Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    152

    Basic Cable Channels

    Is it true that we will be down to about 5 basic cable channels between now and the end of the year, and they are debating whether WNED should be one of them?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Avonregal View Post
    Is it true that we will be down to about 5 basic cable channels between now and the end of the year, and they are debating whether WNED should be one of them?

    The CRTC is considering requiring that cable companies offer something called a "skinny basic" which would only include local Canadian channels and channels like APTN and CBC French which cable companies are required to carry. They are debating whether or not to include local CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, and PBS (WNED) stations in the skinny basic package. The skinny basic would not include any specialty channels like TSN, HISTORY, Sportsnet, HGTV, Food Network, YTV, Treehouse, etc.

    However, even if the CRTC does require cable companies offer a skinny basic (which is a total rip off as you would be paying for a package that just offers OTA locals with no popular specialty channels, and you would still pay for all the basic cable costs that are not related to television channels) it is not expected that they will require skinny basic to REPLACE the existing basic package, they will just require cable companies to provide skinny basic as an option.

    The problem with requiring them to offer a skinny basic is that it could drive up the costs for the vast majority of consumers as even if a small number of people choose the skinny basic option (and it's unlikely most people will choose the skinny basic given how unappealing it is and how very small the demand for it is) it will mean less subscribers for certain channels which results in them charging a higher subscription fee to offset the lost revenue, so the vast majority of Canadians who continue with the regular basic package could end up paying more. The CRTC is doing this because some people like to complain that they are paying for channels they don't want and think if they only paid for the channels they watch their cable bill will go down, when the reality is the current system actually provides a better value as packages keep the costs of channels far lower than what they would be if you only paid for the channels you watch.

    Really, this whole hearing just proves how out of touch the CRTC is with reality. They want to make changes to a system the vast majority of Canadians use with only the opinions of a small tiny fraction of the population. Everyone participating in this hearing has an agenda and a vested interest and normal everyday Canadians who don't have a problem with the system are not represented, in fact many Canadians have no idea these proceedings are even happening. It's just a bunch of companies participating who want to protect their own interests and the vast majority of the Canadians who participated have expressed views that are not reflective of most Canadians. The % of people who choose to subscribe to cable or satellite in Canada is among the highest in the world. Internal surveys among actual BDU customers have confirmed that the majority of Canadians are happy with the service they are getting and strongly opposed to the changes the CRTC is considering. Yet the CRTC doesn't seem to have a problem with ensuring the vast majority of Canadians who are happy with their service end up paying more for the same channels (not to mention put the business model of niche services and every single independent specialty channel in jeopardy) just to please the small minority who wants to pay more for less channels.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 09-13-2014 at 11:12 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    The CRTC is considering requiring that cable companies offer something called a "skinny basic" which would only include local Canadian channels and channels like APTN and CBC French which cable companies are required to carry. They are debating whether or not to include local CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, and PBS (WNED) stations in the skinny basic package. The skinny basic would not include any specialty channels like TSN, HISTORY, Sportsnet, HGTV, Food Network, YTV, Treehouse, etc.

    However, even if the CRTC does require cable companies offer a skinny basic (which is a total rip off as you would be paying for a package that just offers OTA locals with no popular specialty channels, and you would still pay for all the basic cable costs that are not related to television channels) it is not expected that they will require skinny basic to REPLACE the existing basic package, they will just require cable companies to provide skinny basic as an option.

    The problem with requiring them to offer a skinny basic is that it could drive up the costs for the vast majority of consumers as even if a small number of people choose the skinny basic option (and it's unlikely most people will choose the skinny basic given how unappealing it is and how very small the demand for it is) it will mean less subscribers for certain channels which results in them charging a higher subscription fee to offset the lost revenue, so the vast majority of Canadians who continue with the regular basic package could end up paying more. The CRTC is doing this because some people like to complain that they are paying for channels they don't want and think if they only paid for the channels they watch their cable bill will go down, when the reality is the current system actually provides a better value as packages keep the costs of channels far lower than what they would be if you only paid for the channels you watch.

    Really, this whole hearing just proves how out of touch the CRTC is with reality. They want to make changes to a system the vast majority of Canadians use with only the opinions of a small tiny fraction of the population. Everyone participating in this hearing has an agenda and a vested interest and normal everyday Canadians who don't have a problem with the system are not represented, in fact many Canadians have no idea these proceedings are even happening. It's just a bunch of companies participating who want to protect their own interests and the vast majority of the Canadians who participated have expressed views that are not reflective of most Canadians. The % of people who choose to subscribe to cable or satellite in Canada is among the highest in the world. Internal surveys among actual BDU customers have confirmed that the majority of Canadians are happy with the service they are getting and strongly opposed to the changes the CRTC is considering. Yet the CRTC doesn't seem to have a problem with ensuring the vast majority of Canadians who are happy with their service end up paying more for the same channels (not to mention put the business model of niche services and every single independent specialty channel in jeopardy) just to please the small minority who wants to pay more for less channels.
    Even people that should not have a agenda do what i mean is there has been a few people who claim there just citizens but seem to want extreme changes made to protect Canadian content.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    However, even if the CRTC does require cable companies offer a skinny basic (which is a total rip off as you would be paying for a package that just offers OTA locals with no popular specialty channels, and you would still pay for all the basic cable costs that are not related to television channels) (...) Really, this whole hearing just proves how out of touch the CRTC is with reality.
    That is YOUR opinion.

