Collectives Reply Statement of Case - PUBLIC Version - November 15 2015

8/20/2019 Collectives Reply Statement of Case - PUBLIC Version - November 15 2015

1/22

EXHIBIT COLLECTIVES-16

COPYRIGHT BOARD OF CANADA

File: Television Retransmission (2014-2018)

REPLY STATEMENT OF CASE

OF THE

TELEVISION RETRANSMISSION COLLECTIVES

Filed: November 9, 2015


2/22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I - OVERVIEW 1

PART II - THE RIGHT ANALYTICAL STARTING POINT 4

PART III - THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF DISTANT SIGNALS 5

A. I NTRODUCTION 5

B. DR . CHIPTY’S ECONOMIC ERRORS: INCLUSION OF CATEGORY B SERVICES, AND AD HOC DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 6

C. DR . CHIPTY’S METHODOLOGICAL ERROR 8

D. DR . CHIPTY’S FACTUAL ERRORS 9

E. CORRECTION OF DR . CHIPTY’S ERRORS, AND CALCULATION OF CORRECTED PROPOSEDROYALTIES 11

F. R ESPONSE TO CRITIQUES OF DR . CHURCH’S A NALYSIS 12

G. R ESPONSE TO CRITIQUES OF DR . WALL’S A NALYSIS 13

PART IV - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS 14

PART V - WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 16

WITNESSES 16

EXHIBITS 17


3/22

PART I - OVERVIEW

1. This is the Reply Statement of Case of the Television Retransmission Collectives. It

responds to the BDUs’ Statement of Case, and previews both the reply evidence and

reply submissions of the Collectives.

2. As was noted earlier, this proceeding marks the first time in 20 years that the royalties

paid by retransmitters for retransmitting distant signals are before the Board for

adjudication, and the first time ever that the value of those signals has been the focus of

expert economic testimony informed by so much detailed economic information obtained

from the BDUs.

3. It is important to note that the two sides, and their economists, agree on key starting

points for the analysis:

(a) a fair and equitable distant signal royalty rate is one that is set at a level that

resembles the present day market value of distant signals;1

(b) “market value” can be estimated through economic analysis; and

(c) in particular, one valid approach to determine the market value of distant signals

is to examine the amounts paid by BDUs for an analogous or “benchmark” or

“proxy” set of services whose prices are set at arms’ length in an open and

competitive market.

4. Where the economists diverge in their respective proxy analyses is on the identification

of the relevant benchmark services and on the data and methods to use in their analysis.

5. The BDUs’ economist, Dr. Chipty, calculates a proposed royalty rate of about $1.00 per-

subscriber per-month. This is, perhaps coincidentally, about the same as the actual rate in

2013, and is far less than both the rate proposed by the Collectives ($2.00 for 2014) and

1 Dr. Chipty Report at para 16; Professor Church Reply Report at para 5, Dr. Wall Report at para 34. See also File1989-1, Retransmission of Distant Radio and Television Signals, October 2, 1990 at p. 27 and 29 (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/1990/19901002-s-b.pdf ).


4/22

- 2 -

the market values calculated by the Collectives’ economists Professor Church ($2.06) and

Dr. Wall ($4.97).

6. However, as summarized below, Dr. Chipty’s analysis makes several critical errors and

relies on unrepresentative and unreliable private “set-top box” tuning data that was

developed for her by certain BDUs for this hearing.

(a) Dr. Chipty agrees with Professor Church that US specialty services should be

included in the benchmark group. However, she also includes a slew of small,

lightly watched and low cost “Category B” specialty services, which drive down

the average fees paid to the services in the group. Most of these Category B

services are owned by and traded between the vertically integrated BDUs and

their respective affiliated programming undertakings, and thus their fees are not

negotiated at arms’ length. For these and other reasons it is inappropriate to add

these services to a proxy group designed to reflect the fees that distant signals

might command in a competitive market.

(b) Dr. Chipty makes a series of analytical errors that lead her to make unwarranted

downward “adjustments” to the prices paid for her (improperly designed)

benchmark group.

