Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    918
    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.
    I don't get why Shaw/Rogers doesn't go the direct route instead of going through a BDU. I would be interested in the Shomi service but I don't have Rogers or Shaw and neither is an option for me. Why can't I pay Shomi directly for a subscription? I have a subscription to Hulu Plus and Netflix along with a VPN service that allows me access to the US library (and other countries too). Unless Shomi and Bellflix are willing to make their services available a la carte; why would I consider switching to these? They are basically trying to insure people will stay locked into their legacy products.

    Canada is behind other countries on cord cutting because online options are few and far between and many BDUs (Rogers, Bell, Shaw) have insane monthly bitcaps. The younger generation prefers on demand delivery over traditional linear service. Over time; the demand for linear services is going to drop and Canadian broadcasters need to embrace this otherwise they are going to lose more and more customers to US services via VPN/Proxy services. I am pretty sure I read an article somewhere that 30% of Canadian netflix customers are using a VPN/Proxy service to access the US library.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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?
    Most independent specialty channels are already pick-and-pay, the problem is unpopular and dead channels like Book TV and Fashion Television are forced bundled together with popular channels while pushing out independent channels.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.


    If Netflix and cord cutters where more of a threat, you would have seen Unifor staging an protest outside the CRTC hearings demanding that all legal age Canadians must buy an BDU subscription to protect the industry. (I haven't forgiven them for their stupid Verizon protest fiasco)


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.


    Shomi will rely heavily on existing programming rights that Shaw and Rogers media currently have, excluding any original content that they'll produce for Shomi. But can also be a problem, seeing that Bell owns 20 of the Top 30 programming in Canada, and the HBO/TMN library.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    Basically Shomi replaces Rogers AnyPlace TV and Shaw equivalent with (hopefully) better support outside an desktop web browser. The only problem I see is that they're a little late to the party, although Netflix still relies on past content, they're moving towards original content to fend off other OTT rivals of Google and Apple.

    But Netflix original content is something that would more compete with HBO programming and viewers than competing with CTV, Global or City programming or viewers.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    It was hinted that it will be open up to anyone with a credit card in the future, but I'm doubtful.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    I don't get why Shaw/Rogers doesn't go the direct route instead of going through a BDU. I would be interested in the Shomi service but I don't have Rogers or Shaw and neither is an option for me. Why can't I pay Shomi directly for a subscription? I have a subscription to Hulu Plus and Netflix along with a VPN service that allows me access to the US library (and other countries too). Unless Shomi and Bellflix are willing to make their services available a la carte; why would I consider switching to these? They are basically trying to insure people will stay locked into their legacy products.
    That's basically nailed on the head.


    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    Canada is behind other countries on cord cutting because online options are few and far between and many BDUs (Rogers, Bell, Shaw) have insane monthly bitcaps. The younger generation prefers on demand delivery over traditional linear service. Over time; the demand for linear services is going to drop and Canadian broadcasters need to embrace this otherwise they are going to lose more and more customers to US services via VPN/Proxy services. I am pretty sure I read an article somewhere that 30% of Canadian netflix customers are using a VPN/Proxy service to access the US library.
    They're basically trying to hold back the evolution of television, they have it made right now, legal protected monopoly, charge high rates with regulators who don't really pay attention, why would they want change?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,076
    Mayhem

    I get why the bdu's are saying what there are its the young people at the hearing that scare me big time some want to expand sim sub or ban American nets plus increase canaon and strict rules for services like Netflix etc.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,737
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    Alright, let's see... CRTC pay & specialties financial report...
    - Food Network : 0.14$ to 0.16$ per subscriber per month, has 7.5 million subscribers (2013) but received 51.4 millions in advertisement revenues.
    - HGTV : nearly 0.16$ per subscriber per month, has 9 million subscribers (2013) and received 56.7 millions in advertisement revenues.
    - History : 0.29$ to 0.31$ per subscriber per month, has 7.9 million subscribers (2013) and received 51.4 millions in advertisement revenues.

