The Domino Effect and How TV Subscription Packages of Telecoms are Left without Control

The Domino Effect – this is the short description of the way in which telecommunication companies win clients for their more expensive so-called "supplementary packages", which include special channels with higher quality content. For example, a niche French culture channel or the public television channels of Italy, Spain, or Germany, which bring the language, life and culture of these countries to the Bulgarian audience, can be the bate that attracts subscribers to sign a contract with a given telecommunication company for its TV package. By enjoying their favorite channels, they also get tens of others, for part of which their interest is questionable at best.

There comes the day though when the favorite channel disappears, and is replaced by an alternative which often is lacking in quality programming. A check by Mediapool showed that the telecommunication and cable companies in Bulgaria can stop a TV channel thanks to which it attracted costumers, at any time, and no institution requires them to provide an alternative. One curious detail is that while there exists a law, which gives the right to customers to sever their contract with the company without penalty in case the company discontinues a channel, but this law has proven difficult to practice and full of pitfalls. It should suffice to mention the legislator has not foreseen any fine in case the company refuses to sever the contract.

Apart from the purely consumer point of view, it is worth exploring also why is it that no one controls the pluralism and persity of the TV content that reaches the viewer through the packages, which the telecommunication company or cable TV operator has defined for them.

What has disappeared from the TV?

Many foreign TV channels have dropped in the last years form the TV content packages of different providers. For example, A1 does not include the French culture channel Arte, which in two-thirds of its programming offers original productions, in its package any longer. The national TV channels TVE of Spain, and the private Atena 3 of the Iberian Peninsula dropped, as did the German RTL and RTL 2, the Italian RAI1 and RAI 2. BBC Entertainment, a favorite among UK nationals living in Bulgaria because along with its news programming, the channel also aired BBC series, as well as shows and documentaries, has been impossible to find for years. There is no Portuguese television anymore in the available packages, after discontinuing the national RTP. No doubt, viewers can continue this list.

Telecommunication companies: We are not required by law to provide alternatives but we try regardless

It turns out that the legislator does not oblige the telecommunication companies to provide its customers with an alternative channel with a similar profile when they discontinue one from the original package.

"When we need to discontinue a channel (…) there are no legal obligations to inform a state institution or to replace the terminated channel with another in the same language and with similar programming. Regardless, we do try to find a suitable alternative, which, unfortunately, is not always possible", A1 answered Mediapool’s question.

Vivacom also confirmed the law does not require them to provide alternative channels with similar programming. "The consumers receive access to the channels that are in the list of available channels in the relevant package they have chosen. Although there is no regulatory obligation to replace a channel, the dynamics of the TV content market, our company is always searching for ways to provide similar alternatives. This is part of Vivacom’s strategy to provide its customers high-quality and variety of content." There is no regulatory requirement to inform a state authority in case of discontinuation of a single TV channel", the telecom pointed out.

The difficult way to find an alternative

Regarding the discontinued channels from A1’s network, mentioned above – Arte, TVE, Antena 3, RTL, RTL2, RAI, RAI2, RTP, BBC Entertainment and others, A1 said that for some of those it had provided alternatives, and for other it had not.

"As examples of TV channels with similar programming and language, which are offered as alternatives to the discontinued ones, mentioned in your question, we can cite the German Pro7 and SAT1, the Italian Mediaser and TGcom24, the French France 24, Euronews France, TV5 Monde," A1 told Mediapool.

Some of the mentioned alternatives, however, only vaguely resemble the discontinued channels. For examples, if we look at the dropped Arte and look at the alternatives – France 24, Euronews Frence, TV5 Monde – these channels could hardly replace the French channel with its original, high-quality culture-orientated productions, concerts, and original documentaries. Yes, one may say that all of these are in French but the first two are only news reporting with little in-depth journalism a cultural content. Not to mention both France 24 and Euronews French stream online free from their websites. (Here and here).

TV5 is also not a channel that specializes in culture, although its programming rich.

The two absent Italian public RAI1 and RAI2 are also replaced by the news channel TGcom24 and the polythematic Mediaset.

The German RTL was sought after by car race fans because it broadcasted F1, which meant viewers did not have to pay for the additional packages with sport channels to watch the races. The replacements Pro7 and SAT1 do not air F1.

A1 failed to provide any alternative to the discontinued Spanish and Portuguese channels. There is no alternative from the British BBC Entertainment that premieres original British series, documentaries and high-quality journalism on current British and world events.

But why do channels get discontinued in the first place?

Answering why all these channels are stopped, A1 explained: "for various reasons ranging from viewer interest, different requirements from the owners of the TV content, to cancelation of the channel entirely and others." Particularly for Arte, TVE, Antena 3, RTL, RTL2, RAI, RAI2, RTP, the telecom adds that it had failed to "reach an agreement that would match the clients’ interest in the content provided by these channels." The reply reveals that the only channel to be discontinued because it itself decided to stop broadcasting in Central and East Europe as of January 1 2016, is the British BBC Entertainment.

Mediapool sought the opinion of TV experts.

