Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Impact of Decision12
19
20
6.0 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................. 21
Page 4 of 21
Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P.
Part 1 Decision 2017-105
ABRIDGED VERSION
1. Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P. (collectively, Videotron) seek a review
and variance of Telecom Decision CRTC 2017-105 (the Unlimited Music Decision or the
2. Videotrons Unlimited Music program gives Videotrons mobile wireless customers access to
music streaming services without incurring data transmission charges, if they subscribe to
certain plans and have a smartphone that uses Videotrons LTE network.
3. In the Unlimited Music Decision, the Commission concluded that Videotrons practice of zero-
rating these subscribers access to its Unlimited Music streaming program violates the
prohibitions in Subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). More specifically,
the Commission found that Videotron is giving an undue preference to subscribers who access
the Unlimited Music program and to the providers whose services are included in that program,
and subjecting providers and consumers of other content and services to a corresponding
undue disadvantage.
4. The Unlimited Music Decision was issued concurrently with Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC
2017-104 (the DPP Framework). In the DPP Framework, the Commission set out a new
analytical framework for assessing the differential pricing practices of internet service providers.
The Framework establishes four evaluation criteria for use in the traditional two-step test under
section 27(2), and introduces a third step which requires the Commission to consider whether
there are exceptional circumstances demonstrating clear benefits to the public interest of a DPP,
5. In the Decision, the Commission directed Videotron to bring itself into compliance with
subsection 27(2) of the Act with respect to data charges for the Unlimited Music program by no
later than July 19, 2017. This suggests that Videotron would have to terminate the Unlimited
Music program by July 19, 2017 for over ### subscribers (the Affected Subscribers).
6. Videotron does not take issue with the Commissions conclusion that the Unlimited Music
program violates section 27(2) of the Act. Videotron accordingly ceased to offer the Unlimited
contracts for mobile wireless services, as of May 10, 2017. However, due to technological,
administrative, and privacy-based constraints, and assuming it should respect its contractual
and legal obligations to Affected Subscribers, Videotron will not be able to terminate the
program within the deadline set in the Decision. As a result, Videotron respectfully submits that
there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Decision such that it ought to be reviewed and
varied.
7. Through this application, Videotron seeks a review of the Decision so that the Commission can
consider :
a. Factors that impact Videotrons ability to comply with the Decision within the
practices under section 27(2) of the Act, given the interplay of the Decision and
8. In order to comply with the Decision while maintaining equivalent services to Affected
Subscribers, Videotron would have to establish alternative services or benefits to replace the
Unlimited Music program. This is a massive undertaking as it requires the calculation of the
amount of data used by Affected Subscribers to listen to music through the program; the
identification, development, programming and testing of alternative services and benefits; and
9. Due to its contractual and statutory obligations, Videotron must provide 30 days notice of any
amendment to services provided under customers plans. Almost half of Affected Subscribers
have not consented to receive such notices by email, and others have provided email
addresses that are inaccurate or out-of-service. This further compresses the time within which
10. Termination of the program would be considered a unilateral change of contract terms by
consider whether to continue to obtain mobile wireless services from Videotron. Since most
Affected Subscribers subscribe to a package of Videotron services, this decision would affect
11. Compliance with the current deadline, even assuming it were technically possible, would
generally, which in turn would have a serious impact on all Videotron subscribers, Videotron and
its employees.
Page 7 of 21
Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P.
Part 1 Decision 2017-105
ABRIDGED VERSION
12. Considering the impacts of abrupt termination of the Unlimited Music program, Videotron seeks
relief from the Commission to enable it to set proper terms for the cessation of the program for
currently in place with Affected Subscribers, until such time as each Affected Subscriber has
reached the end of his/her handset subsidy amortization period or has otherwise renewed or
renegotiated his/her contract for mobile wireless services. In the alternative, we ask the
Commission to set a deadline for compliance that is fair and reasonable to the Affected
Subscribers, Videotrons other subscribers and to Videotron itself, and that takes into account
13. Videotron also seeks a stay of the Unlimited Music Decision pending the Commissions decision
on this application. There is a serious issue at stake in the application. If a stay is not granted,
Videotron will suffer irreparable harm. The balance of convenience favours the granting of a
stay.
14. If Videotron does not obtain a stay, in order to comply with its contractual and statutory
obligations, it will have to take steps by no later than June 9, 2017 to notify Affected Subscribers
of the termination of the Unlimited Music program. Videotron therefore respectfully requests
that the Commission render a decision on its request for a stay on or before June 9, 2017. To
ensure an informed decision by this date, we further request the Commission to establish an
expedited process for the stay component of this application. Specifically, we request that
interested parties be required to file comments by May 31, 2017 on our request for stay.