(c) Dr. Chipty’s calculations are based on “set-top box” tuning data (incorrectly

described as viewing data) owned by three BDUs and developed by them for her

to use in this case.2

7. Some of the factual and methodological errors on which Dr. Chipty’s calculations are

based can be corrected. When this is done, and her calculation is rerun using her own

data, her proposed methodology leads to royalty rates that are in the range of $2 to $3

Analysis of these data by Collectives’ expert Barry Kiefl

reveals that it is completely unrepresentative of actual viewing shares and habits,

and is entirely at odds the viewing data collected and published by Numeris Inc.

that all industry participants routinely rely on but which Dr. Chipty ignores.

2 The Collectives had asked for similar data in the interrogatory process, but the BDUs did not produce it then.Interrogatories Collectives 15 and 16.


5/22

- 3 -

dollars per-subscriber per-month and higher 3

8. The BDUs have filed several witness statements and reports other than Dr. Chipty’s.

However, these are little more than distractions from the economic analysis. Dr. Chipty

does not rely on any of them in formulating her proposed royalty, and, in any event, they

are not capable of supporting the BDUs’ proposals. The reports suffer from reliance on

flawed data or incorrect inferences drawn from the regulatory regime. The proposed

evidence from BDU managers is speculative, alarmist, self-serving and inconsistent with

the actual behaviour of subscribers and the BDUs themselves.

, rather than approximately $1.00 per month

she proposes.

9. Finally, the BDUs have sought to evade the effects of a proper economic analysis in two

ways. They argue that the current value of distant signals should be maintained by

suggesting that there has been little change since 2013. Secondly, they complain that the

Collectives’ current request is higher than in the originally filed proposed tariff. These

arguments should not be taken seriously. On the first point, the Board has cautioned

against a practice of looking only for changes since a prior certified tariff, noting that an

incrementalist approach is bound to miss changes that occur over a longer period. On the

second point, the Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Board is entitled to set

royalties at levels above those in the published proposed tariffs especially where, as here,the relevant stakeholders have adequate notice.

10. After the Collectives obtained the BDUs’ economic information during the interrogatory

process in this case, it became clear that the retransmission royalties had been

undervalued for years. This is the time to rectify that problem. As demonstrated in the

Collectives’ original evidence, and as confirmed by their reply evidence, a royalty rate

starting at $2.00 in 2014 is fair and reasonable and should be certified.

3 See the table at paragraph 44 of this Reply Statement of Case for a summary of certain correction calculations thathave been performed by Professor Church.


6/22

- 4 -

PART II - THE RIGHT ANALYTICAL STARTING POINT

11. The BDUs claim that the right analytical approach involves “starting from the 2013

certified rate of $0.98 and assessing whether there have been any changes since 2013 that

would justify a change in that rate.”4

12. First, it completely ignores the economic analysis not only by the Collectives but also by

the BDUs themselves. Dr. Chipty attempted to determine the actual value of distant

signals, not the change in their value since 2013. The fact that the parties settled on an

amount to compromise their dispute in 2013 has no bearing on this valuation, particularly

since the BDUs have only now produced their internal and closely guarded financial

information on which much of the Collectives’ economic analysis is based. Further, the

BDUs acknowledge that it would only be appropriate to use the existing certified tariff

rate as a starting point if it was similar to the current value of distant signals – which it is

clearly not.

This approach is flawed and designed to divert

attention from the true value of distant signals for at least two reasons.

5

13. Second, and more generally, the BDUs’ proposed approach is designed to hamper the

assessment of the value of distant signals. Looking only at incremental change since the

last tariff certification – in this case completed two years ago based on a settlement –

means that broader trends and changes in value will never be perceived. The Board has

recognised this already. In 1994, in considering SOCAN Tariff 2A (conventional

television), the Board held that it should only consider changes, if any, since the then

current rate was set in 1986. At the following hearing, the Board reconsidered this

position, reversed itself on it, and expressly held that such an approach was

inappropriate:6

The Board respectfully disagrees with this previous position. It finds thisinterpretation restricted and limiting. A valuation of this sort should be setin relation to the whole time during which the tariff has existed. Someaccount should be taken of changes that occurred incrementally over that

4 BDU Statement of Case, paras. 26-27.5 BDU Statement of Case, para 28.6

Decision of the Copyright Board regarding Tariff 2.A - Commercial Television Stations In 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997,at p. 12.