    Clearly, those channels are forced on basic and popular specialties on most BDUs. But it's easy to understand why you absolutely want to keep Food and HGTV on basic : less subscribers means less advertisement revenues, so Shaw would no longer be able to cash in ~20 to ~42 millions per channel per year in pure profits.
    For a BDU, carrying those three channels means they only give out 0.64$ per subscriber per month to Shaw Media, extremely cheap.

    But the conclusion is the same : Many subscriber will never ever watch those channels, so why being forced to pay for those ? Their financial situation is not critical at all, programming and acquisition costs for these categories of shows is also cheap, unlike sports or all-day news. Those channels can and will survive in a mixed pick-and-pay, themed and tiers models. O nthe other hand, scrapping themed and tiers models and going exclusively pick-and-pay, yikes, we both kkow it's not the way to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    That's the beauty of it, skinny basic has value because it lacks valuable channels. You get whatever the CRTC decided to throw down your throat (91h), then it's the important bit for most BDUs, they force you to pick a package. You pick whatever you want depending on your situation: a) pick packs of channels by theme, b) pick pack of channels by popularity, or c) pick your own 15-20-30 channels. You may be satisfied with only 5 channels in the language you understand for 37$ per month, or be satisfied with tons of specialties for 100$ per month. Freedom to choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Any Canadian can't open a shomi account with a credit card as shomi is a subscriber authenticated service.
    Well, it's with a credit card that you open an account with Netflix. It does not discriminate anyone on where they live in Canada or whoever they chose as their internet provider.

    Shomi and Bellflix also did not take into account the habits of young adults who goes to college or university. They already got a laptop and a tabalet during high school, it's unlikely they'll get a TV set in their dorm room. Those young 18-25 adults are target demos for advertisers. Instead of welcoming them into a canadian OTT service, they just push them away to american services like Netflix due to their idiotic requirements of subscriptions to a legacy service with a "participating" provider...

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.
    People who watch stupid reality shows will have to pay more for Much and MTV. No need for them on basic.
    People who watch gardening shows will have to pay for it.
    People who watch food-related rality shows will have to pay for it. Give them Gusto TV if they want to know how to prepare food.
    People who want to know about history will not watch History, they'll instead go on wikipedia. Ice Road Trukers? Pawn shows ? Restauration garage ? Really ? Who wants to pay for those shows ?
    "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. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    they are basically trying to insure people will stay locked into their legacy products.
    .
    You say this like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with providing incentive to get you as a customer?
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;67028]


    Most independent specialty channels are already pick-and-pay, the problem is unpopular and dead channels like Book TV and Fashion Television are forced bundled together with popular channels while pushing out independent channels.
    Although independent channels do make themselves available in pick and pay, they are also available in theme packs with far more popular channels. Also, many of these low rated Bell Media channels are also already offered in pick and pay in addition to packages. For example Shaw and Shaw Direct offer both Book TV and Fashion Television in a pick and pay format. Bell TV's packaging system is actually very good to independents as many independents are included in packages with far more popular channels.


    If Netflix and cord cutters where more of a threat, you would have seen Unifor staging an protest outside the CRTC hearings demanding that all legal age Canadians must buy an BDU subscription to protect the industry. (I haven't forgiven them for their stupid Verizon protest fiasco)
    Blame Rogers, Bell, and Telus for the Verizon protest. They are the ones who spent all that money fighting it.
    Shomi will rely heavily on existing programming rights that Shaw and Rogers media currently have, excluding any original content that they'll produce for Shomi. But can also be a problem, seeing that Bell owns 20 of the Top 30 programming in Canada, and the HBO/TMN library.

    They will rely mostly on past seasons of shows they have the existing rights to, so viewers are getting something they were not getting before. Global has quite a few top rated shows, and FX has a lot of HBO type shows that are going to provide value to the service.



