The Competition Bureau has fined Bell Canada $10 million for what it calls the phone company’s misleading pricing for its wireless, broadband, phone, and satellite TV services.  The agency accused Bell of advertising one price for service, but charged customers considerably more after hidden fees were tacked on.  That made it impossible for any customer to actually purchase Bell’s services at their advertised prices.

The fine, the maximum amount that can be levied, was designed to send a message, according to Commissioner Melanie Aitken.

“When a price is offered to consumers, it must be accurate,” Aitken said. “Including a fine-print disclaimer is no license to advertise prices that are not available.”

Since December 2007, Bell routinely advertised product bundles that it claimed were priced at less than $70 a month, but after the hidden fees were calculated, Canadian consumers routinely paid north of $80.

Aitken

Aitken took issue with rental fees for equipment, term contract escape penalties, mandatory “add-ons” that were not included in the advertised price, and hidden “junk fees” designed to look like government-mandated taxes.  They all routinely add at least $10 to most telecommunications bills, even before actual government fees are calculated.

Bell protested the Bureau’s findings, but quickly agreed to pay the fine, modify its advertising, and cover the $100,000 estimated cost of the agency’s investigation.

The Competition Bureau has become a thorn in the side of many major corporate entities in Canada after winning new powers in 2009 to protect consumer interests.  The agency is currently pursuing a $10 million fine against Rogers Communications for “hit piece” advertising misleading consumers about Rogers’ wireless rivals — especially Wind Mobile.

But Rogers is not going quietly as Bell has done, vowing to drag the matter through the courts to void any fines or penalties.

Aitken promises she isn’t necessarily done with telecommunications companies, suggesting any company burying extra costs in the fine print, or subjecting customers to penalty fees for canceling service might be on notice.

Telecommunications companies in Canada have traditionally opposed government agencies that champion consumer protections.  Most notably, Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor Media have all attacked the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, an independent agency that monitors and assists consumers with issues related to phone and cable companies.  Bell wanted the organization abolished, while Rogers and Quebecor sought to see participation in it made voluntary.

Unfortunately, consumers won’t share in the $10 million fine from Bell.  Those funds will be collected and kept by the Canadian government.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Bell fined 10M over ads 6-28-11.flv[/flv]

CBC covers Bell’s $10 million dollar fine for advertising one price for service, but sending a much higher bill with tacked on hidden fees and surcharges.  (2 minutes)

Videotron has opened a new window of opportunity for wireless users looking for higher usage smartphone data allowances with the introduction of a 6GB for $30 plan the company says is available for a limited time only.

Canadian wireless customers are well used to 6GB data plans — they show up periodically from Bell, Rogers, and Telus, usually coinciding with the launch of another new version of Apple’s iPhone, but Videotron seeks to heat up the competition this summer with a new offer.

Videotron, a popular wireless carrier in Quebec, may be able to inspire counteroffers from other carriers re-launching similarly priced promotions in the days ahead.

Compared to pricing in the United States, this is a reasonably good deal.  AT&T charges $25 for just 2GB per month and Verizon will seek $30 for the same allowance early next month.

Rogers Communications claims usage caps are not creating problems for customers, but if and when they do, the company says it will get rid of them.

Luiza Staniec, manager of public relations for Rogers’ Quebec and Atlantic Canada region, made that remarkable claim in an interview with the New Brunswick-based Times & Transcript.

“At this point there is a cap. It hasn’t really caused a problem,” Staniec said.  “If the cap begins to affect users online, we will abolish it.”

At issue is Netflix’s popular streaming service, which opened for business in Canada last year.  Consumers are embracing the $7.99 service which delivers unlimited streaming of the Netflix online library.  But an increasing number of customers are discovering that while they can watch as much Netflix as they’d like, Internet Service Providers like Rogers have usage limits in place to keep online viewing under control.

Netflix told investors to expect $50 million in operating losses in international business this year, in part because growth in Canada is being hampered by stingy usage limits and high priced broadband.  Once consumers get a broadband bill with overlimit fees attached, some are reconsidering their love affair with video streaming.

Lindsey Pinto, communications representative for OpenMedia.ca, a consumer rights organization, says a regime of usage limits in place at most Canadian ISPs will ruin high bandwidth applications and services like Netflix, as consumers find them too expensive to use.

“It takes a lot of bandwidth to stream a movie or watch Netflix,” Pinto told the newspaper. “People will stop doing things that will bring them over the cap. There will be a disintegration from these services under this model.”