"The telecommunication companies’ attempt to explain discontinuing popular TV channels with lack of viewer interest is unconvincing. The aforementioned programs are very popular and provide high-quality media content. The Spanish language is among the most popular, the Bulgarian diaspora in Spain is considerable in size, and their loved ones without a doubt care about the life and problems there. The absence of leading TV channels from Germany, France, UK and Italy, including public outlets, rather demonstrates a lack of desire on the part of the telecommunication operators to pay for the rights to distribute the content on our territory or that the contracts have been severed by the other party due to incompliance with the terms. The easiest and most profitable channels to provide are those with free access or the paid ones that are part of packages," Assoc. Professor in the Journalism Department of Sofia University, Svetlana Bozhilova told Mediapool. She added that it is not clear how the independent regulators protect the rights of the consumers in these cases. The expert also pointed out that the situation regarding local and regional operators is significantly worse.

Svetlana Bojilova, photo: YouTube

"They not only hardly survive but it is unlikely that anyone has ever done a monitoring of the broadcasted channels and the subscribers they reach. The gaps in the legal framework are harmful to the viewers and are a fruitful environment for realizing profits by the telecommunication companies," Bozhilova said.

The national media regulator (SEM): We are not obliged to control the pluralism in TV packages

It turns out that even SEM is not obligated under Bulgarian law to control the number of TV channels, coming into – or as in this case – dropping out of – the TV packages provided by the telecoms. Even more paradoxically, Mediapool found that there is no requirement for the telecommunication companies to provide pluralism and variety in the channels they offer.

"Neither the Electronic Messaging Act, nor the Radio and Television Act require pluralism and variety of the channels [part of the packages], offered for distribution by [the telecoms]." The EMA provides terms only for the free and in real time distribution of the public national and regional programs of the Bulgarian National Television and the Bulgarian National Radio. In light of this, the question of the number and type of channels in the packages provided by the cable and satellite operators is not subject to regulation and is not reviewed by SEM", a representative of the state regulator told Mediapool.

SEM only made clear that the Radio and Television Act requires the telecommunication companies to provide SEM with an update of the current list of channels they distribute every six months, as well as the documents associated with acquiring the rights to do so. SEM maintains a public registry of those companies.

Media expert Svetlana Bozhilova reminded the crucial detail, however, that SEM always reserves the right to initiate an inquiry when it comes to pluralism and the variety of TV programming included on the packages. In fact, we witnessed just that mere days ago when SEM decided to restrict the distribution of the Russian propaganda channels Russia Today and Sputnik.

"Upholding the principles of pluralism of the information sources and the variety of programs that are broadcast nationally should be under SEM’s jurisdiction. This is part of the legal framework for foreign channels, broadcast in Bulgaria. But as representatives of the public interest, SEM can initiate in inquiry. Gaps in the legislation and the lack of shared competence between SEM and the Regulatory Commission for Messaging is a fruitful environment for telecommunication companies to do whatever they want," Bozhilova said.

She reminded that this problem was identified during the former media regulator was active (the National Council for Radio and Television). Back then there were even attempts to have recurring, at least twice a year, for the lists of the foreign channels that are being broadcast in Bulgaria to the two regulators, as well as how the channels are positioned in the distribution network. Bozhilova added that "even today the distributors of television channels do not provide accurate statistics regarding the subscribers of any given channel because the amounts [the distributors] pay to the depends on the number of subscribers."

Control and pitfalls

At least from a consumer rights’ perspective the Bulgarian legal framework provides some protection but practicing it is an impossible mission.

A careful read of the Electronic Messaging Act reveals that according to Article 231, Paragraph 3, which states that in case a TV channel is removed from the original list of channels in a package, the consumer has the right to sever the contract with the telecommunication company without penalty or compensation. The mentioned list is also fixed in the same law and must be part of the contract between the company and the client. The legislation sounds good but there is a catch. A subsequent paragraph states that "the right to sever such a contract may be exercised within two months after the client has been notified of the discontinuation of a channel and with one month’s notice."

According to a check by Mediapool, the telecoms inform about such changes on their websites. For example, on A1’s website there is a subsection A1 Helper, which in turn links to News. There, on June 30 of last year for instance, a note is published stating that "as of 01/07.2021 the TV channels provided by KYU Music Media Group Ltd. – Fan TV, BG Music Channel, Balkanika and Fan Folk TV will no longer be available on A1 Bulgaria’s network (…) In case you wish to sever your contractual relations regarding this service provided by A1 with no penalty, you may exercise this right by submitting a one-month advance notice no later than two months after the date of this announcement," the message reads.

A1 support service told Mediapool that A1 informs its clients of changes via text message, especially about those fixed in the contract. They added that all the information is readily available on their website as well.

Either way, even all the information were to be provided through text message to the clients the measure would have been actually worked if there were a requirement for the client to be validated. For instance, in these two moths the client to be required to consent or not to the change to the package even through replying to the text. There is a real risk at the moment that the costumer will not read the message, seeing as most messages from the provider are spam or ads. No doubt, users do not visit the provider’s website regularly to keep up with the current list of channels either.