    The big picture is, canadians are sick of paying high cable fees for tons of channels they don't want. Some of them are cutting the cord, relying on over-the-air signals and get a 9$ Netflix subscription.

    Bell, Rogers and Shaw appeared this week in front of the CRTC. They don't like Netflix, it's the biggest threat to the canadian TV system. Bell will be launching a Bellflix next january while Shomi is launching next november, both services secure exclusive rights, cost 10$ more and require an existing cable/satellite subscription. The idea behind the existing cable bill as a requirement is to keep canadians in the system...

    So, let's take an example with Bell. They expect a Bell subscriber to subscribe to a Good (41$), Better (73$) or Best (108$) package which includes optional channels like E!, MTV, Much, Treehouse and YTV, and pay 10$ extra for Bellflix.

    How is this keeping canadians from cutting the cord with a 51$ cable bill and unwanted channels down your throat ? This makes absolutely NO SENSE.

    Next thing on the menu, the CBC says they want to cut off all Over-The-Air transmissions so that stations can negociate with BDUs for subscription revenues, and stay on basic service. This means, a francophobic like TVViewer will be forced to pay for Radio-Canada, TVA, TV5 and Unis on his satellite bill, that will eventually go up. Now, the CBC is what I call "out of touch with reality".

    The CRTC's audience is Let's Talk TV. Options are being explored, points of view,
    - Producers wants an ever-increasing cable bill because a percentage goes to production funds.
    - Big company specialty channel operators expect a certain penetration rate for their channels that will secure them guaranteed profits by the end of the year.
    - Independent specialty channel operators said they were unable to increase their subscription revenues since they launched (Allarco's Super Channel, Stornoway's iChannel, Anthem's Fight Network). Heck, Anthem launched FNTSY earlier this year, he's been told by each BDUs they lack of space. August 2014 came, BDUs magically added 3 new TSN HD feeds. With 5 channels, TSN will need content to fil lthem up, guess where they'll take that content? Outbid independent launched specialties content, eventually.
    - Vertically Integrated BDUs are trying to protect their specialties.
    - Independent BDUs, mostly located in small markets, sees that the big companies, which are also their satellite rivals (Bell & Shaw), will try to make them pay subsscription revenues for money-losing local stations.

    The CRTC also heard from a few individuals, in the audience room and also via Skype and the comments section on their website. They'll have to make decisions, either side with the customers while broadcasters and BDUs will take some risks but eventually adapt, or side with the broadcasters and BDUs, letting canadians pay more for less or cut the cord and opt for foreign online services, or take a middle-ground option.
    "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."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    That is YOUR opinion.

    The big picture is, canadians are sick of paying high cable fees for tons of channels they don't want. Some of them are cutting the cord, relying on over-the-air signals and get a 9$ Netflix subscription.

    Bell, Rogers and Shaw appeared this week in front of the CRTC. They don't like Netflix, it's the biggest threat to the canadian TV system. Bell will be launching a Bellflix next january while Shomi is launching next november, both services secure exclusive rights, cost 10$ more and require an existing cable/satellite subscription. The idea behind the existing cable bill as a requirement is to keep canadians in the system...

    So, let's take an example with Bell. They expect a Bell subscriber to subscribe to a Good (41$), Better (73$) or Best (108$) package which includes optional channels like E!, MTV, Much, Treehouse and YTV, and pay 10$ extra for Bellflix.

    How is this keeping canadians from cutting the cord with a 51$ cable bill and unwanted channels down your throat ? This makes absolutely NO SENSE.

    Next thing on the menu, the CBC says they want to cut off all Over-The-Air transmissions so that stations can negociate with BDUs for subscription revenues, and stay on basic service. This means, a francophobic like TVViewer will be forced to pay for Radio-Canada, TVA, TV5 and Unis on his satellite bill, that will eventually go up. Now, the CBC is what I call "out of touch with reality".

    The CRTC's audience is Let's Talk TV. Options are being explored, points of view,
    - Producers wants an ever-increasing cable bill because a percentage goes to production funds.
    - Big company specialty channel operators expect a certain penetration rate for their channels that will secure them guaranteed profits by the end of the year.
    - Independent specialty channel operators said they were unable to increase their subscription revenues since they launched (Allarco's Super Channel, Stornoway's iChannel, Anthem's Fight Network). Heck, Anthem launched FNTSY earlier this year, he's been told by each BDUs they lack of space. August 2014 came, BDUs magically added 3 new TSN HD feeds. With 5 channels, TSN will need content to fil lthem up, guess where they'll take that content? Outbid independent launched specialties content, eventually.
    - Vertically Integrated BDUs are trying to protect their specialties.
    - Independent BDUs, mostly located in small markets, sees that the big companies, which are also their satellite rivals (Bell & Shaw), will try to make them pay subsscription revenues for money-losing local stations.

    The CRTC also heard from a few individuals, in the audience room and also via Skype and the comments section on their website. They'll have to make decisions, either side with the customers while broadcasters and BDUs will take some risks but eventually adapt, or side with the broadcasters and BDUs, letting canadians pay more for less or cut the cord and opt for foreign online services, or take a middle-ground option.
    There is two sets of customers you have most who want more choice then the other side that in fact wants less choice not only do they want the Crtc to kick American channels out they want a huge increase in cancon plus regluate services like Netflix.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;67005]
    That is YOUR opinion.