7/22

- 5 -

whole period in the use of music and, as a result, in the value of SOCAN’slicence to broadcasters. The Board also finds that, to date, the accounttaken of these changes has been insufficient. The reduction in the ratemanifests this broader approach.

14. The expert economic evidence disproves the BDUs’ claim that the existing $0.98 per-

subscriber per-month retransmission rate resembles the current market value of distant

signals. It clearly does not support the rate. Accordingly, the correct analytical starting

point is to assess what the current market value of distant signal would be if traded at

arm’s length in a competitive market. As demonstrated by the evidence, a significant

upwards adjustment to the existing rate is necessary to achieve a fair and equitable

retransmission royalty rate, one based on the current market value of distant signals.

PART III - THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF DISTANT SIGNALS

A. Introduction

15. The Parties and their respective economic experts agree that the appropriate objective for

a reasonable royalty rate for distant signals is the rate that would have been set as a result

of an arms-length negotiation in a well-functioning market – i.e the hypothetical

competitive “market price” or “market value” of distant signals.

16. Both parties have filed expert economic evidence which seeks to calculate that price and,

by extension, the appropriate distant signal royalty rate.

17. Dr. Wall presents a market-based analysis that studies the actual retail price of distant

signals sold by BDUs to their subscribers. Through his analysis, Dr. Wall concludes that

the current average market wholesale value of distant signals used by BDUs (the value of

the average number of distant signals received by subscribers in 2013) is $4.97 per-

subscriber per-month.

18. For their part, both Professor Church and Dr. Chipty adopt a proxy analysis in which the

market price paid for a comparable (“benchmark” or “proxy”) set of signals is observed

and used as a basis to calculate the market price of distant signals.


8/22

- 6 -

19. Professor Church calculates the current market value of distant signals to be,

conservatively, $2.06. In contrast, Dr. Chipty calculates the current market value of

distant signals to be, at the highest, $1.01.

20. While both Professor Church and Dr. Chipty adopt a proxy approach, they differ

substantially in the implementation of their analyses.

21. As summarized below, Dr. Chipty’s analysis suffers from serious economic,

methodological and factual errors. These errors result in her proposing an incorrectly low

royalty rate.

22. Of note is the fact that once corrected, if only for factual errors, Dr. Chipty’s own

methodology calculates the current market value of distant signals (equal to Dr. Chipty’s proposed royalty rate) to be $2.37 per-subscriber per-month. Correcting for her factual,

economic and methodological errors results in her methodology generating proposed

royalty rates over $3 per-subscriber per-months.

23. Accordingly, like Dr. Wall’s and Professor Church’s methodologies, Dr. Chipty’s

methodology also demonstrates that the current market value of distant signals is at least

in the order of $2 per-subscriber per-month and is likely significantly higher.

B. Dr. Chipty’s economic errors: inclusion of Category B services, and ad hoc

downward adjustment factors

24. Like Professor Church, Dr. Chipty accepts and uses US specialty services as part of her

benchmark set of services (18 US specialty services). These services are appropriate to

include as part of the proxy analysis because their price is set at arm’s length in a well-

functioning market and, as explained by Professor Church in his initial report, they are of

comparable “quality”7

25. However, Dr. Chipty also includes 47 Canadian “Category B” specialty services in her

benchmark set of services. As explained by Professor Church, Category B services

should not be included in the proxy analysis because:

to distant signals in their ability to generate revenues for BDUs.

7 As noted by Professor Church, references to “quality” refer not to the esthetics of the programming but rather tothe ability of a signal or service to generate revenues for a BDU.


9/22


10/22

- 8 -

28. This assumption of linearity between price and viewing is not tested or justified

empirically by Dr. Chipty and is, in fact, wrong as explained by Dr. Wall and Professor

Church in their reply reports.

29. In addition, Dr. Chipty applies a further 25% reduction factor to the price of all her

Category B services, and a 10% reduction factor to the price of her US specialty services.

