Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,119

    Bell To Launch Canadian Service to Compete Against Netflix

    Bell To Launch Canadian Service to Compete Against Netflix

    BCE/Bell made their opening statements to the CRTC as the hearing on Bell's acquisition of Astral Media got underway, today, in Montreal.
    George Cope, President and CEO of BCE and Bell annonced that following the approval of the acquistion, of Astral Media, Bell will launch a made-in-Canada service to compete against Netflix.

    Cope stated, "The Canadian system needs companies with the scale to compete against foreign content companies like Netflix, Apple, Google and Amazon. More than 10% of Canadians now subscribe to Netflix, which accounts for more than 11-million hours of TV viewing per week. With scale, Canadian companies can make the investments in Canadian content and technology require to go head to head with these well-financed global competitors. And while international players do not invest in Canada or focus on Canadians, at Bell we always have and always will."

    "Following the transaction, I am pleased to announce that we will launch a service offering to compete with foreign competitors like Netflix. A made-in-Canada service, available in French and English everywhere we have rights, to all Canadians through the cable, satellite or IPTV provider of their choice. Available on-demand and on any device, the service will showcase the very best in Canadian and international movies from Astral's pay TV services, such as HBO Canada and The Movie Network, and great news, entertainment and sports content from Bell Media. Combining the unique pay TV strenghts of Astral with Bell Media's broad range of programming will create a Canadian service that truly stnads apart from those of international providers. Bell has committed that all content will be available to all Canadians throught the cable, satellire or IPTV provider of their choice. This is not only becasue we respect the CRTC's rules and regulations, but because it make obvious business sense."

    http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/n...ix/1001682289/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Everfresh View Post
    to all Canadians through the cable, satellite or IPTV provider of their choice
    Oh, I do support canadian content, but if I need to be subscribed to a cable/satellite/IPTV provider for their new product, I prefer keeping my outdoor antenna, an independant ISP and pick Netflix...

    Why whould I give more money to Bell ?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 09-10-2012 at 03:58 PM.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    This proposal does raise a lot of questions; Like how much will this service be? If its a national services that will be relying on the TMN/HBO library, how will this effect Movie Central/TMN divide that currently exists? How would this successful would this service be if Netflix has already made inroads, and Apple or Google can outbid Bell if it needs too to stay ahead?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,966
    to all Canadians through the cable, satellite or IPTV provider of their choice
    If this new service is supposed to be similar to Netflix then why do you need to subscribe to cable or satellite?? Netflix is delivered via the Internet, available to anyone with Internet service, its not tied to any TV subscription service?! It appears the 'say No to Bell' gang were right, if this deal goes through then Bell will retain access to the content on all their channels and make it available exclusively through this new service. If you want to watch whatever content they put on this service then the only way will be to subscribe to this new streaming service thus bringing even more $$ into Bell's coffers. Attachment 59

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    If this new service is supposed to be similar to Netflix then why do you need to subscribe to cable or satellite?? Netflix is delivered via the Internet, available to anyone with Internet service, its not tied to any TV subscription service?! It appears the 'say No to Bell' gang were right, if this deal goes through then Bell will retain access to the content on all their channels and make it available exclusively through this new service. If you want to watch whatever content they put on this service then the only way will be to subscribe to this new streaming service thus bringing even more $$ into Bell's coffers. Attachment 59
    Of course this service will make money for Bell, are they not allowed to make money now? They say that they will make it available to ALL cable and satellite companies. The SayNoToBell ads are beyond misleading. They imply that Bell will keep channels and contest exclusive to Bell subscribers, when they know that Bell is not allowed to keep content exclusive.