    The big picture is, canadians are sick of paying high cable fees for tons of channels they don't want. Some of them are cutting the cord, relying on over-the-air signals and get a 9$ Netflix subscription.
    It is my opinion that the skinny basic where you pay money for free channels without any specialty channels of any value is a rip off. Just like it's your opinion cable fees are too high and Canadians are sick of the current system

    You live in Quebec where skinny basic exists, yet you don't subscribe to cable. Either you don't see value in the skinny basic or you can't afford to pay for the skinny basic. If you don't see enough value in skinny basic for you to subscribe then why do you expect the rest of Canada will? If you can't afford to pay for the skinny basic then why do you think others in a similar financial situation will?


    Bell, Rogers and Shaw appeared this week in front of the CRTC. They don't like Netflix, it's the biggest threat to the canadian TV system. Bell will be launching a Bellflix next january while Shomi is launching next november, both services secure exclusive rights, cost 10$ more and require an existing cable/satellite subscription. The idea behind the existing cable bill as a requirement is to keep canadians in the system...

    shomi also includes Rogers and Shaw internet customers. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep Canadians in the broadcasting system. Launching a service available to absolutely everyone is bad for their business


    So, let's take an example with Bell. They expect a Bell subscriber to subscribe to a Good (41$), Better (73$) or Best (108$) package which includes optional channels like E!, MTV, Much, Treehouse and YTV, and pay 10$ extra for Bellflix.

    How is this keeping canadians from cutting the cord with a 51$ cable bill and unwanted channels down your throat ? This makes absolutely NO SENSE.
    Bell has lots of competitors that offer more flexible packaging and a more realistic basic package. If people don't like Bell's packaging they can switch to the other satellite service Shaw Direct (which has way more flexible packaging) or their local cable provider.

    If you do not like what Bell is offering It makes zero sense to cut the cord when you can simply switch your service from Bell to another provider. Clearly some people don't have a problem with Bell's packaging system as Bell still has a good amount of subscribers

    Next thing on the menu, the CBC says they want to cut off all Over-The-Air transmissions so that stations can negociate with BDUs for subscription revenues, and stay on basic service. This means, a francophobic like TVViewer will be forced to pay for Radio-Canada, TVA, TV5 and Unis on his satellite bill, that will eventually go up. Now, the CBC is what I call "out of touch with reality".
    I'm "francophobic"?. You are an absolute idiot so I'm not going to take offense to this.

    The CRTC's audience is Let's Talk TV. Options are being explored, points of view,
    - Producers wants an ever-increasing cable bill because a percentage goes to production funds.
    - Big company specialty channel operators expect a certain penetration rate for their channels that will secure them guaranteed profits by the end of the year.
    - Independent specialty channel operators said they were unable to increase their subscription revenues since they launched (Allarco's Super Channel, Stornoway's iChannel, Anthem's Fight Network). Heck, Anthem launched FNTSY earlier this year, he's been told by each BDUs they lack of space. August 2014 came, BDUs magically added 3 new TSN HD feeds. With 5 channels, TSN will need content to fil lthem up, guess where they'll take that content? Outbid independent launched specialties content, eventually.
    - Vertically Integrated BDUs are trying to protect their specialties.
    - Independent BDUs, mostly located in small markets, sees that the big companies, which are also their satellite rivals (Bell & Shaw), will try to make them pay subsscription revenues for money-losing local stations.

    The CRTC also heard from a few individuals, in the audience room and also via Skype and the comments section on their website. They'll have to make decisions, either side with the customers while broadcasters and BDUs will take some risks but eventually adapt, or side with the broadcasters and BDUs, letting canadians pay more for less or cut the cord and opt for foreign online services, or take a middle-ground option.
    As always, every single thing you say should be taken with a grain of salt, and this is no exception. You listen to a hearing, block out everything you don't want to accept and then come up with your own assumption of the reality.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 09-14-2014 at 11:16 AM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    There is two sets of customers you have most who want more choice then the other side that in fact wants less choice not only do they want the Crtc to kick American channels out they want a huge increase in cancon plus regluate services like Netflix.
    The problem with this hearing is the CRTC expected consumers to come to them, and the people who dislike something are more likely to try and see it changed, so most of the people who sent in submissions were uninformed, shared views that are not reflective with most Canadians, or had a vested financial interest in the outcome (for example someone who works for an indepedent Canadian production company would be someone who would support kicking out American channels, increasaing cancon, and regulating Netflix)

    This also resulted in a near non-existent fraction of the population participating in the hearing. The millions of Canadians who benefit from the current system were not represented.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The problem with this hearing is the CRTC expected consumers to come to them, and the people who dislike something are more likely to try and see it changed, so most of the people who sent in submissions were uninformed, shared views that are not reflective with most Canadians, or had a vested financial interest in the outcome (for example someone who works for an indepedent Canadian production company would be someone who would support kicking out American channels, increasaing cancon, and regulating Netflix)

    This also resulted in a near non-existent fraction of the population participating in the hearing. The millions of Canadians who benefit from the current system were not represented.
    Do you think the Crtc would kick the American stations out?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It is my opinion that the skinny basic where you pay money for free channels without any specialty channels of any value is a rip off.
    You're wrong. Skinny basic must contain all free local stations, but you forgot the 9(1)(h) : mandatory carriage basic channels such as APTN, RDI, CBC News, MétéoMédia/Weather Network, CPAC, AMItv, House of Commons and TV5. These channels costs approximately 3.25$ per subscriber per month, collectively. Then, you have the BDU's operation fees : network maintenance and repair, free customer and technical support service, employees, equipments, buildings, salaries... which amounts to around 20$. From skinny basic without the optional specialties, you can pick whatever suits you : Most people will go with popular specialties, some of them will want everything including niche specialties that are part of higher tiers/packages, some of them will want to pick only the channels they want, while those who watch only CBC, CTV and Global are forced to pay for a package with tons of useless channels they don't watch.