She purportedly does so to isolate the cost of programming on those services, as

compared to the cost of the service itself.

30. As explained in Professor Church’s reply report, this adjustment is inappropriate because

it models the wrong hypothetical competitive negotiation. Dr. Chipty violates the

principle that the compulsory licence (i.e. royalty rate) cannot be determined by

modelling a hypothetical negotiation in which both parties know that there is a

compulsory licence. The proper hypothetical negotiation must model one between a BDU

and the hypothetical owner of a distant signal (i.e. the channel), which is what the BDU is

trading for. In such a negotiation, the parties would not separate out costs of

programming or the non-capital costs of the signal. The negotiated price would be the

price paid by the BDU for the right to retransmit the signal in its entirety, which is all that

the Copyright Act allows a BDU to do and is the only right that is being valued in this

case.

C. Dr. Chipty’s methodological error

31. Dr. Chipty’s analysis also suffers from a serious methodological error as it omits payment

data for the vast majority of services that she includes in her benchmark services. This

missing data necessarily results in an underestimate of her original benchmark price and

therefore her proposed royalty rate.

32. who together represent the vast majority of subscribers) have more

complete payment data. However, for the other BDUs ( ),

payment data is missing for more than two thirds of the US specialty services, and almost

three quarters of the Category B services. The impact of the missing data is easy to see by

comparing the benchmark price that is calculated based only on the relatively complete


11/22

- 9 -

data ($3.47) compared to the benchmark price calculated based on the

larger very incomplete data set ($2.46). Dr. Chipty uses the lower $2.46 benchmark price

as her starting point.

33. The fact that Dr. Chipty is missing so much payment data is very surprising considering

that her clients are the very BDUs who have this payment information, and could have

provided it to her for the purposes of her analysis.

D. Dr. Chipty’s factual errors

34. In addition, the results of Dr. Chipty’s analysis presented in her report are clearly wrong

because she bases her calculations on tuning data (incorrectly described as viewing data)

that was collected and prepared by three of the Objecting BDUs in collaboration with herconsulting firm. This tuning data is grossly flawed and unreliable.

35. More particularly, for the purposes of Dr. Chipty’s analysis, Bell, Rogers and Shaw have

provided set-top box data from a subset of their subscribers in Toronto, Montreal and

Vancouver. The data were apparently collected during a two week period in May 2015.

36. As explained in detail by Collectives’ expert Barry Kiefl, the BDUs set-top box data and

Dr. Chipty’s analysis of it is completely unreliable and unrepresentative of local, distant

or national viewing shares and habits. In contrast, reliable and representative viewing

data are collected, published and made available by Numeris Inc. In stark contrast to the

BDUs data, the Numeris viewing data is the industry standard data that are accepted and

relied upon by all parties in the Canadian broadcasting industry including among others,

advertisers, broadcasters and regulators (the CRTC for example). For reasons that are

unexplained, Dr. Chipty completely ignores the accepted industry-standard data in favour

of her private data.

37. Reliance on this flawed data leads Dr. Chipty to make two factual errors that significantly

affect her proposed royalty rate.

(a) First, Dr. Chipty calculates, based on the BDUs’ tuning data, that % of viewing

to US conventional signals is distant. This is wrong. In fact, 65% of viewing to


12/22


13/22

- 1 1 -

39. In fact, Dr. Chipty concedes that the BDUs’ tuning data ‘likely’ underestimates the

proportion of distant viewing to US conventional signals.10

40. Similarly, Dr. Chipty fails to recognize or correct for the fact that the BDUs’ tuning data

underestimate the proportion of viewing to conventional signals (US and Canadian) and

overestimate the proportion of viewing to Category B services.

To correct for this error, she

re-calculates and bases her proposed royalty rate of $1.01 using accepted industry-

standard (Numeris) proportions of US distant viewing. However, Dr. Chipty fails to

recognize or correct for the fact that the BDUs’ tuning data also underestimate the

amount of distant viewing to Canadian distant signals.

41. Each of the above noted errors, separately and cumulatively, result in Dr. Chipty

underestimating the actual current market value of distant signals.