    So what if you have to subscribe to cable or satellite to access this new service, no company has a requirement to make everything available over the internet. It's likely that any Bell/Astral content currently available online will remain online, it's not like you are losing any content, this service will have content that is currently not available online (ex The Movie Network, Family, ect.) What's the problem?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    So what if you have to subscribe to cable or satellite to access this new service (...) What's the problem?
    Well, if you HAVE to subscribe to cable in order to obtain THAT new service, why not call it "The Movie Network/HBO on demand" and call it a day ? Oh wait, it's already being done. What's new about this service then ?
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Well, if you HAVE to subscribe to cable in order to obtain THAT new service, why not call it "The Movie Network/HBO on demand" and call it a day ? Oh wait, it's already being done. What's new about this service then ?
    They say the service will be available on any device. We will know more once they release more info but it looks to me like the service will be available online with a condition that you must subscribe to a cable or satellite service (this is what I would personally do, have the service available on all platforms but be linked to a cable/satellite account). I don't see anything wrong with them keeping it tied to a cable or satellite subscription. It would be pretty dumb for a cable/satellite company to create a service that gives you all the Bell content you would get from a cable/satellite service without actually subscribing to cable or satellite. In fact if Bell did an exact Netflix clone it would actually be bad for Bell's BDU competitors since their service would be considered an alternative to a cable/satellite subscription. By linking the service to a cable or satellite subscription it gives customers a reason to stick with their cable/satellite company, if Bell were to do the exact same thing as Netflix it would be considered an alternative to cable and satellite and independent BDU's would lose customers to Bell's Netflix clone. I don't think it's fair to fault a cable/satellite company for not launching a service designed to be an alternative to subscribing to cable or satellite.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 09-11-2012 at 10:33 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I don't see anything wrong with them keeping it tied to a cable or satellite subscription.
    Shaw doesn't have cellphone service. Shaw Cable/Shaw Direct customers in the west will be forced to move to Telus IPTV or Bell satellite TV in order to have a cable/satellite subscription in order to get access to mobile content.
    Independant Public Mobile customers will be denied access.

    AFAIK, due to canadian laws on privacy, companies cannot cross-check with another company if that customer have an account. Per example, if I take Fido with a smart phone and I tell them I have a cable account with Vidéotron, and I pay Bell's new service for 14$/month, and then I cancel my Videotron TV cable subscription...

    It just doesn't make sense, it just creates a need to obtain all your services from the same provider, which is good for Rogers, Vidéotron, Bell and Telus, but leaves out Eastlink, Cogeco, MTS, SaskTel, and Shaw for any mobile content.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It would be pretty dumb for a cable/satellite company to create a service that gives you all the Bell content you would get from a cable/satellite service without actually subscribing to cable or satellite.
    Back to my question that you haven't replied: If a cable/satellite subscription is REQUIRED, what's the difference between a "X on-demand" service and Bell's new service?
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;58529]
    Shaw doesn't have cellphone service. Shaw Cable/Shaw Direct customers in the west will be forced to move to Telus IPTV or Bell satellite TV in order to have a cable/satellite subscription in order to get access to mobile content.
    Independant Public Mobile customers will be denied access.

    AFAIK, due to canadian laws on privacy, companies cannot cross-check with another company if that customer have an account. Per example, if I take Fido with a smart phone and I tell them I have a cable account with Vidéotron, and I pay Bell's new service for 14$/month, and then I cancel my Videotron TV cable subscription...

    It just doesn't make sense, it just creates a need to obtain all your services from the same provider, which is good for Rogers, Vidéotron, Bell and Telus, but leaves out Eastlink, Cogeco, MTS, SaskTel, and Shaw for any mobile content.
    With Netflix you need a Netflix account, and you use the same Netflix account for each device. This is all just speculation on my part, but if the service operates like Netflix I don't see how this will be any different. You would use the same account on all devices, the only requirement to keep the account would be a cable or satellite subscription. The wireless carrier wouldn't need to check if you subscribe to cable or satellite, you would need to use your Bellflix account to access the service on a mobile device, and they can make it so your Bellflix service is only valid with a cable or satellite subscription.


    Back to my question that you haven't replied: If a cable/satellite subscription is REQUIRED, what's the difference between a "X on-demand" service and Bell's new service?
    Because unlike regular on demand services, Bell says this service will be available on any device. Bell just announced this service and has released very little information regarding it. So before you complain about it why don't we wait until more details are released, I'm just saying I don't see anything wrong with them requiring you subscribe to a cable or satellite provider to view the service if that's what they plan to do.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    Still doesn't make logical sense, TVViewer.

    Almost all Canadian broadcasters and distributors are worried about their customers cutting off their TV subscription and opt for the Internet and Netflix.
    People who used P2P and Torrent to download music in early 2000s were feeling guilty about piracy and started buying their music. But people opting for Netflix are not gonna feel guilty at all in front of Bellflix and will continue to use Netflix, legally.

    So, personally, I've cut the cord, I watch CTV, Global and Citytv by antenna. I could consider Bellflix and watch canadian exclusives such as Lost Girl or Listener, but if this means I need to spend an additional 25$ just to get basic tv service in order to get Bellflix for 14$/month, it's just PLAIN STUPID, I'll opt for Netflix for 8$/month without any question and get my remaining canadian shows on the broadcaster's respective website, or download them illegally if they're not there.