    The CRTC hearings are about that : What the customers want, want the broadcasters want, what the BDUs want.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You live in Quebec where skinny basic exists, yet you don't subscribe to cable. Either you don't see value in the skinny basic or you can't afford to pay for the skinny basic. If you don't see enough value in skinny basic for you to subscribe then why do you expect the rest of Canada will? If you can't afford to pay for the skinny basic then why do you think others in a similar financial situation will?
    When did this thread turned about ME ?
    Anyways, I lost my job a few months ago, had very low income, health problems, so I had to cut the useless expenses, cable TV was first to go, and most of the shows I watch are on CTV, Global or Citytv anyways. 25$/month phone was replaced with a 5$ VoIP service, and I always used an IISP for my Internet needs.

    So no, I personally don't see any value in cable tv for my needs. My siblings have kids, so they picked Yoopa and Disney Junior, my brother-in-law loves sports and the UFC so he picked Sportsnet 360, RDS and TVA Sports. If they'd pick Telemax for 58$/month, they'd have to add Sportsnet 360, Yoopa and Disney Junior à la carte on top of it. Instead, they pick-a-pack with 10 channels for 45$ a month and have all the needed channels.

    If Videotron had instead a basic service with some specialties like E!, Much and MTV, for 30-35$ per month, well, why would my siblings pay for those channels ? Just so Bell Media can keep those useless channels afloat financially when they lack complete interest ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    shomi also includes Rogers and Shaw internet customers. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep Canadians in the broadcasting system. Launching a service available to absolutely everyone is bad for their business
    OK. Mr. Smartypants...
    We're in this situation : Many canadian has cut the cord and went with Netflix, which comes without any requirement other than a high speed connection and a reasonnable monthly cap.

    We have Shomi and Bellflix that are not even trying to get back those customers, they just expect to piss them off by signing exclusive canadian broadcast rights to some shows (read, take them away from Netflix), expect them to quit their 34$/month internet connection with an IISP and sign up with Rogers or Shaw's 50$/month internet connection with a lower cap so they can pay an additional 10$ to access Showmi that will not contain any show aired on any Bell Media channels ? That's illogic. Hey, guess what, even as a Videotron customer, I wouldn't be able to subscribe to Shomi unless I get a cellphone service from Rogers ?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Bell has lots of competitors that offer more flexible packaging and a more realistic basic package. If people don't like Bell's packaging they can switch to the other satellite service Shaw Direct (which has way more flexible packaging) or their local cable provider.
    That is one of the problem with out canadian system. Each vertically integrated companies think for themselves, their own bottom line, then come to the CRTC and justifies their actions to the canadian system... without thinking about the customer.

    You actually expect someone who pays the rent in an appartment with a Bell Fibe subscription to drop them and convince the building owner to setup a Shaw Direct satellite dish because it's 3$ cheaper ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm "francophobic"?. You are an absolute idiot so I'm not going to take offense to this.
    Hmmm, the APTN conversation we had a few months ago on these forums revealed a lot of things...

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    As always, every single thing you say should be taken with a grain of salt, and this is no exception. You listen to a hearing, block out everything you don't want to accept and then come up with your own assumption of the reality.
    Well, that's my opinion from a canadian citizen point of view. YOUR point of view is from a Shaw Media employee. What is reality ? What is more important here? The broadcaster point of view ?
    "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."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    InMontreal

    You really think all customers want every single American channel banned and strict rules for Netflix etc.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    Do you think the Crtc would kick the American stations out?
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    You really think all customers want every single American channel banned and strict rules for Netflix etc.
    You'll have to be more precise... Do you mean the american stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS) or american channels (CNN, TLC, A&E, Spike, etc.) ?

    Anyways, it was not part of the discussion and it's ridiculous either way.
    Stations : Banning border stations like Buffalo and Burlington from cable will just encourage canadians living in those areas to get an antenna and eventually drop cable. They worked so hard in the last decade to get rid of the channel number from their respective ID, then get rid of their calling letters (Cxxx).
    Channels : It's illogic to ban CNN tomorrow. Either way, they'll complain to the North American Free Trade Agreement just like CMT did back in 1995 when NCN launched (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMT_(Canada) ).
    "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."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    You'll have to be more precise... Do you mean the american stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS) or american channels (CNN, TLC, A&E, Spike, etc.) ?

    Anyways, it was not part of the discussion and it's ridiculous either way.
    Stations : Banning border stations like Buffalo and Burlington from cable will just encourage canadians living in those areas to get an antenna and eventually drop cable. They worked so hard in the last decade to get rid of the channel number from their respective ID, then get rid of their calling letters (Cxxx).
    Channels : It's illogic to ban CNN tomorrow. Either way, they'll complain to the North American Free Trade Agreement just like CMT did back in 1995 when NCN launched (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMT_(Canada) ).
    Yes i am talking about the networks some have the idea you ban them then Canadian will be forced to watch Canadian channels and they clain this would be great for Canadian culture now with that said i agree its ridiculous to talk about but people have talked about this at the hearing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    Do you think the Crtc would kick the American stations out?