E. Correction of Dr. Chipty’s errors, and calculation of corrected proposed royalties

42. Some of Dr. Chipty’s errors can be corrected, as explained and set-out in detail in the

responding report of Professor Church.

43. Once corrected, even if only for the factual errors and methodological errors, it becomes

immediately apparent that, like Dr. Wall’s and Professor Church’s methodologies, Dr.

Chipty’s methodology also demonstrates that the current market value of distant signals

is at least equal to, and likely significantly higher than, $2 per-subscriber per-month.

44. A summary of certain corrections, and the resulting proposed royalty rates, is set out in

the table below:

10 Dr. Chipty Expert Report Exhibit BDU-2 at para 75.


14/22

- 12 -

Summary of Corrections and Resulting Royalty Rate

Correction Made Revised Corrected Rate

Correction 1Use correct proportions (65% and 22%) ofdistant viewing in US and Canadianconventional TV viewing

$1.55

Correction 2

Use correct proportions of conventionalversus specialty viewing obtained from

Numeris and local/distant split$2.37

Correction 3Adjusts Correction 1 by further removingCategory B channels

$2.92

Correction 4

Adjusts Correction 2 by further removing

Category B channels $3.77

Correction 5Performs Correction 1 using the relativelymore complete data only

$1.97

Correction 6Adjusts Correction 5 by further removingCategory B channels

$3.63

F. Response to Critiques of Dr. Church’s Analysis

45. Unlike Dr. Chipty, Professor Church’s proxy analysis is based on observing what the

BDUs paid for a comparable set of services – the US specialty services – traded under

competitive market conditions between unaffiliated parties.

46. In her report, Dr. Chipty has criticized Professor Church, mainly for failing to adopt the

various downward “adjustments” and “sensitivities”.

47. As explained in Professor Church’s reply report, Dr. Chipty’s downward adjustments are

unfounded and, in any event, inapplicable to Professor Church’s analysis. Specifically,

there is no need for Professor Church to adjust his analysis to account for quality

differences between US specialty services and distant signals because the US specialty

services are, as a group, already a comparable set of services.


15/22

- 1 3 -

48. Dr. Chipty also alleges that Professor Church miscalculates the amount of viewing to

distant signals. As Professor Church’s reply report explains, Dr. Chipty is mistaken, and

his calculations are correct.

49. BDU witness Ms. Blackwell’s critique of Professor Church is based on a

mischaracterization of his analysis with respect to market power. In any event, her

critiques are irrelevant as Professor Church neither increases nor decreases his proposed

royalty rate on that basis, and Ms. Blackwell also does not propose a specific adjustment.

50. Professor Church’s proxy analysis and conclusions are robust and, if anything,

conservative.

G. Response to Critiques of Dr. Wall’s Analysis

51. Dr. Wall’s valuation of distant signals is based on actual market prices of distant signals

sold by BDUs to subscribers in theme packages, basic packages and extended basic

packages.

52. By considering the price of distant signals in each of these packages, Dr. Wall concludes

that 9.2 cents per-subscriber per-month is a reasonable average wholesale price per

distant signal offered in all

53. Therefore, as explained by Dr. Wall, it is correct and appropriate to multiply the average

market wholesale price of a distant signal by the average number of distant signals

received by subscribers (54 in 2013) to calculate the aggregate average wholesale value

of distant signals used by BDUs.

BDU packages (i.e. whether in a distant signal theme

package, basic package or extended basic package).

54. Dr. Chipty’s critique of Dr. Wall’s analysis and allegations to the contrary are unfounded

and incorrect.

55. Further, Dr. Chipty’s critique and suggestion that the calculated average wholesale

market price of distant signals should be modified to account for the relative amount of

viewing to distant signals, simultaneous substitution and bundling is also inappropriate

and incorrect.


16/22

- 1 4 -

56. As explained by Dr. Wall, it is critical to understand that, by its very nature, an observed

market price already reflects the particular market conditions in which the market price

was set. As such, modifying an observed market price to account for one or another of the

perceived market conditions would only serve to arbitrarily distort the observed market

price.

