Netflix Killers"

PIAC are at least 5 years late to the game........

[2009] »Re: Question for DSL Co CEO's - Competition Bureau do u use it?
[2011] »No tied selling
[2013]»No business/channel has a 'right' to survive
[2013] »Bottom line is....
[2014] »Re: [Portal] Rate Limiting Options
MaynardKrebs

MaynardKrebs to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
A Rogers spokesperson replied with this: “We are currently in beta for Rogers and Shaw internet and cable customers and are in discussions with other [TV providers] to carry the service. We are focused on delivering innovative excessive billing & undue preference services and world-class content, and as we stated at launch, during the beta phase we are evaluating various distribution models.”

Meter Maid
@videotron.ca

Meter Maid to elwoodblues

Anon

to elwoodblues
I noticed that the CRTC had PIAC's filing in both the Broadcasting and the Telecom Part-1 sections the other day. Today I see that it has been removed from telecom and resides solely in broadcasting.

Even though the filings touch on both telecom and broadcasting, the CRTC seems to have decided it is in line solely with broadcasting. So it seems converged telecom and broadcasting services go to broadcasting.

What I also found interesting is that the privacy policy for the Bell CraveTV service links to their RAP crap (haven't looked at the showmi one yet).

As is being discovered, this RAP policy is supposed to make clear when behavioral analytics is being used against people, and to give people a choice to be part of their behaviour analytics that they sell to anyone. Seems Bell isn't bothering to inform people.

Thus, if Telus and Eastlink users also use this service (and I think I read both Eastlink and Telus is in with Bell with this CraveTV thing), Eastlink and Telus users info are being used for Bell's RAP. I don't even think Telus and Eastlink users are even aware of Bell's RAP (and likely even Bell users themselves).

Bell Media shows that your race, ethnicity, and much, much more is being collected, or inferred, and sold.

Now what is also interesting is that Bell (and thus Telus and Eastlink) forces people to enable 3rd party cookies. Third party cookies are gone the way of the doodoo, it's off by default on most browser apps and desktop apps (unless you use google chrome of course), thus, Bell media in it's position as an executive member of the IAB (iabcanada.com) forces this people and device tracking relic of the past to be on. This is something the IAB has always fought to be on by default so they can track people and devices.

I find this all interesting. Maybe even telling.

I'm surprised PIAC didn't hit the privacy aspects of this, nor the "privacy by design" of all this.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by Meter Maid :

Now what is also interesting is that Bell (and thus Telus and Eastlink) forces people to enable 3rd party cookies.

How are they pulling this off? Is it conditional to use their site, or is it more insidious than that?

Meter Maid
@videotron.ca

Meter Maid

Anon

Yeah the service only works if you enable 3rd party cookies. The craveTV info even states so.

No 3rd party cookies = no CraveTV per their policy.

I know smart-TV's, apps' and browsers will have toggles for 3rd party cookies.

They state it's a requirement due to how they "authenticate" users when they sign in. Surely they can use alternate methods aside from third party cookies with a 3rd party authentication site.

The thing with that is, since 3rd party cookies are going the way of the doodoo, and many browsers (across diff platforms) have it off by default they force someone to activate/enable it and leave it like that.

You said:
"...or is it more insidious than that"

I would have to say the tracking is more harmful than the intended purpose of this authentication scheme they chose to put in place. They could use other methods for authentication but chose not to and also insist that people turn tracking on and leave it on.

Telus and Bell know this, they aren't dumb. It plays into the Ad industry hands, which Bell is an executive member of in the digital ad division of the IAB.

So if you ask me, and you did, yes this is nefarious/insidious/entrapping.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by Meter Maid :

So if you ask me, and you did, yes this is nefarious/insidious/entrapping.

Fair enough, assuming I was interested in the service (I'm not, and I make a point to support them a little as humanely possible) why not just enable some type of metrics reporting on the programs you watch with your login ID?

Extensions like Disconnect and Self-destructing Cookies can make fairly short work of this, also does this mean that the service is going to be browser based only, and they're not going to develop an app for this?

If the latter is the case, then it's safe to safe the horse isn't going to leave the stable.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to BACONATOR26

Member

to BACONATOR26
said by BACONATOR26:

It's also a little early to call it anti-competitive since it's a beta launch right now.

CraveTV is not considered to be in beta, it's in full launch.

Shawgers may have a case for that with Shomi, for the time being.
bt

bt to bbbc

Member

to bbbc
said by bbbc:

I don't know why you'd say that, since the article has quotes from each duopoly and there's no mention of them offering it to cord cutters.

Bell has said no way for CraveTV.

Rogers and Shaw have said it's a possibility after the beta for Shomi, and it technically is available to TV cord cutters since you need wired TV -OR- Internet from Rogers or Shaw.
bt

bt to El Quintron

Member

to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

also does this mean that the service is going to be browser based only, and they're not going to develop an app for this?

CraveTV has iOS and Android apps.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by bt:

CraveTV has iOS and Android apps.

So what's the point of forcing cookies then? You can do all your tracking via the app.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

Well, can't track use of the website through the app.

Meter Maid
@videotron.ca

Meter Maid to El Quintron

Anon

to El Quintron
The point is to allow other 3rd parties to track. Bell doesn't need it.
Meter Maid

Meter Maid

Anon

Bell filed with the CRTC to dismiss PIAC's part-1 filing on the basis on the CRTC having no jurisdiction over how Bell can operate.

JF filed a counter submission (haven't read it yet).

Both found here:

Bell:
»www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2 ··· tter.pdf

JF:
»www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2 ··· ral2.pdf