    No, right now the debate is whether or not to include them in the "skinny basic" if they decide to force BDU's to offer a skinny basic to their customers. The CRTC is not entertaining pulling U.S. locals out of Canada. However, what the CRTC decides on pick and pay may result in U.S. cable channels pulling their signals from Canadian BDU's.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;67010]
    You're wrong. Skinny basic must contain all free local stations, but you forgot the 9(1)(h) : mandatory carriage basic channels such as APTN, RDI, CBC News, MétéoMédia/Weather Network, CPAC, AMItv, House of Commons and TV5. These channels costs approximately 3.25$ per subscriber per month, collectively. Then, you have the BDU's operation fees : network maintenance and repair, free customer and technical support service, employees, equipments, buildings, salaries... which amounts to around 20$.
    No i'm not. I didn't forget 91h services, but those 91h specialty channels don't have any value to a lot of Canadians and are more public service channels for minorities (CBC News Network is only 91h in Quebec). I also didn't forget about all the additional costs BDU's include in basic. it is my opinion, (and the opinion of many people who currently subscribe to the existing basic packages) that there is not much value in paying for a basic service that only includes free channels and 91h services. Including popular, highly rated specialty channels in basic does add value to the basic package, and the consumer wins as the price of the specialty channel is lower in basic than it would be otherwise. Basically, the basic customer gets channels most would normally subscribe to anyway at a reduced price.

    From skinny basic without the optional specialties, you can pick whatever suits you : Most people will go with popular specialties, some of them will want everything including niche specialties that are part of higher tiers/packages, some of them will want to pick only the channels they want, while those who watch only CBC, CTV and Global are forced to pay for a package with tons of useless channels they don't watch.
    The CRTC hearings are about that : What the customers want, want the broadcasters want, what the BDUs want.

    You can pick whatever suits you at a higher price for each individual channel, which most people are not okay with. Again, the problem with skinny basic is that it raises the basic costs for everyone as channels that are currently in basic will not have as many subscribers. The majority of consumers will pay more for the channels they want just so a small minority doesn't have to pay for channels they don't watch.




    When did this thread turned about ME ?

    Anyways, I lost my job a few months ago, had very low income, health problems, so I had to cut the useless expenses, cable TV was first to go, and most of the shows I watch are on CTV, Global or Citytv anyways. 25$/month phone was replaced with a 5$ VoIP service, and I always used an IISP for my Internet needs.

    So no, I personally don't see any value in cable tv for my needs.

    Because you are trying to say how great the skinny basic is when you don't subscribe to it. You are trying to say something has value when you don't pay for it yourself.
    My siblings have kids, so they picked Yoopa and Disney Junior, my brother-in-law loves sports and the UFC so he picked Sportsnet 360, RDS and TVA Sports. If they'd pick Telemax for 58$/month, they'd have to add Sportsnet 360, Yoopa and Disney Junior à la carte on top of it. Instead, they pick-a-pack with 10 channels for 45$ a month and have all the needed channels.

    If Videotron had instead a basic service with some specialties like E!, Much and MTV, for 30-35$ per month, well, why would my siblings pay for those channels ? Just so Bell Media can keep those useless channels afloat financially when they lack complete interest ?
    The lower rated the channel the lower the basic carriage fee. Channels many providers include in basic like MUCH, MTV, and E! are included in basic because they charge a very low carriage fee in exchange for being included in basic.

    OK. Mr. Smartypants...
    We're in this situation : Many canadian has cut the cord and went with Netflix, which comes without any requirement other than a high speed connection and a reasonnable monthly cap.
    The majority of people who subscribe to Netflix still subscribe to cable or satellite. The vast majority of Canadians still subscribe to cable or satellite and Canada has some of the highest cable/satellite penetration in the world.
    We have Shomi and Bellflix that are not even trying to get back those customers, they just expect to piss them off by signing exclusive canadian broadcast rights to some shows (read, take them away from Netflix), expect them to quit their 34$/month internet connection with an IISP and sign up with Rogers or Shaw's 50$/month internet connection with a lower cap so they can pay an additional 10$ to access Showmi that will not contain any show aired on any Bell Media channels ? That's illogic.

    Because they don't need them. The number of people who cut the cord is so extremely small that they don't need to win them back. What it makes sense to do is provide additional value to the vast majority of Canadians who are still in the system, and that's exactly what shomi does. They simply don't need to reach a cord cutter who is not an internet customer of Shaw or Rogers to be successful. Going the subscriber authenticated route by far makes the most sense for shomi as it's just one of the many, many reasons for people to keep their Shaw/Rogers subscription.

    Hey, guess what, even as a Videotron customer, I wouldn't be able to subscribe to Shomi unless I get a cellphone service from Rogers ?!?!

    shomi is not available to Rogers wireless customers at this time, but other cable providers can make an agreement to offer shomi to their customers if they want. I'm not sure if Videotron would considering it's an English service and they aren't the best at offering English services to their customers


    That is one of the problem with out canadian system. Each vertically integrated companies think for themselves, their own bottom line, then come to the CRTC and justifies their actions to the canadian system... without thinking about the customer.
    shomi is just another example of how they are thinking about their customers and providing additional value to their customers. They are not just looking out for themselves as they are willing to make agreements with other cable and satellite companies to offer shomi to their customers as well. These are private businesses, not charities for cord cutters. Cord cutters are not customers, that's why they are called cord cutters to begin with, they cut the cord and stopped being a customer and now they expect to get the same added value as actual customers? Talk about being out of touch with reality.