    I don't see the advantage in Bellflix.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;58538]

    Still doesn't make logical sense, TVViewer.

    Almost all Canadian broadcasters and distributors are worried about their customers cutting off their TV subscription and opt for the Internet and Netflix.
    Which is why is makes zero sense to launch a service that gives you an incentive to cancel cable or satellite. It totally makes sense for Bell to ensure that their Netflix competitor requires a cable/satellite subscription. They get to compete against Netflix without losing cable/satellite subscribers.


    So, personally, I've cut the cord, I watch CTV, Global and Citytv by antenna. I could consider Bellflix and watch canadian exclusives such as Lost Girl or Listener, but if this means I need to spend an additional 25$ just to get basic tv service in order to get Bellflix for 14$/month, it's just PLAIN STUPID, I'll opt for Netflix for 8$/month without any question and get my remaining canadian shows on the broadcaster's respective website, or download them illegally if they're not there.

    I don't see the advantage in Bellflix.
    This service isn't for the small minority of people who cancelled cable or satellite. Most people who subscribe to Netflix also subscribe to cable or satellite, this service will go after those people. It's for the vast majority of Canadians that subscribe to both, not the small minority that "cut the cord". Serving cord cutters does not make economic sense since all it does is increase the number of cord cutters. Right now if you cancel cable or satellite you limit your programming choices, if it's possible to cancel cable or satellite and still have access to a huge amount of Bell Media content for a much cheaper price then BDU's are going to lose more subscribers. It just doesn't make economic sense for Bell to launch a service that will provide an incentive for someone to cancel their Bell TV subscription.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Failure to launch ...Bellflix must die!

    Keep in mind that Astral had already announced it was going to start its own version of HBO GO (the US service that scares Netflix's Reed Hastings the most) this year, but now that Bell is stepping in, the online content can be more varied (Sports, etc.).

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-i...service=mobile
    [Note: This Astral article was written BEFORE Bell bought Astral]

    --------------

    As downloading copyrighted material becomes more difficult and more expensive to do (eventually being forced to pay for 10MB/sec broadband Internet service because the other slower alternatives are simply too slow to bother with, or no longer available for free), the popularity of online streaming services or official websites (owners of the content you're streaming) might rise. Even Canadian companies are beginning to embrace the streaming world ... a fairly convenient way for us to keep up with some our favourite content that we missed ... and perhaps keep some of us from visiting websites that also allow downloading of copyrighted material.

    I've tried many of the cheaper alternatives for downloading, but it looks like I'm going to eventually need up to 10MB/sec downloading capability and an unlimited broadband service that will probably end up costing me the same price as a premium cable package. I'll be getting much more variety by downloading content from all over the world (a few days after it airs), but I also have to assume that many of the sources for this premium content will eventually disappear, or at least be less widespread.

    Cutting the cable TV cord for me isn't only about saving money ... it's also about trying to find new ways to get more content at a reasonable price point ... fairly simple things that the conventional TV system can't or won't give me.

    I love using the Internet, but not when it's set up to limit what I can do with it. An untamed Internet is such a glorious thing to behold and use ... but once it's tamed, or at least more limited, it will be just like OTA ... better than nothing, but nothing to get too excited about.

    As more and more corporate entities enter the Internet environment, the less control I will most likely have to get what I want, when I want to watch it.

    I'm hoping that Bellflix is a flop, not because there's no need for more online content, but rather because I don't want Bell to have any more interest in driving out the cheaper competition (hello, Netflix) -- even though Bell likes it when we go over our monthly GB caps, often due to excessive Netflix streaming.

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/11/bell-pitches-astral-deal-as-key-to-take-on-netflix-apple-google/
    [Bell pitches Astral deal as key to take on Netflix, Apple, Google]

    Tech analyst Mike Battista said having enough content and being able to access programming on a variety of devices other than a TV will be challenges that Bell will face.

    But it should appeal to “cable cutters”those who have dropped the monthly service, said Battista, research analyst at Info-Tech Research Group in London, Ont.

    “The direction that TV is going is the Netflix model, the Apple TV model,” Battista said. “They have to be there or they’re going to fall behind.”