    Basically Shomi replaces Rogers AnyPlace TV and Shaw equivalent with (hopefully) better support outside an desktop web browser. The only problem I see is that they're a little late to the party, although Netflix still relies on past content, they're moving towards original content to fend off other OTT rivals of Google and Apple.

    But Netflix original content is something that would more compete with HBO programming and viewers than competing with CTV, Global or City programming or viewers.
    Shomi isn't replacing anything. Services like Rogers on Demand and Global Go will continue. Shomi is offering past seasons which will not be available on these services. Keeping this content off Netflix is good for the industry.
    It was hinted that it will be open up to anyone with a credit card in the future, but I'm doubtful.
    Yeah, and anything is possible. You are not going to see them say they will never offer this service to a certain group of people. For now though it will only be available to Shaw and Rogers subscribers at launch, although they do hope to have other BDU's on board by November as well. I personally would not be holding my breath if I was a cord cutter. As reported by cartt.ca, cineplex left the partnership because they didn't want the service to be subscriber-authenticated. They were willing to lose Cineplex as a partner to keep it away from cord cutters.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;67036]

    Alright, let's see... CRTC pay & specialties financial report...
    - Food Network : 0.14$ to 0.16$ per subscriber per month, has 7.5 million subscribers (2013) but received 51.4 millions in advertisement revenues.
    - HGTV : nearly 0.16$ per subscriber per month, has 9 million subscribers (2013) and received 56.7 millions in advertisement revenues.
    - History : 0.29$ to 0.31$ per subscriber per month, has 7.9 million subscribers (2013) and received 51.4 millions in advertisement revenues.

    Clearly, those channels are forced on basic and popular specialties on most BDUs. But it's easy to understand why you absolutely want to keep Food and HGTV on basic : less subscribers means less advertisement revenues, so Shaw would no longer be able to cash in ~20 to ~42 millions per channel per year in pure profits.
    For a BDU, carrying those three channels means they only give out 0.64$ per subscriber per month to Shaw Media, extremely cheap.
    Most providers actually don't offer these channels in basic. In the Vancouver market, only Shaw cable offers HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network in basic. Telus doesn't offer these channels in basic, Novus doesn't offer these channels in basic (the only Shaw Media channel both Novus and Shaw offer in basic is BC1), Bell satellite TV doesn't offer these channels in basic, even Shaw Direct doesn't offer these channels in their Digital Light basic package. Rogers doesn’t offer them in basic either. If Shaw Media was forcing these channels in basic, there wouldn't be so many providers that don't have them in basic!

    HISTORY, HGTV, and Food Network are among the top 10 most watched specialty channels in Canada because they offer the most popular programming in Canada, they don't need to be on basic, they will continue to dominate the ratings and pull in a huge amount of subscribers in theme packs. Shaw cable put them on their basic to add value to their basic package. You are under this delusional assumption that BDU's only put channels in basic because they are forced to by the broadcaster when the reality is some BDU's actually want to offer some specialty channels in basic to provide value to the basic service. Typically most providers put popular channels in theme packs because they don't want the subscriber to just buy basic, but the cable market in Western Canada is very competitive, each BDU has their own strategy of which channels to include in basic, Shaw cable decided that instead of offering some of the lower rated channels in basic like their competitors they would instead offer some of the more popular specialty channels the other providers have in theme packs.


    But the conclusion is the same : Many subscriber will never ever watch those channels, so why being forced to pay for those ? Their financial situation is not critical at all, programming and acquisition costs for these categories of shows is also cheap, unlike sports or all-day news. Those channels can and will survive in a mixed pick-and-pay, themed and tiers models. O nthe other hand, scrapping themed and tiers models and going exclusively pick-and-pay, yikes, we both kkow it's not the way to go.

    Because the price of these channels is cheaper in basic, so by including these channels in basic customers get popular channels they would subscribe to anyway at a lower price.