    You actually expect someone who pays the rent in an appartment with a Bell Fibe subscription to drop them and convince the building owner to setup a Shaw Direct satellite dish because it's 3$ cheaper ?

    I was referring to Shaw Direct vs Bell satellite, but if a Bell Fibe customer for whatever reason does not wish to switch to Shaw Direct they have other options like Rogers.

    Hmmm, the APTN conversation we had a few months ago on these forums revealed a lot of things...
    '

    I stated the fact that very, very few people outside of Quebec speak French or even understand the language enough to conduct a conversation. That does not mean I have any hate or dislike towards France or people who speak French. If this was coming from someone other than you I would be very offended with that accusation

    Well, that's my opinion from a canadian citizen point of view. YOUR point of view is from a Shaw Media employee.
    No, it's my point of view from someone who is happy with the existing system. My personal opinion is let the market decide. If people don’t like what they get from cable or satellite, they wont subscribe. The fact that cable/satellite penetration in Canada is among the highest in the world is a pretty good indication that the system does not need a bunch of changes and new regulation. I am fortunate enough that I can afford to pay for channels if the price does increase, but I still would hate to see everyone have to pay more. And unlike you who is under this delusion that independents will be fine with a pick and pay system, I know that the vast majority of independent channels do not have even close to enough viewers to survive in a pick and pay world. I think Blue Ant said it best, for people to have actual choice they need to have channels available to choose from.

    What is reality ? What is more important here? The broadcaster point of view ?
    The broadcaster view isn't irrelevant, and I do applaud Shaw for standing up for their customers and offering proposals based on the needs of their customers and reaching out to their customers to ask them which channels they actually watch. The rising costs of sports rights has resulted in sports channels continuing to raise their rates and I think Shaw's proposal of a basic service which excludes high cost sports channels is a great idea. Also, Shaw Media does not force their channels in basic. In the Vancouver market for example Shaw cable only carries 4 Shaw Media channels in basic (HISTORY, HGTV, Food Network, and BC1, all of which are popular enough to justify being included in a basic package) while out of those 4 channels, Novus only offers BC1 in basic (you must subscribe to a theme pack to access HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network), while Telus offers ZERO Shaw Media specialty channels in basic. Meanwhile, in most theme packs Shaw channels are the highest rated of the bunch, so it's actually other channels that benefit from being in a theme pack with a Shaw Media channel, not the other way around. There is really nothing about Shaw's proposal that is anti-consumer.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    A skinny basic package is appealing, but mostly because of the lower "entry fee" to cable/satellite service. It's also fun to keep rotating channels or packages once you get tired of them and feel like trying something new. I do that with the Internet all the time. I got tired of E! UK, and then tried MTV USA and the MLB Network. It was all free, but it reminded me of what I used to do back when I was a cable subscriber.

    My Internet entry fee is about $41/month (V Media would be even cheaper, about $34.50 including taxes), and then I simply pick and choose the other content that I want to watch for free. There's not enough time in the day to sample all the free online channels, but if the Internet didn't exist, a skinny basic cable package would be appealing to me.

    If you only want TMN, you can get skinny basic and then add TMN. If the BDUs want to discourage that kind of behaviour, they can simply raise the prices of all the extra channels and packages to maintain the frustration levels.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 09-14-2014 at 09:49 PM. Reason: added: /month to 2nd paragraph
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    152
    As of October 1st, they are going to transfer the rest of the Specialty Channels that were on Analog to Digital. I will have to decide what I am going to do then. Since I don't like watching shows on the internet, and I am not willing to pay more for cable, my choices are limited.
    Last edited by Avonregal; 09-15-2014 at 05:05 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Avonregal View Post
    As of October 1st, they are going to transfer the rest of the Specialty Channels that were on Analog to Digital.
    Who's "they" ?
    "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."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    152
    I subscribe to Rogers Cable and it was mentioned in their "Memo" portion of my current cable bill.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No i'm not. I didn't forget 91h services, but those 91h specialty channels don't have any value to a lot of Canadians and are more public service channels for minorities (CBC News Network is only 91h in Quebec). I also didn't forget about all the additional costs BDU's include in basic. it is my opinion, (and the opinion of many people who currently subscribe to the existing basic packages) that there is not much value in paying for a basic service that only includes free channels and 91h services. Including popular, highly rated specialty channels in basic does add value to the basic package, and the consumer wins as the price of the specialty channel is lower in basic than it would be otherwise.
    How about this :
    Option A : skinny basic (OTA + 91h), then pick your pack (popular specialties, pick-a-pack, themes)
    Option B : regular basic with popular specialties without sports, then pick your package.