  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Almost all Canadian broadcasters and distributors are worried about their customers cutting off their TV subscription and opt for the Internet and Netflix.
    People who used P2P and Torrent to download music in early 2000s were feeling guilty about piracy and started buying their music. But people opting for Netflix are not gonna feel guilty at all in front of Bellflix and will continue to use Netflix, legally.
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Which is why is makes zero sense to launch a service that gives you an incentive to cancel cable or satellite.

    It wouldn't matter much for Bell in this case if people cut their BellTV Services and signed up to Bellflix because it would still end up in their pocket, this service would be more of a threat towards Rogers, Telus and Shaw than Netflix.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It totally makes sense for Bell to ensure that their Netflix competitor requires a cable/satellite subscription.
    Can you clarify what you mean by this? That Bellflix should require an cable/satellite subscription? Or that Netflix subscribers should forced to have a cable/satellite subscription?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    This service isn't for the small minority of people who cancelled cable or satellite. Most people who subscribe to Netflix also subscribe to cable or satellite, this service will go after those people. It's for the vast majority of Canadians that subscribe to both, not the small minority that "cut the cord". Serving cord cutters does not make economic sense since all it does is increase the number of cord cutters. Right now if you cancel cable or satellite you limit your programming choices, if it's possible to cancel cable or satellite and still have access to a huge amount of Bell Media content for a much cheaper price then BDU's are going to lose more subscribers. It just doesn't make economic sense for Bell to launch a service that will provide an incentive for someone to cancel their Bell TV subscription.

    Bell needs to make their service competitive, affordable and content rich if it want to retain viewers in the long run, charging whatever they want and running to the CRTC whenever a new Netflix like services enters the market can only go so far. And threat of Netflix is nothing when you compare it to Apple; with a following like a religion and a bank balance larger than than most first world governments, you have a competitor that the CRTC could not protect you from. Bell's only option is, stop complaining, follow Netflix's lead, and don't let Apple know you exist.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;58571]

    It wouldn't matter much for Bell in this case if people cut their BellTV Services and signed up to Bellflix because it would still end up in their pocket, this service would be more of a threat towards Rogers, Telus and Shaw than Netflix.
    It's extremely unlikely that the money they make from Bellflix will even come close to offsetting the losses from people canceling their Bell TV service and their channels losing subscriber fees.

    Can you clarify what you mean by this? That Bellflix should require an cable/satellite subscription? Or that Netflix subscribers should forced to have a cable/satellite subscription?

    I'm saying that economically it makes sense for Bell to ensure that their service (which I named Bellflix) requires a cable or satellite subscription.


    Bell needs to make their service competitive, affordable and content rich if it want to retain viewers in the long run, charging whatever they want and running to the CRTC whenever a new Netflix like services enters the market can only go so far. And threat of Netflix is nothing when you compare it to Apple; with a following like a religion and a bank balance larger than than most first world governments, you have a competitor that the CRTC could not protect you from. Bell's only option is, stop complaining, follow Netflix's lead, and don't let Apple know you exist.
    Bell's service can be competitive, affordable and content rich while requiring a cable/satellite subscription. Again, it's a very small minority of people who are replacing their BDU service with Netflix. The % of people who subscribe to cable/satellite is still massive, Bell does not need to satisfy cord cutters for their service to be a competitor to Netflix.

  15. #15
    WHOPPPEE...NETFLIX SUCKS with the shows ...so BELL won't be any different!!!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon3 TV-Everywhere Boom is on the way!

    Shaw will also be joining the parting with its Shaw Go service (must subscribe to various TV channels), and 2013 should be the year that TV-Everywhere picks up even more steam (both here and the States).

    Now that Netflix seems to be losing more and more cherished content due to the higher cost of keeping it, it's only a matter of time before that $7.99 monthly fee jumps to $9.99. How much would you be willing to pay for Netflix and how much better will the competition become in 2013?

    http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/...-boom-set.html
    [America's TV Everywhere Boom set To Begin in 2013]

    Television content price inflation is soaring through the roof, which is making it difficult for Netflix to renew content distribution deals with many content providers like Starz. Netflix lost Starz earlier this year and was forced to pull the plug on about 1,000 popular movies and TV shows. Netflix's deal with A&E is now up for renewal and Netflix is expected to lose about 80% of their A&E programming.

    The National Inflation Association predicts that when Netflix is once again forced to raise prices, they will experience a large drop in their customer base as cable, satellite, and telco TV companies begin to win back past cord-cutters by heavily promoting their new TV Everywhere portals that allow consumers to watch any TV show, at any time, across any Internet-connected device.