57. Ms. Blackwell’s critique of Dr. Wall’s analysis and her allegation that it fails to account

for the portion of costs that are attributable to a BDU’s basic network costs is also

inapplicable and incorrect.

58. Dr. Wall’s analysis is based on taking the BDU’s observed retail prices for distant signals

and then calculating a wholesale price by applying a retail-to-wholesale mark-up. That

mark-up reduces the retail price to account for expenses such as non-programming

related operating costs incurred by BDUs. Ms. Blackwell’s proposed modification is

inappropriate as it would amount to a double counting of distribution network costs.

59. Dr. Wall’s direct market analysis and conclusions are robust, and no modifications are

required.

PART IV - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

60. The BDUs suggest that the Board cannot, or should not, consider the Collectives’ revised

rate proposals because they exceed the amounts sought by them in their proposed tariffs

filed in March 2013.11

61. The BDUs complain that the Collectives are “trying to avoid the statutory notice period”

under the Copyright Act . In reality, the data needed to accurately calculate a fair and

reasonable tariff was in the possessions of the Objectors and not provided to theCollectives until the interrogatory stage of this proceeding. Moreover, the Federal Court

of Appeal has already ruled that the Board is empowered to certify royalties higher than

those sought in the original statutory proposal. The Board’s obligation to certify royalties

However, the BDUs ignore both the relevant jurisprudence and

the facts in this proceeding.

11 BDU Statement of Case, paras. 36-39.


17/22

- 15 -

on “such terms and conditions related to those royalties as the Board considers

appropriate” overrides what might otherwise have been the constraints imposed by the

doctrine of ultra petita.12

62. Other than their formalistic reliance on the statutory notice requirements, the BDUs

provide no evidence and make no argument that they were prejudiced in fact by the

Collectives’ revised rate proposals. Nor could they. As explained in the reply evidence

of Carol Cooper, the President and Chief Executive Officer at the Canadian

Retransmission Collective, the current Objectors represent collectively % of all royalty

payments made by large and “medium” BDUs (small systems are not affected by the

revised rates). Thus, essentially all of the affected stakeholders, measured by size, had

adequate notice of the revisions and have responded to them in their evidence. Moreover,

as indicated in Exhibit Collectives-20, all BDUs (not only the current objectors) were

sent a letter in June 2015 alerting them to the revisions, but none of these non-Objector

BDUs responded or sought to involve themselves in the hearing process.

63. Accordingly, there is no formal or fairness impediment to the Board considering the

Collectives’ revised rates.

12 Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance, 2004 FCA 424 at paras. 167-177.


18/22

- 1 6 -

PART V - WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Dr. Gerry W. Wall

Witnesses

Dr. Wall will appear as a witness at the hearing of this matter to present his expert report in-chief

and reply expert report both entitled “The Economic Valuation of the Tariff Rate for the

Retransmission of Distant Television Signals for 2014-2018”. The estimated time for Dr. Wall’s

evidence in chief is 3-4 hours.

Professor Jeffrey Church

Professor Church will appear as a witness at the hearing of this matter to present his expert report

in-chief and reply expert report both entitled “Competitive Royalties for Retransmitted Distant

Signals in Canada”, dated May 8, 2015, and his reply expert report dated November 9, 2015. The

estimated time for Professor Church’s evidence in chief is 3-4 hours.

Peter Grant

Peter Grant will appear as a witness at the hearing of this matter to present his expert report

entitled “Factors Affecting the Valuation of Distant Television Signals”. The estimated time for

Peter Grant’s evidence in chief is 2-3 hours.

Barry Kiefl

Barry Kiefl will appear as a witness at the hearing of this matter to present his expert report

entitled “Comments on the Data Relied on in the Reports of Strategic Inc. and Dr. Tasneem

Chipty”. The estimated time for Barry Kiefl’s evidence in chief is 1-2 hours.

Carol Cooper

Carol Cooper is the President of CRC and will appear as a witness at the hearing of this matter.