Staniec counters that Rogers offers higher usage cap plans (for more money) to accommodate Netflix viewing.

“If you watch a lot of movies, pick the package with the highest cap,” she says. “If you don’t watch too many, you don’t need the high cap.”

She added Rogers is willing to be flexible, adjusting caps “to suit the consumers.”

But last summer Rogers actually reduced the usage cap of its popular Extreme service plan from 95GB to just 80GB per month, one day after Netflix announced plans to enter Canada.

[Updated 5:12pm EDT — We heard from Ms. Staniec who wants readers to know she was respectfully misquoted by the reporter at the Times & Transcript:

“The correct message I conveyed was that our offer will evolve as customers needs/use evolves. The journalist added, ‘perhaps one day they will be abolished altogether.'”

Staniec would like our readers to know she herself made no statement about the issue of abolishing usage caps.]

Unless Canada deregulates the media industry further, a “technological storm” by “audiovisual Wal-Marts” will harm or destroy Canada’s media companies.  No doubt looking directly at Netflix, those were the views of Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau at the outset of hearings held this week by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on media ownership and vertical integration issues.

Canada’s media landscape is rapidly consolidating at a rate that will allow even ordinary Canadians with a passing interest in the issue to recognize the handful of remaining media moguls and identify them by name.  Phone companies that own major Canadian television networks, cable operators that own cell phone companies, and mergers among the dwindling pack have left consumers soaking in Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor — whether they flip on their televisions, make a cell phone call, read a newspaper, or download something from the Internet.  Talk about vertical integration!  Now the supersized are back for more deregulation so they can trade programming rights between themselves, fend off the devil — Netflix, and of course continue to buy each other out.

There is one exception, of course.  Allowing party crashers.  While all of the incumbent players want the rules loosened up on their respective media and telecommunications operations, they are hellbent on keeping foreign competition out of Canada — the only real deep pockets sufficient to break up a convenient cartel of phone and cable companies.  Rogers and Shaw stay on their respective sides of a line dividing eastern Canada’s turf for Rogers and western Canada’s territory for Shaw.  Bell and Telus do much the same.  Quebecor provides cable for Quebec, and a handful of much smaller players fight for any remaining crumbs.

For Americans, it would be the equivalent of turning over your telephone, broadband, cable, television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations to Rupert Murdoch or ex-media baron Ted Turner.

For Canadians, these hearings come just a tad too late.  Shaw Communications is absorbing their latest buyout — Canwest Media’s TV assets, which are hardly meager.  Shaw will run more than two dozen local broadcast TV outlets, 30 cable and satellite networks, and Global — a major broadcast network.  Bell is still popping Rolaids over its digestion of the enormous CTV and smaller upstart A-Channel network.  When it’s finished, “A” will become “CTV Two.”

The Globe and Mail notes between them, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Quebecor control:

• 86 per cent of cable and satellite distribution;
• 70 per cent of wireless revenues;
• 63 per cent of the wired telephone market;
• 49 per cent of Internet Service Provider revenues;
• 42 per cent of radio;
• 40 per cent of the television universe;
• 19 per cent of the newspaper and magazine markets;
• 60 per cent of total revenues from all of the above media sectors combined.

As far as growth goes, as Alan Keyes used to proclaim, “that’s geometric!”

But it’s still not enough now that Netflix has arrived in Canada.  Despite the fact the operation has been challenged by punitive usage caps restricting viewing (or lowering its video quality), Netflix and new technology companies like it are the 21st century boogeymen for these multi-billion dollar media corporations.  The only way to defend against it?  Deregulate to allow them to trade viewing rights, grow larger, and charge whatever they like.  Somehow that seems to miss the point: Netflix is popular because it costs less, allows people to stream the shows they actually want to watch at a time of their choosing, and let’s families drop some overpriced premium channels and video rental fees along the way.

Bell’s dollar-a-holler researcher expanded on why large media conglomerates miss the point, even if he did so unintentionally.

According to University of Alberta economics professor, Jeffrey Church, “vertical integration is beneficial for consumers.” Sit down as you read why:

• it reflects efficiencies, spurs competitive innovation and is a global trend;
• telecom, media and Internet markets in Canada are “highly competitive;”
• our ‘small media economy’ needs a few deep-pocketed national champions to compete globally and invest heavily in innovation at home;
• instances of harm are mostly imaginary and few and far between;
• it helps keep “consumers . . . within the regulated system” (Shaw’s submission, p. 4).

Like cattle.