Videotron would then commit to filing its reply comments on this component of the application
by June 2, 2017.
Page 8 of 21
Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P.
Part 1 Decision 2017-105
ABRIDGED VERSION
15. Further to section 62 of the Act and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2011-214, an applicant
may seek a review and variance of a decision by the Commission where there is a substantial
16. The Unlimited Music program was launched on August 27, 2015. It enables Videotrons mobile
wireless customers to access certain music streaming services without incurring data
transmission charges, if such customers have a smartphone using Videotrons LTE network and
they subscribe to certain plans, such as a plan with a data cap of 2 gigabytes or more. Data
consumed by these music streaming services does not count towards the data caps included in
17. The first complaint about the program was filed with the Commission 5 days after it was
18. After receiving submissions on the complaints from some parties who expressed general
concerns regarding zero-rating practices, the Commission decided that it needed to undertake a
thorough analysis of the issues surrounding differential pricing practices and issued Telecom
Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-192 on May 18, 2016. 3 The resulting DPP Framework, as
well as the Unlimited Music Decision, were released together on April 20, 2017.
2 Complaints were filed on September 1 and 4, 2015; see Unlimited Music Decision, at para. 1.
19. Videotron understands why the Commission sought to assess the broader implications of
differential pricing practices, and that this broader consultation inevitably took many months.
However, the consequence of this development was that many Videotron customers signed
contracts entitling them to the Unlimited Music program in the 19 months between the date the
20. As of May 5, 2017, there were ### Affected Subscribers, that is, Videotron mobile wireless
customers who have access to the Unlimited Music program. 4 This includes ###
residential customers. The number of total lines having access to the program is higher (###)
than the number of subscribers since Affected Subscribers that are businesses typically have
multiple employees who each have their own wireless mobility device.
21. Videotron ceased to offer the Unlimited Music program to new subscribers on May 10, 2017. It
also ceased to offer the service to current Affected Subscribers who renew or renegotiate their
contracts with Videotron, either because they buy a new mobility device or seek to modify their
contracts for other reasons. As a result, over time, the number of Affected Subscribers will
decrease steadily even if Videotron takes no other steps to eliminate the program.
22. Over ###% of Affected Subscribers are located in the Province of Quebec.5
23. The majority of Affected Subscribers have purchased packages of television, internet, telephone
4 Affidavit of Bertrand Hbert affirmed May 24, 2017 [Hbert Affidavit] at para. 4.
24. Most Affected Subscribers have also, through their agreement with Videotron for mobile wireless
services, obtained the use of a mobile device at no cost or a reduced cost. This offer is
conditional on the subscriber maintaining a monthly mobile wireless plan with Videotron for at
least 24 months. If the subscriber terminates their contract with Videotron before 24 months
have passed, they must pay an indemnity representing the unamortized amount of the
economic inducement.7 If however Videotron changes the terms of the contract, the subscriber
may seek to terminate it without penalty, leaving Videotron to absorb the unamortized cost of
the device. As matters stand, the total financial impact on Videotron could amount to ###.
25. Most Affected Subscribers who have obtained a mobile device from Videotron at low or no cost
have had a contract with Videotron for less than 24 months. As of May 7, 2017, the average
26. Further to the terms and conditions in Videotrons contracts for residential services, Videotron
must provide at least 30 days notice of any unilateral change in the nature of the services
7 See paragraph 8 of Videotrons Terms and Conditions for Residential Services attached to Hbert
Affidavit as Exhibit A.
provided to the customer. The customer then has 30 days to accept the amendment or
27. The notice by Videotron must also comply with anti-spam legislation. About ###% of Affected
addresses which result in bounce-back messages when used. As a result, Videotron will have
to deliver notice to most Affected Subscribers by mail, which obviously takes longer than
delivery by e-mail.10
Affected Subscribers and to identify, create, develop, test and implement alternative
services.11 Videotron will require additional time to communicate with the Affected
Subscribers in order to advise them of the change to the services, and to make
all, taking into account the moratorium on changes to systems during the holiday period,
Videotron estimates that the shutdown of access to the program is not achievable until
9 See paragraph 9 of Videotrons Terms and Conditions for Residential Services, attached to Hbert
Affidavit as Exhibit A.