Ms. Cooper will testify as to the respective percentages of retransmission royalties paid by the

BDUs and non-objector retransmitters under the current certified tariff and steps taken by the


19/22

- 1 7 -

Collectives to put Canadian retransmitters on notice of the Collectives’ revised tariff proposal.

The estimated time for Ms. Cooper’s evidence in chief is 15-30 minutes.

The Collectives intend to rely upon the following documents, including the additional exhibits

Collectives 16-21, filed with the Collectives’ Reply Case.

Exhibits

Exhibit Number Description

Collectives-1 Collectives’ Statement of Case [Contains HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL information]

Collectives-2 Expert report of Dr. Gerry Wall entitled “The Economic Valuationof the Tariff Rate for the Retransmission of Distant TelevisionSignals for 2014-2018”. [Contains HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALinformation]

Collectives-3 Expert report of Professor Jeffrey Church entitled “CompetitiveRoyalty for Retransmitted Distant Signals in Canada”. [ContainsHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL information]

Collectives-4 Expert report of Mr. Peter Grant entitled “Factors affecting the

valuation of distant television signals”

Collectives-5 Forum Research Inc. report entitled “Report to CBRA and CRC”

Collectives-6 Mediastats Retransmission Report, January 2004 to 2014, datedAugust 15, 2014 and Revised Retransmission Report, January2004 to 2014, dated February 2015.

Collectives-6A Underlying Data to Mediastats Retransmission Report (MicrosoftAccess Database) [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-7 Cogeco Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 4, 5, 8, 9, and 17

(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)

Collectives -7/Q4 Appendix 4 (December 5, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 4 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives -7/Q5 Appendix 5(e) (December 5, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 5


20/22

- 1 8 -




Collectives -7/Q17 Appendix 17(H) (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 17

Collectives-8 Rogers Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 4, 5, 15, and 17(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)

Collectives-8/Q4 Supplementary Appendix 4(b) and 4(c) (December 5, 2014) toResponse to Collectives Interrogatory 4 [HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-8/Q5 Appendix 5 (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 5 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-8/Q15 Appendix 15(b) (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 15

Collectives-8/Q17 Appendix 17(a)(i) (August 20, 2014) to Collectives Interrogatory17

Collectives-9 Shaw Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 5, and 17

(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)

Collectives-

9/Q1Q2Q4

Supplementary Appendix 1/2/4 (December 5, 2014) to Responseto Collectives Interrogatories 1, 2 and 4 [HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-9/Q5 Appendix 5 (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 5

Collectives-9/Q17 Appendix 17(a) and 17(b) (August 20, 2014) to Response toCollectives Interrogatory 17

Collectives-10 Eastlink Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 4 and 5(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)



21/22

- 1 9 -


Collectives-10/Q5 Appendix 5.5 (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 5 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-11 Bell Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 4, 8, 9, and 17(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)

Collectives-11/Q4 Appendix 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) (August 20, 2014) to Response toCollectives Interrogatory 4 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-11/Q8 Appendix 8 (August 20, 2014) and Supplementary Appendix 8(December 5, 2014) to Response to Collectives Interrogatory 8

[HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-11/Q9 Appendix 9 (August 20, 2014) to Response to Collectives

Interrogatory 9 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-11/Q17 Appendix 17(a) and 17(b) (August 20, 2014) to Response toCollectives Interrogatory 17

Collectives-12 TELUS Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatories 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15,17, and 21 (HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)


Collectives-12/Q5 Appendix 5 (August 20, 2014) to Response to Collectives

Interrogatory 5

Collectives-12/Q15 Appendix 15 (December 5, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 15 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-12/Q17 Appendix 17-12 (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 17

Collectives-12/Q21 Appendix 21 (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 17 and 21 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-13 Videotron (Quebecor) Responses to Collectives’ Interrogatory 9(HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Version)

Collectives-13/Q9 Appendix 9 (Highly Confidential) (August 20, 2014) to Responseto Collectives Interrogatory 9 [HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL]

Collectives-13/Q9p Appendix 9 (Public) (August 20, 2014) to Response to CollectivesInterrogatory 5, 9, 10, and 11


22/22

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hknopf
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Collectives Reply Statement of Case - PUBLIC Version - November 15 2015

Documents