    Simple, no ? Those who don't want to finance/subsidize channels they don't watch will pick Option A, others will pick Option B.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You can pick whatever suits you at a higher price for each individual channel, which most people are not okay with. Again, the problem with skinny basic is that it raises the basic costs for everyone as channels that are currently in basic will not have as many subscribers. The majority of consumers will pay more for the channels they want just so a small minority doesn't have to pay for channels they don't watch.
    You too watched Bell's turn at the audiences? Kevin Crull was well aware that specialties like BookTV and fashion will not survive following a change in regulation. But tell me, why keep those channels alive, force them into popular packages alongside other Bell's specialties, when we both know there's no money invested in those channels anymore for any original programming ? They're worthless ! Other specialties that do invest in original programming will survive because there will be people watching. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Because you are trying to say how great the skinny basic is when you don't subscribe to it. You are trying to say something has value when you don't pay for it yourself.
    Now you're getting arrogant and insulting.
    When Videotron launched Illico back in 1998, I rented the goddamn terminal and subscribed to a 15 channels à la carte. I brought the goddamn terminal for 120$ in 2004 and kept à la carte. I brought a PVR in 2009 for 400$ and kept à la carte... Until 2011-2012 when I had money problems, cut cable, sold my PVR and sent the older Standard definition terminal to the Videotron store for their recycling initiative.

    It's not because I'm not subscribed to it NOW that I don't value it. I just can't afford it. I'd rather spend my money in medical bills right now than feed those big companies (including the one you work for) for entertainment I don't need.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Because they don't need them. The number of people who cut the cord
    Sounds like a plan. It's like, « Hey, we launched a new CANADIAN service because we were late in the game, but if you want to do the right thing and buy our new canadian product, you must subscribe to Rogers or Shaw ». DUH ! F*** this, I'll stick with Netflix.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    shomi is not available to Rogers wireless customers at this time, but other cable providers can make an agreement to offer shomi to their customers if they want.
    That's COMPLETELY STUPID !!! It's an UNREGULATED OVER-THE-TOP service ! They can put anything they want there and grab any customer they want ! Why would any cable provider sign an agreement when any canadian could open an account with a credit card ? Rogers, Shaw and Bell don't even need to sign any deal with any service provider, except for a highway of data interconnections to make video load faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I think Shaw's proposal of a basic service which excludes high cost sports channels is a great idea. Also, Shaw Media does not force their channels in basic. In the Vancouver market for example Shaw cable only carries 4 Shaw Media channels in basic (HISTORY, HGTV, Food Network, and BC1,
    Wow, you do have two different views, but biased on Shaw. On one hand, you expect every canadian to pay for History, HGTV and Food, qualifying them as "extremely popular" (but fewer than 25% of canadians have interest in watching either a channel about gardering, food or reality shows unrelated to history), while sports attract 50% of population, there's no wonder why sports and news channels were moved to form Cat C.

    On one hand, from Shaw's headquarters, you sit down and eat popcorn while watching the subscriber revenues for TSN and Sportsnet skyrocket to insane prices resulting in overbidding for content, but since Shaw doesn't produce any sports, you say "just too bad, they did that to themselves" and remove them from basic, suppressing 50% of their revenues, not expecting them to increase more their fees. Wow, just wow. How do you think Rogers will pay that 5.2 billion bill to the NHL in the next 12 years ?
    "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."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;67024]
    How about this :
    Option A : skinny basic (OTA + 91h), then pick your pack (popular specialties, pick-a-pack, themes)
    Option B : regular basic with popular specialties without sports, then pick your package.

    Simple, no ? Those who don't want to finance/subsidize channels they don't watch will pick Option A, others will pick Option B.

    I support option B as sports channels have become so expensive (more expensive than regular specialty channels). I am not against a BDU including popular specialty channels in basic when it means people can receive them at a lower price (it's at the point where even the low basic price for a sports channel is too high), and I don't support a situation where reasonably priced channels most people would subscribe to anyway increase in price just so a small minority does not have to pay for them in basic. I am also not against a lower rated specialty being included in basic with an extremely low carriage fee as the carriage fee is so low that it wont have any noticeable impact on the price for the service.


    You too watched Bell's turn at the audiences? Kevin Crull was well aware that specialties like BookTV and fashion will not survive following a change in regulation. But tell me, why keep those channels alive, force them into popular packages alongside other Bell's specialties, when we both know there's no money invested in those channels anymore for any original programming ? They're worthless ! Other specialties that do invest in original programming will survive because there will be people watching. Simple as that.
    He was well aware that they will not survive in pick and pay because they don't reach a certain ratings threshold. Well guess what, 7 of the 8 Blue Ant Media channels are under that same ratings threshold. The problem is this wont just kill Bell Media specialty channels like Book TV and Fashion Television, it will also kill niche independent specialty channels that do invest in programming but have low audience numbers as they appeal to niche audiences. Are 7 of the 8 Blue Ant Media channels worthless?

    Now you're getting arrogant and insulting.
    When Videotron launched Illico back in 1998, I rented the goddamn terminal and subscribed to a 15 channels à la carte. I brought the goddamn terminal for 120$ in 2004 and kept à la carte. I brought a PVR in 2009 for 400$ and kept à la carte... Until 2011-2012 when I had money problems, cut cable, sold my PVR and sent the older Standard definition terminal to the Videotron store for their recycling initiative.

    It's not because I'm not subscribed to it NOW that I don't value it. I just can't afford it. I'd rather spend my money in medical bills right now than feed those big companies (including the one you work for) for entertainment I don't need.
    First, I'm sorry to hear that you are experiencing health problems. I still however don't see how a basic service which just includes channels you can get for free and 91h services is value. That's just my opinion, if you see value fine but I just thought I would point out that you don't subscribe to the thing you are saying has value.