    That's the beauty of it, skinny basic has value because it lacks valuable channels. You get whatever the CRTC decided to throw down your throat (91h), then it's the important bit for most BDUs, they force you to pick a package. You pick whatever you want depending on your situation: a) pick packs of channels by theme, b) pick pack of channels by popularity, or c) pick your own 15-20-30 channels. You may be satisfied with only 5 channels in the language you understand for 37$ per month, or be satisfied with tons of specialties for 100$ per month. Freedom to choose.
    Freedom to choose channels at a more expensive price than before. That's not value.

    Well, it's with a credit card that you open an account with Netflix. It does not discriminate anyone on where they live in Canada or whoever they chose as their internet provider.

    Shomi and Bellflix also did not take into account the habits of young adults who goes to college or university. They already got a laptop and a tabalet during high school, it's unlikely they'll get a TV set in their dorm room. Those young 18-25 adults are target demos for advertisers. Instead of welcoming them into a canadian OTT service, they just push them away to american services like Netflix due to their idiotic requirements of subscriptions to a legacy service with a "participating" provider...
    There is nothing idiotic about launching a service that adds value to your existing services as opposed to providing value to someone who does not subscribe to ANY of your services.

    People who watch stupid reality shows will have to pay more for Much and MTV. No need for them on basic.
    People who watch gardening shows will have to pay for it.
    People who watch food-related rality shows will have to pay for it. Give them Gusto TV if they want to know how to prepare food.
    People who want to know about history will not watch History, they'll instead go on wikipedia.
    That's your opinion. Unlike you, I don't want everyone to pay more. The only people who should pay more are the people who watch the channels that contribute to the rising costs of basic, and unfortunately for sports fans it's the sports channels that are rising in price at an unreasonable rate. Sports channels are the problem so it's my opinion that sports channels should be removed from basic. You however want everyone to pay more because you hate the industry and want all television channels to suffer, it wont matter to you one bit what happens because you don't subscribe to cable but as long as everyone gets to pay more you will be happy.
    Ice Road Trukers? Pawn shows ? Restauration garage ? Really ? Who wants to pay for those shows ?

    These are among the most watched shows on specialty in Canada.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 09-16-2014 at 03:17 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    918
    You say this like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with providing incentive to get you as a customer?
    TVViewer; you are the only person that thinks it's a great thing to have to have a Rogers or Bell subscription to get Shomi access. It's this kind of attitude from the likes of Shaw Media and Rogers Media that will keep my dollars going directly to the US. Why would I even consider a Canadian service if I have to pay for a $60-$80/month subscription to TV just to have the privilege of paying another $10/month for Shomi access which is the only thing I would want? I pay $8/month of Netflix, $8/month for Hulu Plus and have a subscription to a proxy service. I have access to almost all the shows I would ever want to see. Also if I actually lived in a Shaw or Rogers service area; I wouldn't even consider their Internet service because both companies have unreasonable data caps. I would go with a 2nd tier provider like TekSavvy.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    TVViewer; you are the only person that thinks it's a great thing to have to have a Rogers or Bell subscription to get Shomi access. It's this kind of attitude from the likes of Shaw Media and Rogers Media that will keep my dollars going directly to the US. Why would I even consider a Canadian service if I have to pay for a $60-$80/month subscription to TV just to have the privilege of paying another $10/month for Shomi access which is the only thing I would want? I pay $8/month of Netflix, $8/month for Hulu Plus and have a subscription to a proxy service. I have access to almost all the shows I would ever want to see. Also if I actually lived in a Shaw or Rogers service area; I wouldn't even consider their Internet service because both companies have unreasonable data caps. I would go with a 2nd tier provider like TekSavvy.
    Let me gets this right you would pay $8 for HUlu Plus but not $10 for Showmi?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,460
    It's not just $10 for Shomi, it's $10 PLUS a subscription to a Shaw or Rogers service ... plus any overage fees you incur (unless perhaps you use their digital boxes to avoid overage fees). Ouch!
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    918
    Let me gets this right you would pay $8 for HUlu Plus but not $10 for Showmi?
    Wrong. I would pay $10/month for Shomi. I wont pay for a full blown TV subscription plus their Internet service just for the privilege to subscribe to Shomi (the only service I'm interested in).