29. Due to the timing of the Unlimited Music Decision, the time actually required to develop, test and
a. During the weeks prior to and immediately following July 1 st, there is an
b. In June, July and August, Videotron has reduced staffing because, under
collective agreements with its unionized staff, many employees are entitled to
c. Videotrons IT teams are currently finalizing the modifications required for the
new CRTC Television Service Provider Code, which involves many important
30. Due to all of these factors, the resources required to comply with the Decision will already be
31. Videotron could attempt to comply with the Unlimited Music Decision by simply terminating all
access to the Unlimited Music program as of July 19, 2017. The technological, administrative
changes and communication required even for this abrupt and limited response is not
achievable within the Commissions deadline. But assuming it were possible, Videotron would
have to advise Affected Subscribers of the change in their plans on or before June 19, 2017. In
order to meet this deadline, Videotron would have to begin taking steps to communicate with the
32. If Affected Subscribers elect to terminate their agreements as a result of the abrupt elimination
of the Unlimited Music Program, Videotron will suffer important financial losses, loss of market
A. Impact of decision
33. In its submissions to the Commission in response to complaints about the Unlimited Music
program, Videotron did not provide evidence on the impacts of a decision imposing a short
deadline to terminate the program. The Commission similarly did not seek evidence on the
feasibility of an immediate termination of the program prior to issuing the Decision. There was
how much time would be required to terminate the Unlimited Music program taking into account
34. A decision-maker commits an error of fact if it fails to make relevant inquiries allowing it to obtain
35. The July 19, 2017 deadline in the Decision is not achievable, assuming Videotron respects its
contractual and statutory obligations to Affected Subscribers. As noted above in the Key Facts
section, from a purely technical perspective Videotron would require at least 27 weeks to
withdraw access to the Unlimited Music program and identify, create, develop, test and
15 Utility Transport International Inc. v. Kingsley, 2009 FC 270 at paras. 46 to 51; R. v. Fuller [1975] 2
S.C.R. 121 at para. 4.
Page 14 of 21
Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P.
Part 1 Decision 2017-105
ABRIDGED VERSION
36. The timeline to terminate the Unlimited Music program would be even longer due to other legal
and privacy-based factors. Further to the terms of its contracts with subscribers, if Videotron
were to make a change to its Unlimited Music program on July 19, 2017, it would have to notify
Affected Subscribers in Quebec at least 30 days prior to the cut-off date. Given anti-spam rules,
37. Even if Videotron were capable of offering alternative services by mid-June, this would put
Affected Subscribers in a difficult position, since most subscribe to multiple services with
Videotron. If they terminate their agreement with Videotron, they would not only have to find a
new provider for mobile wireless services, but either re-negotiate a different package of services
with Videotron or find new providers for all other services they previously received from
Videotron. Affected Subscribers would have to make a decision on these issues on short notice,
at a time of year when all providers face an extremely high volume of service requests.
38. Other Videotron subscribers and Videotron itself would face a significant impact, because the
effort required to terminate the Unlimited Music program and meet the service requirements of
Affected Subscribers would inevitably prevent Videotron from providing their usual service levels
39. These facts justify a review of the Decision, so that the Commission can make an informed
40. After receiving submissions of various stakeholders in response to the Videotron complaints, the
surrounding differential pricing practices rather than making decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Its goal in initiating the wider consultation which led to the DPP Framework was to provide a
clear framework for the industry on how it generally intends to address differential pricing
practices to create more certainty in the market and to ensure that ISPs and consumers
41. In the DPP Framework developed as a result of this wider consultation, the Commission
established a specific evaluation process for differential pricing practices that could violate
section 27(2) of the Act. First, the Commission must consider whether a differential pricing
evaluation criteria (agnostic treatment of data, exclusiveness of the offering, impact on internet
openness and innovation, and whether there is financial compensation involved). Second, the
Commission must consider the benefit and harms associated with the practice:
42. The analytic approach in the DPP Framework introduces a third stage to the traditional two-step
section 27(2) analysis. Under the broader section 27(2) test, the Commissions analysis is
limited to two factors: first, whether a complainant can demonstrate that a practice confers a
preference or disadvantage and, second, whether the respondent can show that the preference
or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable. The more tailored DPP Framework adds a third
step, whereby the Commission must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances
43. Unfortunately, because the Unlimited Music Decision was issued on the same day as the DPP
Framework and assessed the program under both tests, it is unclear whether, going forward, the
analysis of differential pricing practices will proceed under the traditional section 27(2) test or
the new test in the Framework, or what evidence may be relevant to a complaint inquiry. The
Commission furthermore did not have any information allowing it to weigh the feasibility,
disadvantages and benefits of the termination of the program for existing Affected Subscribers.
44. As noted above, in the new third stage of the test under section 27(2) as it related to differential
pricing practices, the Commission must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances,
such as privacy-related, technological, administrative or other factors that would impact its
analysis under subsection 27(2) such that the benefits of allowing a specific differential pricing
45. Since the Unlimited Music Decision and the DPP Framework were released the same day,
Videotron was not aware of this new analytic framework. It did not know that evidence
regarding the feasibility and impacts of terminating the Unlimited Music program would be
Page 17 of 21
Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P.