    Sounds like a plan. It's like, « Hey, we launched a new CANADIAN service because we were late in the game, but if you want to do the right thing and buy our new canadian product, you must subscribe to Rogers or Shaw ». DUH ! F*** this, I'll stick with Netflix.
    The service simply doesn't need to be available to everyone to be successful. The cord cutting minority is so extremely small that ensuring every cord cutter has the ability to access the service is not going to have a noticeable impact, and most cord cutters would probably still subscribe to Netflix even if they had shomi as an option considering the low price point for both services. The biggest threat Netflix poses to Canadian broadcasters is related to programming (ie. Netflix outbidding the Canadian broadcaster for rights, or Netflix acquiring past seasons of broadcaster shows and people watching them on Netflix instead of the television channel), now that Rogers and Shaw have shomi, they can acquire exclusive rights to past seasons of their shows along with the first run conventional, online, mobile, and specialty rights as they now have an outlet to air those past seasons. Some of the content will overlap with Netflix as Netflix has previously purchased some non-exclusive past season rights of certain shows, but going forward shomi is securing exclusive rights to past seasons. Shomi isn't a Netflix killer, it's just a similar service that makes it harder for Netflix to harm the industry, while at the same time providing incredible additional value to Shaw and Rogers customers. Shomi wont have as many subscribers as Netflix Canada, but they don't need as many subscribers to be a success.

    That's COMPLETELY STUPID !!! It's an UNREGULATED OVER-THE-TOP service ! They can put anything they want there and grab any customer they want ! Why would any cable provider sign an agreement when any canadian could open an account with a credit card ? Rogers, Shaw and Bell don't even need to sign any deal with any service provider, except for a highway of data interconnections to make video load faster.
    Any Canadian can't open a shomi account with a credit card as shomi is a subscriber authenticated service. Unless you are a Rogers or Shaw satellite/cable/internet customer you can not access the service, and since there is a value in what shomi is offering customers it makes perfect sense that other providers will want to make an agreement to allow their customers access to the service as well.

    Wow, you do have two different views, but biased on Shaw. On one hand, you expect every canadian to pay for History, HGTV and Food, qualifying them as "extremely popular" (but fewer than 25% of canadians have interest in watching either a channel about gardering, food or reality shows unrelated to history), while sports attract 50% of population, there's no wonder why sports and news channels were moved to form Cat C.
    This is yet another one of your made up assumptions. HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network are among the top 10 most watched specialty channels in Canada. HISTORY is the #2 most watched specialty channel in Canada. If your ridiculous assumption that less than 25% of Canadians have any interest in watching these channels was true then they wouldn't be among the most watched in Canada. The audience data for these channels alone justifies any provider including them in basic. That being said, I don't think every provider should be forced offer these channels in basic. Most providers have instead chosen to offer some lower rated channels like M3, MTV, E!, CMT, ABC Spark, and OLN in basic in exchange for getting a much lower rate for these channels. Shaw cable decided to not offer these channels in basic in favor of the more popular (and more expensive) HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network, the result is Shaw has slightly less channels than some of the other basic services but the channels they do have in basic are more popular.


    But since you brought it up, for the talk TV hearings, Shaw and Shaw Direct did a survey among Shaw cable and Shaw Direct customers. HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network were right up there with TSN among the most frequently watched channels (all were more frequently watched than every SportsNet channel, TSN2, and even CityTV) Only 22% said they never watched Food Network, only 18% said they never watched HGTV, and only 14% said they never watched HISTORY. 21% said they never watched TSN, 42% never watched TSN2, while the amount of people never watching SportsNet channels ranged from 32% to 62%

    On one hand, from Shaw's headquarters, you sit down and eat popcorn while watching the subscriber revenues for TSN and Sportsnet skyrocket to insane prices resulting in overbidding for content, but since Shaw doesn't produce any sports, you say "just too bad, they did that to themselves" and remove them from basic, suppressing 50% of their revenues, not expecting them to increase more their fees. Wow, just wow. How do you think Rogers will pay that 5.2 billion bill to the NHL in the next 12 years ?

    TSN and SportsNet (now that they have hockey rights) certainly have the ratings strong enough to be included in basic just like HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network. However the difference between TSN and SportsNet and these channels is HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network simply don't cost as much per subscriber. Sports channels are driving up the cost of basic in a way non-sports specialty channels are not, so when it comes which channels to remove to provide a more affordable option, removing the sports channels makes the most sense as they cost the most.

    I never said the price of sports channels would not increase if they were removed from basic. So people who watch sports will have to pay more. However, this is better than the alternative of everyone having to pay more anyway just to accommodate the rising cost of sports rights. It's just the reality, the price of sports channels is increasing at an unreasonable rate, the price of non-sports channels is not. It's not fair to raise the basic rate of a non-sports fan when the price of the non-sports channels they watch is not going up. Sports fans should be paying for the rising costs of sports channels as opposed to everyone, even if it means the cost of sports channels will increase more than it would in basic. Sports channels did get themselves into this mess when they went crazy overbidding for sports rights. Sports fans certainly lose but they only have the sports channels to blame as it's their decision to overpay for rights that has resulted in the removal from basic


    I should point out some providers already do this, and they are able to offer a basic service about $10 dollars less than providers that do include sports in basic.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 09-15-2014 at 08:22 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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