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Although independent channels do make themselves available in pick and pay, they are also available in theme packs with far more popular channels. Also, many of these low rated Bell Media channels are also already offered in pick and pay in addition to packages. For example Shaw and Shaw Direct offer both Book TV and Fashion Television in a pick and pay format. Bell TV's packaging system is actually very good to independents as many independents are included in packages with far more popular channels.


    The problem is people don't watch that many channels anymore, take me for example, I don't watch a lot of television as I use to, I just want to get channels like The Comedy Network to watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report, but I don't want to buy the 2nd most expensive package with over a dozen channels I'll never watch. Even a mandatory skinny basic package with make your own 5/10/15/20/25/etc speciality package
    I would be happy with. I just don't want to spend +$70 a/month for the small amount of channels I actually watch. Is that so hard to ask for?


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Blame Rogers, Bell, and Telus for the Verizon protest. They are the ones who spent all that money fighting it.


    It's their own faults in beliving the lies; if Verizon came up here, the CIA would spy on us though Verizon, we already have that going on with out spy agencies handing it over to the CIA.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    They will rely mostly on past seasons of shows they have the existing rights to, so viewers are getting something they were not getting before. Global has quite a few top rated shows, and FX has a lot of HBO type shows that are going to provide value to the service.

    Most of the Rogers/Shaw U.S. programming Netflix already seems to have, they only difference is original programming Shaw that will be the plus factor in this battle.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Shomi isn't replacing anything. Services like Rogers on Demand and Global Go will continue. Shomi is offering past seasons which will not be available on these services. Keeping this content off Netflix is good for the industry.


    So for $8 more a month, you can get what your already paying though your BDU for on-demand services....How is this different again?


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yeah, and anything is possible. You are not going to see them say they will never offer this service to a certain group of people. For now though it will only be available to Shaw and Rogers subscribers at launch, although they do hope to have other BDU's on board by November as well. I personally would not be holding my breath if I was a cord cutter. As reported by cartt.ca, cineplex left the partnership because they didn't want the service to be subscriber-authenticated. They were willing to lose Cineplex as a partner to keep it away from cord cutters.
    Cineplex was right to leave then, what makes Netflix attractive is that you don't need an existing service with them in order to get service from them. The problem is you can't just buy one thing from these guys, you always have to buy two or three products from them.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    TVViewer; you are the only person that thinks it's a great thing to have to have a Rogers or Bell subscription to get Shomi access. It's this kind of attitude from the likes of Shaw Media and Rogers Media that will keep my dollars going directly to the US. Why would I even consider a Canadian service if I have to pay for a $60-$80/month subscription to TV just to have the privilege of paying another $10/month for Shomi access which is the only thing I would want? I pay $8/month of Netflix, $8/month for Hulu Plus and have a subscription to a proxy service. I have access to almost all the shows I would ever want to see. Also if I actually lived in a Shaw or Rogers service area; I wouldn't even consider their Internet service because both companies have unreasonable data caps. I would go with a 2nd tier provider like TekSavvy.

    I'm sure shareholders think it's a great thing as well. It's a smart business decision for these companies.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;67063]

    The problem is people don't watch that many channels anymore, take me for example, I don't watch a lot of television as I use to, I just want to get channels like The Comedy Network to watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report, but I don't want to buy the 2nd most expensive package with over a dozen channels I'll never watch. Even a mandatory skinny basic package with make your own 5/10/15/20/25/etc speciality package
    I would be happy with. I just don't want to spend +$70 a/month for the small amount of channels I actually watch. Is that so hard to ask for?