"A change in the list of channels, which are a part of the contract between the subscriber and the provider, is an amendment to said contract, and as such should require resigning, as is the case with all amendments," a legal expert specialized in consumer protection, who wished to remain anonymous, told Mediapool.

There exists another exception of the option to dissolve the contract when a channel is discontinues. The law states that a subscriber may not exit the contract in case a channel from the original package is no longer available if the reason lies with the channel’s availability in the region as a while as is the case with the aforementioned BBC Entertainment.

Too much control or a broken phone

Mediapool asked the Regulatory Commission for Messaging if it has discovered cases in which providers of TV channels have refused clients ending their contracts for stopped channels and what kind of fines were imposed.

It turns out that the Commission only oversees if the contracts with the clients include a full list of the channels provided. Regarding the control over the right to sever the contract in case a channel is canceled, the Commission refers to the Consumer Protection Act.

The Regulatory Commission for Messaging does not oversee the application of Article 231 Paragraph 3 from the Electronic Messaging Act (for exiting the contract in case a channel is dropped from the package). The law provides the right of the consumer to sever the contract in case a channel from the original contract list under Article 231, is no longer available. This right stems directly from the law and is applied if the consumer wishes to invoke it via written notice. Under the law the contract is dissolved after one month without need of the provider’s consent. If after this period the company continues to provide the service and bill the consumer, this would constitute unlawful supply and charge of services. This practice is illegal under the Consumer protection Act," the Commission told Mediapool. They even cited Article 62 from the Consumer Protection Act.

The Consumer Protection Commission forwards complaints to the Regulatory Commission for Messaging

The Consumer Protection Commission said they regularly receive complaints regarding discontinued channels from TV package deals, which it in turn forwards to the Regulatory Commission for Messaging "in accordance with Article 319 Paragraph 2 of the Electronic Messaging Act."

"Whether or not there is conditions for invoking consumer rights, stemming from the Electronic Messaging Act, is within the competency of the Regulatory Commission for Messaging. In other words, if a channel from the list is no longer available, the consumer should first file a complaint with the Regulatory Commission for Messaging, which is competent to judge if the in the particular case the consumer has the right to sever the contract with the provider under the provisions of the Electronic Messaging Act," The Consumer Protection Commission, headed by Dimitar Margaritov, told Mediapool. The question of whether this is s vicious circle, as two separate institutions reason that the other is competent in the matter, remains open. A careful reading of the Consumer Protection Acr reveals under Article 62 that the framework is very general and concerns all kinds of suppliers, not just the telecommunication companies. A citizen without a legal background could hardly realize that the Article could be used in such cases.

In nine years: Five violations for absent lists of channels in the contracts

"The regulatory Commission for Messaging controls Article 231 Paragraph 1 is observed, and if it is applied to contracts with lists of TV channels in the packages. Between March 2012 and December, 2021, a total of five violations connected to Article 231 Paragraph 1 of the Electronic Messaging Act have been recorded," the Commission told Mediapool. The regulator aged that the in none of these cases has the provider not complied with the wish of the consumer to sever the contract. The question of how the regulator has been able to verify that since it only confirms the presence of a channel list in the contracts, and is not required to oversee the fulfillment of the right to dissolve the contracts, remains open.

The Regulatory Commission for Messaging does not collect statistics regarding the complaints related to Article 231 Paragraph 1, related to the dissolvement of contracts between subscriber and provider because of a discontinued channel.

"The Commission keeps record of the complaints regarding Article 231 Paragraph 1 as a whole. Their amount is 203 in total between March 2013 and December 2021, or an average of 22 per year," the Commission explained.

The Consumer Protection Commission on the other hand told Mediapool that they have not received complaints involving a telecommunication company refusing to dissolve a contract for a discontinued channel, which is somewhat expected given a consumer to contact the Electronic Messaging Commission, which regulates the telecommunication companies.

Competition for clients

In this context, in which the control over the TV channel packages is doubtful, the telecommunication companies themselves work constantly on improving the marketing strategies to attract more clients and hold on to current ones. At the moment, if a client wishes to end their contract with the provider and has missed the two-month notice period for a discontinued channel for example, he or she would have to pay three monthly fees in penalties. These monthly fees, though, turn out to be much higher that expected. The reason is that the contract often provides for a promotional fee, not a standard one. While the penalty uses the standard fee. This was confirmed to Mediapool by the Consumer Protection Commission: "At the moment the maximum penalty, which the operators can force is three months’ worth of standard fees," the Commission said.

Vivacom, which recently started providing EON TV, charges one lev per month for the first six months of the contract for new costumers. The company operates exactly on the assumption that the costumer is coming to Vivacom after they have left a competitor, has to pay penalties and is looking for a symbolic fee so as to not burden the household budget. This option was offered to a Mediapool reported on the phone with a Vivacom call center.

This is the jigsaw puzzle with the telecommunication companies, TV packages, the competition for consumers. A field with many pitfalls and but also possibilities, especially during a fight for new costumers and new television products are released on the market.

---