Part 1 Decision 2017-105
ABRIDGED VERSION
relevant to the Commissions analysis, or that it could argue that the Commission would
46. In the Decision, the Commission concluded that [B]ased on the record of the proceeding
there are no other mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances associated with the Unlimited
Music Program that would impact its analysis and conclusions in this case. 18 But given that
Videotron had no notice of the DPP Frameworks new analytic approach, there was no reason
47. The particular circumstances in this case militate for a careful review of the factors set out in the
third stage of the DPP Framework. Despite the best efforts of the Commission to complete the
inquiry into the complaints, due to the concurrent broader consultation into differential pricing
practices, nineteen months elapsed before a decision on the complaints against Videotron was
rendered. During this time, tens of thousands of new customers entered into contracts with
Videotron, entitling them to receive a certain package of services. The reasonable expectations
and contractual rights of these Affected Subscribers, as well as impacts to Videotrons other
subscribers, its employees, and the company itself of an abrupt termination of the program,
48. In these circumstances, there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Decision. In our
respectful submission, given the introduction of the change in approach to section 27(2) for
differential pricing practices, the Commission should consider the impacts of the immediate
49. In its Practice Note dated February 28, 1997, the Commission announced that it would consider
stay applications by applying the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba
(Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., [1987] 1 SCR 110 and RJR-MacDonald
Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 31119. This test requires the applicant to show
that:
(ii) the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and
(iii) the balance of convenience lies with the party requesting the stay.
50. In the context of appeals from CRTC decisions, the first factor, whether there is a serious issue
to be determined, will be met if the matter on appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious.20
51. The issues on this application namely, the need to obtain evidence on how Videotron can
comply with section 27(2), and the interplay of the Decision and the Framework are serious.
19 Assoc. des compagnies de tlphone du Qubec Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 203, at
para. 12.
compensated by a damages award at some later date and there was no entity that could be
53. If a stay is not granted of the Unlimited Music Decision, Videotron and its subscribers will suffer
irreparable harm.22
54. Since it cannot establish alternative services for Affected Subscribers within the deadline set out
in the Decision, Videotron will effectively have no choice but to advise over ### Affected
Subscribers that it is unilaterally amending their mobile wireless contracts by reducing the
services offered for the price paid. This will undoubtedly lead many customers to terminate their
contracts not only for mobile wireless services from Videotron but other services obtained as
part of a package.
55. Such terminations, or even inquiries by Affected Subscribers about the change in services, will
take place at a time when Videotrons systems are already overtaxed, leading to delays in
service and customer frustration. This will thus not only reduce Videotrons share of the market
in the immediate term but inflict significant and long-term reputational damage on its brand.
56. Videotrons attempt to comply with the deadline in the Unlimited Music Decision will also have a
harmful impact on all of its subscribers, whether or not they are Affected Subscribers. Given the
demands on Videotrons personnel to meet the deadline and to respond to service calls after the
termination of the Unlimited Music program, Videotron will not be able to maintain service levels
57. Videotron ceased offering the Unlimited Music program to new customers or customers
renewing or renegotiating contracts as of May 10, 2017. As a result, the number of Affected
58. Any harm flowing from the existence of the Unlimited Music program has already accrued.
Staying the Unlimited Music Decision to permit the requested review will not create any
additional harm.
59. As noted above, failure to stay the Unlimited Music Decision will result in irreparable harm to
Videotron.
6.0 CONCLUSION
61. For all of these reasons, Videotron respectfully asks the Commission to accept this application
to review the Unlimited Music Decision, and to stay the Commissions direction to Videotron in
62. Videotron seeks a decision on the request for stay by no later than June 9, 2017, so that
it can take steps to notify Affected Subscribers of the termination of the Unlimited Music
expedited process for the stay component of this application. Specifically, we request
that interested parties be required to file comments by May 31, 2017 on our request for
stay. Videotron would then commit to filing its reply comments on this component of the
63. If the request for review is accepted, Videotron seeks a variance of the Decision that takes into
account the feasibility of immediate termination of the Unlimited Music program for Affected
place with Affected Subscribers, until such time as each Affected Subscriber has reached the
end of his/her handset subsidy amortization period or has otherwise renewed or renegotiated
his/her contract for mobile wireless services. In the alternative, we ask the Commission to set a
deadline for compliance that is fair and reasonable to Affected Subscribers, Videotrons other
subscribers and to Videotron itself, and that takes into account technological, administrative and
privacy-based factors.