    A small minority will benefit, but it will result in the people and families who still watch lots of channels (and you can still watch a few shows yet watch several channels) paying more


    It's their own faults in beliving the lies; if Verizon came up here, the CIA would spy on us though Verizon, we already have that going on with out spy agencies handing it over to the CIA.

    Although unions can be ridiculous at times, I can't really fault a union representing Bell, Telus, and Rogers employees for being against Verizon coming into the country.



    Most of the Rogers/Shaw U.S. programming Netflix already seems to have, they only difference is original programming Shaw that will be the plus factor in this battle.

    No, Netflix Canada doesn't have most of the Rogers/Shaw U.S. programming. They have a little bit (and those are non-exclusive rights), but the majority is not available on Netflix in Canada. The difference between Netflix and shomi is the fact that shomi has exclusive rights to past seasons of Rogers and Shaw's hit U.S. conventional and specialty shows.


    So for $8 more a month, you can get what your already paying though your BDU for on-demand services....How is this different again?

    Rogers VOD doesn't have PAST SEASONS of hit Shaw and Rogers U.S. conventional and specialty series. The difference is while you can watch the current seasons on Rogers On Demand, Global Go, etc.., past seasons will be available exclusively on shomi.

    Cineplex was right to leave then, what makes Netflix attractive is that you don't need an existing service with them in order to get service from them.

    It makes Netflix attractive to cord cutters who are a minority so small that serving them will not have any noticeable impact on the success of the service. It’s important to ensure that these people remain a small minority, and shomi is just another reason to NOT cut the cord.


    The problem is you can't just buy one thing from these guys, you always have to buy two or three products from them.
    No you don't. If you want cable or satellite you don't have to buy internet or phone. They offer special deals that save money if you buy all of them together as opposed to buying them all separately, but shomi and the upcoming Bell service is the first service where you must have a cable or satellite or internet subscription to get access, and since the vast majority of people already have this anyway, getting shomi is not a problem (again, other BDU's can make an agreement to offer the shomi service to their customers, Bell is expected to do the same with their Bellflix service)
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,737
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm sure shareholders think it's a great thing as well. It's a smart business decision for these companies.
    Well, this confirms that the dumb "bundle" decision was for their respective company's bottomline, as it's not open to all canadians (Cogeco, Videotron, MTS, Telus, to name a few). Netflix doesn't discriminate canadian subscriptions based on geography and choice of ISP.
    "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."

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Well, this confirms that the dumb "bundle" decision was for their respective company's bottomline, as it's not open to all canadians (Cogeco, Videotron, MTS, Telus, to name a few). Netflix doesn't discriminate canadian subscriptions based on geography and choice of ISP.

    How many times do I have to say this, ANY BDU is allowed to make an agreement to offer shomi to their customers.

    Look at how many providers made an agreement to offer Global Go to their customers, another service you thought was dumb but has been a massive success
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    918
    I'm sure shareholders think it's a great thing as well. It's a smart business decision for these companies.
    Except none of us (except for maybe you) work for or are investors in Shaw Media, Bell Media or Rogers Media. We are consumers. I don't need you to explain to me how shareholders are the priority (anyone knows this). The point I am trying to make is it doesn't make sense for their long term strategy. Many young consumers entering the market do not watch anywhere near as much linear television as older generations. That disparity is going to continue to grow over time. These people aren't going to pay $60+/month for subscription TV plus pay the online access fee, they are just going to go to the superior, less expensive foreign stream services like Netflix and Hulu Plus.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    Except none of us (except for maybe you) ... are investors in Shaw Media, Bell Media or Rogers Media.
    Actually, many of us probably are indirectly, through pension plans and mutual funds.

