Bell Media asks regulator to remove its obligations to local TV news
Company applies to CRTC to drop spending requirements, calling it 'regulatory relief'
BCE's media arm says it wants the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to amend "certain conditions of licence" regarding its local English- and French-language TV stations, CTV and Noovo.
Bell Media calls it "regulatory relief" to counter online competition and help offset losses racked up in recent years.
"Unfortunately, Bell Media has been losing tens of millions alone in the production and delivery of local news," it said in a summary of the application posted Friday and filed on June 14 — the same day BCE announced it's cutting 1,300 positions, shutting or selling nine radio stations and closing two foreign bureaus.
"In the four-year period between 2016 and 2019, [Bell Media's] average annual news operating loss was $28.4 million," the company said.
It said that number increased to $40 million last year because of internet advertising that has captured a "massive share" of revenue from Canadian businesses.
Last week's layoffs included a six per cent cut at Bell Media.
Fewer hours for local news
The company wants the CRTC to waive requirements for the number of hours its TV stations must devote to local news each week.
Bell Media said the commission said in 2021 that the average number of hours Canadians spent watching traditional television services has decreased a total of 16.5 per cent since 2013.
"Over the last decade, the operating environment for traditional, private Canadian broadcasters has changed dramatically," the company said.
"Whereas in the past, Canadians looked to domestic services for information and entertainment, they can now access a virtually unlimited array of DMBUs [digital media broadcasting undertakings] such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple+, most of which are foreign‑owned and controlled."
Bell said the CRTC's implementation of the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) has the potential to provide relief to media companies through compensation from online streaming giants, but it cannot afford to wait for outcome of the regulator's consultations on the legislation.
Union vows to fight for programming
Unifor, one of Canada's largest unions in the media sector, said it strongly opposes the application to eliminate the regulatory requirements.
"We will do everything in our power to ensure that Bell Media continues to live up to its legislated obligations to fund and create local news and programming," Unifor national president Lana Payne said in a statement.
"If approved, Bell Media's outrageous and misguided scheme would deprive the Canadian public of vital local news and programming, while putting hundreds of highly trained and professional journalists out of work," Payne added.
She said the union will be filing a formal response with the CRTC in the coming weeks.
With files from The Canadian Press
----- Original Message -----
From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: I am curious
Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
will then provide you with a reply.
Martine Turcotte
Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
Tel: (514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877
email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
Tel: (514) 870-4638
email: diane.valade@bell.ca
Speaking of which, how about some rural internet?
Chretien - this did get rid party lines and upgraded phone line so dial up would work
Martin - Promised was there but too short lived as PM
Harper - Budget $200 million for rural internet getting 200,000 rural home internet
Trudeau - Did a bit with Starlink by subsidizing rural prices
Seems election promise that keeps coming up. 3 out 4 did something but I think Martin has valid excuse for not doing anything.
OH, sort of like TV advertising captured a "massive share" of revenue from the print media back in the day?
Seems it was OK for you to do it but now it's not fair?
I wonder when in the old days of TV guide as a magazine and a newspaper section those publications paid TV networks a fee for the privilege? Will Canadians then also now be charged for access to news content from public broadcasters such as TVO?
More Static Hits Bell Canada Deal
Now that an appeals court has quashed approval for the $51.8 billion leveraged buyout of Bell Canada, siding with angry bondholders in a ruling, what’s next for the troubled telecommunications giant?
While the unanticipated decision may not be the final ruling on the buyout, the largest leveraged deal in history, it puts its future in legal jeopardy.
The New York Times noted that there is some hope in the investment community that Telus, the dominant telephone company in Western Canada, might make another attempt to acquire Bell if the private equity bid failed.
Telus looked at Bell last year but did not bid, apparently because of Bell’s reluctance to provide access to its internal financial data.
A purchase by Telus might also raise serious competition questions, particularly given that the government is now seeking to lure more operators into the wireless phone business, which is now split between Telus, Bell and Rogers Communications.
In any case, Bell Canada shares are likely to be hit when the market opens Thursday morning. An analyst with the Royal Bank of Canada wrote in a research note that the stock is “likely to trade down significantly.”
The speculation comes after a five-judge panel of the Quebec Court of Appeal found that Canada’s largest telecommunications company “never attempted to justify the fairness and reasonableness of an arrangement that results in a significant adverse economic impact on the debenture holders while at the same time it accords a substantial premium to the shareholders.”
Because the buyout is structured under Canadian law as a “plan of arrangement” it requires court as well as shareholder approval. The new ruling sets aside court approval that was granted in early March.
“Everyone was telling us we didn’t stand a chance of winning this case,” John L. Finnigan, one of the lawyers for the bondholders, told The Times. “Now the deal has been killed. This plan of arrangement cannot go through.”
Within minutes of the release of the decision early Wednesday evening, Bell said that it would appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and suggested that it would extend the current June 30 closing date for the deal.
“The judgment overturning the Quebec Superior Court decision rewrites Canadian law relating to the duty of Canadian boards of directors to maximize value for shareholders in the context of a change-of-control transaction, as well as to the entitlements of bondholders,” Martine Turcotte, the company’s chief legal officer, said in a statement.
Mr. Finnigan disagreed with that assessment.
“The ruling is absolutely consistent with earlier supreme court rulings,” he told Teh times.
In an e-mail message, Deborah Allan, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, which is leading the buyout group, said: “We’re reviewing the ruling and evaluating our options with respect to the bondholder claims. We remain committed to the transaction.”
Bell said that the closing date for the deal now depended on the supreme court’s willingness to hear the case and the timing of any hearing that could result.
The decision to take the company private disturbs bondholders because it will burden Bell with about 30 billion Canadian dollars in additional debt. That will most likely depress the price of current bonds because of concerns that a debt-laden Bell is a riskier investment.
In its decision, the appeal court noted that before agreeing to the buyout, Bell executives, including Michael J. Sabia, the president and chief executive, emphasized the company’s interest in maintaining a high credit rating.
Other recent developments have also raised questions about the deal’s viability. Last week a consortium of banks providing financing for the deal proposed substantial alterations to the terms of their loans to the purchasers, who also include Providence Equity Partners, Madison Dearborn Partners and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity and the Toronto-Dominion bank, according to The Times.
The sweeping revisions sought by the banks, led by Citigroup, suggested to some investors and analysts that the banks were trying to escape the lending commitments, which they made last June, before the start of the current turmoil in credit markets.
The legal turmoil surrounding the case, if it continues for any extended period of time, might provide the bankers with at least an argument for walking away. Under the sale terms, Bell is required to resolve all regulatory issues and do its best to wind up litigation related to the purchase.
“I’ve probably got a lot of best friends I don’t know at Citigroup now,” Mr. Finnigan told The Times.
The widespread expectation among legal specialists in Canada had been that the appeal court would follow the trial judge’s lead and dismiss the bondholders’ complaint.
Shortly before the decision was released, Lionel David Smith, a professor specializing in commercial law at McGill University in Montreal, described the bondholders’ case as “an uphill battle.”
It is not clear if the supreme court will hear Bell’s appeal. Professor Smith told The Times that some of the bondholders’ case was based on a legal concept known as oppression that is relatively untested by the high court in Canada.
Oppression cases have usually involved disputes between owners or shareholders of relatively small companies or partnerships, he told The Times, and involved actions that, while legal, were outside of the partners’ or owners’ private understandings. The appeals court did not address the oppression arguments directly.
While Professor Smith said that it was quite possible that the supreme court would hear the case, that is not likely to happen before the deal’s deadline date.
Bell shares have been trading below the takeover price of 42.75 Canadian dollars.
No comments:
Post a Comment