    -----------------------

    http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...922/story.html
    [Shaw Go is on the way]

    Initial programming for Shaw's Go strategy is being supplied by pay-TV channels Movie Central and HBO Canada and will be available on the Movie Central app for mobile devices. The premium networks are owned by Corus Entertainment Inc., a firm in which the Shaw family still holds a controlling interest.

    In the coming months, Shaw plans to expand Shaw Go to include live streaming TV, children's programming from Corus's back catalogue, as well from Shaw Media's own channels, such as HGTV and the main Global network.

    Unlike Netflix, the new Bell and Shaw offerings will require a TV subscription in order to access content online or a mobile device, a model Time Warner's HBO Go platform has adopted in the United States to guard against users "cutting the cord" of their cable subscriptions.

    "It's the TV-everywhere model," Mr. Eiley said. "The idea, at the end of the day, is to keep people in the linear TV mould."

    The ability for viewers to "binge" on TV series and other programming has been a key driver for Netflix, a front-runner in online streaming that has amassed 27 million customers in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and U.K.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon14 God Save the Queen!

    Although it's doubtful that Bell will have a monthly, unlimited movie/sports streaming service that doesn't require a Cable/Satellite subscription, at least SKY TV in the UK/Ireland has the balls to try it.

    NOW TV is SKY's new online subscription and PPV service that doesn't require a Cable/Sat subscription to use it. Cheap Unlimited streaming without a Cable/Satellite subscription is something that Canadians often depend on Netflix for; the Brits will now have another alternative.

    For about 25 Canadian dollars, they'll have access to hundreds of movies (live sports action will also be available later this year) that are part of the monthly online service, or fresh new releases on a PPV system like we have here with BestBuy, Cineplex, etc.

    It's a big risk, but if Sky is able to keep Netflix and Lovefilm from cornering the online streaming market over there, perhaps it will help pave the way for lower-priced alternatives elsewhere.

    http://www.smarttvradar.com/3337/sky...tv-popularity/
    [Sky takes on Risky Business]

    http://www.nowtv.com/genres?filter=sky-movies-pass
    [Now TV's Monthly Pass ... I'd try streaming the comedy, Albatross]

    http://corporate.sky.com/media/press...ime_for_now_tv
    [Sky is the limit for Now TV]

    http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...ontent-1089085
    [Sky says that downloading content might be next ... but don't hold your breath.]

    http://paidcontent.org/2012/07/16/no...tv-revolution/
    [Now TV]

    If there is a risk, it is that Now TV proves so popular that Sky subscribers swap their Sky satellite, broadband and telephone packages (average annual customer revenue: £546) for Now TV.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,765
    - Bell will secure exclusive Canadian OTT (Over-The-Top) rights by bidding higher and signing deals. They can already secure all of CTV/CTV2 and specialty rights, but they need The Movie Network to checkmate Netflix on the movies offer. They publicly said the service will be offered to all service providers, that is, off course, if its competitors are ready to pay a few millions for the broadcast rights... so in other words, it'll be exclusive to Bhell customers.
    - Shaw will launch a similar service with Global, their Shaw Media specialties and Corus specialties. Movie Central/HBO rights and Teletoon rights will probably be a joint Bell/Shaw deal, but everything else will be exclusive to Shaw Direct customers.
    - Rogers will want to offer a Citytv/Sportsnet service along with their specialties.
    - Quebecor will do the same with TVA and their specialties.

    We'll be back to square one. Four different canadian providers for four different type of content. We are today equiped with Blu-Ray players with a Netflix application whose canadian version will simply lack of recent content.

    Apple wasn't a record company but they launched iTunes where labels agreed to sign deals with.
    Hulu was a joint venture of NBC, Fox and ABC and provides a lot of content from the same place (CBS/CW is the only one missing).

    The only way a canadian OTT service can work is either if Bell/Shaw/Rogers/Quebecor partners with canadian version of Netflix (advantage of interfaces already existing on many blu-ray players, tablets, computers and smart TVs), or either they create something together with CUSTOMERS in mind instead of profits and selfishness.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Icon9 Empty your pockets and bend over ... Resistance is futile!

    It's very hard to keep up with all the new content that is being released on a daily basis. Now that some of my previous sources are changing the ways that they do business, I have been forced to use the Internet more often than ever before.