    You are probably right but perhaps Rogers, Shaw and Bell think it will take longer for most customers to make that switch way from conventional TV to Netflix, etc. If you're talking about bypassing geo-blocking, it will always be a small percentage of customers who do that.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,460
    Canadians and Australians have a lot in common. We both like to use the Internet to get around broadcaster limitations by climbing over our walled gardens, and the broadcasters like to control foreign content with an iron fist.

    However, now that the Internet allows us to climb over the walls (hello, VPNs and DNS trickery), each walled garden is now forced to add more flowers to keep the majority from attempting the wall climb. Relax. Stay where you are. Our garden has prettier flowers and our grass is the greenest.

    The Americans have a very pretty walled garden, but even they have wall climbers. Hulu is free, Hulu Plus and Netflix USA are rather cheap and don't require a BDU subscription. Still, there are many other pretty gardens to look at, so why settle for only one garden to look at?

    Cord cutters often become wall climbers. Even cable and satellite subscribers using the Internet to supplement their viewing, like to occasionally climb walls. Once you try Netflix Canada, it's tempting to try the other versions of Netflix for free, simply by using a VPN, etc. Netflix is often the gateway drug into wall climbing. So, if you can reduce the growth of Netflix Canada and other foreign services, by simply keeping your current subscribers from climbing walls, you might be able to slow the cord-cutting trend.

    Shomi is yet another attempt to discourage cord cutters and wall climbers by making the garden look prettier.

    Instead of going after the estimated 35% of Netflix Canada pirates (paying for all versions of Netflix using a VPN, etc.), Shomi is hoping to discourage the majority of Canadian cable/satellite subscribers from discovering a whole new world outside of the walls that keep getting higher. The prettier your walled garden looks, and the higher you think the walls are, the less likely it is that you will attempt to change your viewing behaviour.

    Instead of thinking about what you'll lose when you cut the TV cord, concentrate on what you'll gain.

    The walls stay up because the masses aren't willing to attempt the climb. And if they attempt the climb, but fall down on the first and second attempts, many of them never try again. That's the market that Shomi can get without much effort.

    It's 2014 and the cable/satellite companies are still leading the race ... they must be doing something right.

    As time passes, and the Netflix Canada wall climbers increase beyond the current estimated 35% level, the walls will have to be guarded by vicious guard dogs and other things that might make the wall climbers think twice about making the attempt, or at least making it much more likely that they fall flat on their ass when they attempt the climb.

    You live in Canada, and you'll watch what we tell you to watch. We've built a lovely garden. Now ignore the walls and focus on our pretty flowers. Aren't they lovely? We don't accept NO for an answer. Put those scissors down! Cord cutting will no longer be tolerated!



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
    [Walled Garden]
    Last edited by PokerFace; 09-22-2014 at 03:37 PM. Reason: added :" you might be able to slow the cord-cutting trend " to the 4th paragraph
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    ... Cord cutters often become wall climbers. Even cable and satellite subscribers using the Internet to supplement their viewing, like to occasionally climb walls...

    You live in Canada, and you'll watch what we tell you to watch...
    I'm one of the people who had little compulsion to climb the wall until recently. As I've mentioned in other threads, I only this year finally got home internet service (other than $3/month dial-up) for the first time, and not directly from one of the big conglomerates. The debacle of Speed/Fox, Rogers, Bell, etc., drove me to see the motorsports I like to watch, since the only way to see it was the internet, from completely legitimate legal sources by the way. And of course then it was quite easy to find other stuff I wanted to see and could easily find from not-so legit sources, without having to pay to subscribe to some hugely over-priced TV channel just for one show. I'll probably be dropping the IPTV part of the service in the not so distant future. A more reasonable type of pick and pay system and 'skinny basic' might encourage me to keep it ... but maybe not.
    So much of the thinking of the conglomerates still revolves around the outdated reflexive idea that they can stop us from watching what we want to see. Most people really don't like being told by some arrogant bloated conglomerate that you can't watch that stuff you want to see.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 09-22-2014 at 04:51 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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