    Zip.ca has shifted to a kiosk system that has virtually killed its DVD-By-Mail service (for all but the desperate) and the Markham Library has just instituted a 6-month waiting period for all New Release holds (hey, I'm #1 in a bunch of queues that won't be activated until 6 months from now). It's another case of customers wanting content NOW ... you go to the libraries and take whatever is on the shelves ... and then you go home and stream or download the rest.

    I think it's Bell's job to gouge us as much as the market allows them to. The Internet is just another way to keep the money pouring in.

    Bell and Rogers are rumoured to be possible partners in the new Apple TV venture and it's only a matter of time before the laws are updated to make it easier to restrict digital locker access and P2P services.

    Bell's online service will be successful because it HAS to be ... the Internet is far too important to let foreigners take the lead (sorry, Netflix.ca, but you've outstayed your welcome).

    I don't think we'll be going back to "square one" because square one has too many loopholes that I can exploit ... the future holds even more restrictions and corporate control of the Internet, which should provide us with fewer options at higher price points ... which is exactly what the corporations are good at ... stick with what you're good at and success will often follow.

    Perhaps the next step for both Bell and Shaw would be to remove all of their fresh and free online content from their various websites (showcase.ca, etc) and replace it with older content, to better serve their upcoming online streaming ventures that will one day cost an arm and a leg (and perhaps a hip).

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/techn...article550170/
    [Will Bell and Rogers take a bite out of Apple?]

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It's extremely unlikely that the money they make from Bellflix will even come close to offsetting the losses from people canceling their Bell TV service and their channels losing subscriber fees.
    It would be more of an accounting trick, Bell can show on paper that TMN recives "subscriber" fees from Bellflix for use of its libarary and programming rights, just like what subscriber fees are now with tradional BDU services. My feeling is, Bell will have some sort of package system that would put TMN/HBO content in the higer paid package to make sure they'll still high revnune.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm saying that economically it makes sense for Bell to ensure that their service (which I named Bellflix) requires a cable or satellite subscription.
    Bellflix is no doubt intented for people who have a BDU subscription with Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus or Others, and for customers who have no BDU subscriptions at all. But forcing people to get somesort of BDU subscription is like saying any person who wants to own a mobile phone, they must have an subcription with a land line first.

    Bell would more than likely package it along with Bell Internet service with the promise of not hitting your monthly cap if you get both services together. That would seem more logical.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Bell's service can be competitive, affordable and content rich while requiring a cable/satellite subscription.
    From the company that is still charging Touch Tone upgrade fees on for home phone customers.
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Again, it's a very small minority of people who are replacing their BDU service with Netflix. The % of people who subscribe to cable/satellite is still massive, Bell does not need to satisfy cord cutters for their service to be a competitor to Netflix.
    If this isn't a threat, then why would Bell create a Netflix clone? Yes, Netflix growth has even off, thanks in part to the data caps Bell and Rogers has imposed on their customers and third-party ISPs who uses Bell's or Rogers' one mile line. And could help keep the soon to be released AppleTV and Google TV at bay for awhile. However the lies that the caps are necessary will eventually come to light, and soon after these "Over-The-Top" services will start to pick up again. The whole point to Bellflix and the datacaps is to allow Bell, and other players like Rogers, Shaw and Telus, time to put their services into place before players like Apple and Google get a foothold up here.


    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Bell and Rogers are rumoured to be possible partners in the new Apple TV
    Apple might be going after a exclusive, non-data cap connection between its servers and its AppleTV units, while Bell and Rogers want what every other Mobile and Content provider around the world wants; an joint venture with Apple iTunes to get access to its profits, something Apple hasn't done yet with anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    venture and it's only a matter of time before the laws are updated to make it easier to restrict digital locker access and P2P services.
    Its very hard to block P2P services, and its mind boggling trying to think how they'll track, enforce and go after people who broke digital locks the court system would be backlog for years to come.


    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Bell's online service will be successful because it HAS to be ... the Internet is far too important to let foreigners take the lead (sorry, Netflix.ca, but you've outstayed your welcome).
    The problem is that Netflix (and soon Apple and Google) delivery system doesn't fall under what is consider a BDU or Broadcaster. Under NAFTA, you can not introduce protectionism laws for industries like Television, Radio or Communications unless such laws where created prior to NAFTA taking effect in 1995. This is why the CRTC is draging it heals on the matter, it can't fit under the existing definition and any new law can be short down by the quasi-legal body of NAFTA if Netflix Inc file a complaint.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •