Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    BDU penetration in Canada is among the highest in the world. This is NOT an indication that BDU packaging needs a major overhaul.
    The problem with vertically-intergrated conglomerates owning the majority of stations and specialties, and distribution to the vast majority of canadians means that some safeguards needs to be added.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Quebec is not a valid example. It's ridiculous to compare a French market with only a handful of French channels to an English market with significantly more English channels and say that since boring basic and pick and pay works in the French market it will work just as well in English Canada.
    Quebec is not a valid example ? What, we are aliens ?
    You said youself in another thread that Montreal english-market is the same size as Winnipeg. There goes your sample market.

    As for Bell, they do offer some specialties on basic along with popular packages and Pick & Pay, so you complain for nothing. Even better, Bell added RDS to basic service on Feb 19th, 2015, because they want to increase their ratings versus TVA Sports. Oh yeah, basic TV service increase by 2$ starting April 1st.

    Is that a good example of "anti-customer proposal" you're reffering to ?
    "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."

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,011
    For an independent broadcaster running a successful Cat-B specialty channel, Bell Media can sign a multi-million deal for content from an american counterpart, then rebrand any of their zombie-state specialty.
    I think these new rule changes are going to lead to a flood of channels undergoing re-brands and with the conglomerates only carrying about profit, this means 'niche' channels will be morphed into more mainstream fare. I don't like the elimination of genre protection as it will spell the end of many independents who don't have the means to go head to head with Bell or Shaw.

    I noticed in the latest policy document the CRTC releasing relating to these decisions, they have done away with the channel category designations and will be replacing them with the following more generic designations:

    • Basic services (including over-the-air conventional and community television stations and provincial educational services)
    • Discretionary services (all pay and specialty services, including those services, other than conventional television stations, granted mandatory distribution on the basic service pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Act)
    • On-demand services (PPV and VOD services
    I like this simplified system better, its more straightforward and hopefully all specialty channels will now be on equal footing- no more must-carry or must-offer services, except for those that are part of the basic service.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    I like this simplified system better, its more straightforward and hopefully all specialty channels will now be on equal footing- no more must-carry or must-offer services, except for those that are part of the basic service.
    Pay TV melted into specialties ? That would give rights for Bell to add commercials and snipes on TMN/HBO. Ouch.
    "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."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;68330]

    The problem with vertically-intergrated conglomerates owning the majority of stations and specialties, and distribution to the vast majority of canadians means that some safeguards needs to be added.
    Theme packs and including specialty channels in basic existed for decades before any BDU purchased any broadcaster. Also, prohibiting packages and/or specialty channels in basic is not a safeguard, it's an extreme form of anti-consumer regulation

    Quebec is not a valid example ? What, we are aliens ?
    You said youself in another thread that Montreal english-market is the same size as Winnipeg. There goes your sample market.

    As for Bell, they do offer some specialties on basic along with popular packages and Pick & Pay, so you complain for nothing. Even better, Bell added RDS to basic service on Feb 19th, 2015, because they want to increase their ratings versus TVA Sports. Oh yeah, basic TV service increase by 2$ starting April 1st.

    Is that a good example of "anti-customer proposal" you're reffering to ?

    I explained why it's not a valid example. The majority of Quebec speaks French and watches French channels, and there are significantly fewer French channels than English channels. Pick and pay works if only a small number of channels exist and you only watch a few channels, but it's not like that in English Canada. If the U.S., which has a similar number of television channels and similar viewing habits, had a pick and pay system then that would be a good comparison to make, but the U.S. has the packaging system.


    My point is it doesn't make sense to take something done in one city or province and force every city and province to do the same thing. You even pointed out that not even all providers serving Quebec offer what exactly Videotron does, so how is this any indication that all providers across Canada should be forced to offer basic and packaging the same way as Videotron?


    Again, not saying offering the OPTION of pick and pay is bad (and again, lots of providers already do offer many channels in pick and pay in addition to theme packs), I'm saying it would be very anti-consumer for the regulator to prohibit specialty channels in basic or prohibit the theme pack system.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 03-16-2015 at 07:55 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Again, NORMAL consumers who don't have a problem with the existing system didn't participate in Let's Talk TV! Only people like you who don't like the existing system and wanted to complain participated. Let's Talk TV was not a valid consumer focus group. The views were not reflective of Canada AND the DEMOGRAPHIC of the people who participated were not reflective of Canada.


    Your just upset because no one on the Let's Talk TV forums shared any of your viewpoints. Besides, you of all people should know that focus groups no longer reflected the general public opinion anymore.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    BDU penetration in Canada is among the highest in the world. This is NOT an indication that BDU packaging needs a major overhaul. The amount of people complaining is non-existent compared to the amount of people who choose to subscribe to cable and satellite in Canada. There is no evidence that no packages and mandatory skinny basic is what the vast majority of consumers want. There is zero evidence that the vast majority of Canadians are unhappy with the existing system.


    I think your missing the point, people want to subscribe to a BDU, but don't want to have pay for channels they'll never watch.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,048
    Ah, c'mon, Canadians obviously want to keep dozens of pointless TV channels alive.
    ... Well, I will admit it at least gave me a good laugh.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    ... For once it would be nice to have a discussion on this forum without you hijacking the conversation and attacking everyone and their opinions. It would be nice to know why the owner of this once-great forum allows you to run amok, only 3 or 4 members post on a regular basis anymore- what a sad state of affairs.
    But I do have to admit it's a big part of why I (and I would assume others) look at this site increasingly less often than I had been doing. If someone's goal is to "win" by driving away everyone else with childish temper tantrums and ad hominem insults, and eventually be the only one left here, then congratulations to him as his plan finally seems to be working.

    The conglomerates attempts to characterize removing their outdated protection as anti-Canadian also kind of makes me laugh.
    http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/0...lus-ca-change/
    Beware of Vested Interests Wrapping Themselves in the Flag and the Public Interest
    In a world in which the forces of the status quo loom large, these changes will rattle some. Anticipating resistance from some well-established quarters, Blais took aim at those who would fight to turn-back the clock:
    If you hear criticisms of our decisions ask yourself this question: Are the arguments advanced by these critics those of the public interest or are they rather those that find their true roots in private entitlement, dressed up to look like they are founded on the broader public interest? This town is full of lobbyists whose job it is to spin their client’s private interests into something else, to wrap themselves up, as it were, in the flag, and to puff about Parliament Hill with an air of shock and dismay.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 03-18-2015 at 09:02 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,011
    Even though the 'vast majority' may not have expressed their opinions through the CRTC process does not mean that they are happy with their TV service. I think I can state quite unequivocally that the vast majority of Canadians want to be able to pay ONLY for the channels they are interested in AND the vast majority of Canadians are fed up with the continuously rising prices of cable/satellite service.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Blais' speech made me doubt how well he and the other commissioners understand the industry.

    Of the great non-American series he suggested looking to for inspiration, all but one of them were produced by public broadcasters. No regulations are going to get Canada's private broadcasters to make shows like those.

    Their "new" idea of adapting Canadian novels for television is insulting to the creative people in the industry. We are already doing a fine job of making television based on Canadian novels, but what makes novels better or more important than original ideas?

    The CRTC doesn't even seem to understand the use of temporary productions companies; a practice that is as common in the U.S. as it is in Canada.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;68337]
    Your just upset because no one on the Let's Talk TV forums shared any of your viewpoints.

    Most people were not even aware the hearing was going on or what the hearing was about, but if you were one of the few who did know about the hearing it only made sense to take the time to participate in the discussion if you had a vested interest in the outcome (ex. OTA viewer) or if you didn't like the existing system and wanted to complain. Most people simply don't care enough about the topics that were up for discussion so it made zero sense for them to participate, and it made even less sense to participate if you are fine with how everything is now. It's like this with anything, people who take the time and make the effort to express their opinion are WAY more likely to complain and want changes.

    To make things worse, the issues up for discussion were very complex and the vast majority of the people expressing their opinions knew very little about what they were talking about and the consequences of what they were saying.. You need to know exactly what things are and exactly why they exist before you can make an informed opinion, and the CRTC didn't allow for that.


    Besides, you of all people should know that focus groups no longer reflected the general public opinion anymore.

    No business anywhere would find the Let's Talk TV focus group acceptable. The demographic wasn't even remotely close to reflective of Canada. That's the problem with the online platform, you are not going to get anything remotely close to a demographic reflective of Canada. The group of single adult males who make up the majority of the Let's Talk TV demographic (along with the demographic of online discussions on these issues on sites like this one and Digital Home) shouldn't decide the future of something the entire country uses (especially since issues like pick and pay garner different results in surveys I have seen that include women and adults with families)



    I think your missing the point, people want to subscribe to a BDU, but don't want to have pay for channels they'll never watch.
    I think you are missing the point of WHY some people say that.

    There is no evidence available for the exact reason, but there is lots of evidence that people like to save money, and it's logical for the average consumer to assume that if they only paid for the channels they watch they would save money, but they wont because the price of the channels they do watch will go up. In my opinion it's not normal to care that you are paying for channels you don't watch if the result is you end up paying less than you would otherwise. There are some exceptions (for example some people are offended by views expressed on channels like SUN News or Al Jazeera and don't want their money going towards them) but there is zero evidence and no reason for the average person to care that they are paying for OLN in a theme pack if they save money paying for the theme pack with OLN over buying the channels they want individually, and if a low rated channel is in basic, it's getting an EXTREMELY low carriage fee, and I don't think most people are insane enough to care that some channel like MUCH is getting a few cents from them for being included in basic, especially since they likely benefit from other channels they actually watch being included in basic.

    What I'm saying is, let's require that consumers have the option of pick and pay. If there are people who want to pay more for channels a la carte if it means they are only paying for the channels they watch then let them do so, but let's not force everyone to do this by making it the only option available. I don't think it's fair to impose regulation that results in the price of channels increasing just because a few people don't want to pay a few cents for channels in basic they don't happen to watch. It's just TV, if you can't be okay with paying for CBC News Network or YTV or CP24 in basic then don't subscribe to cable, don't expect everyone to pay more for channels just because you want to ensure every penny you pay for goes only to channels you personally watch. There is an issue that sports channels are becoming so incredibly expensive that they are making a noticeable impact on driving up the cost of basic, but channels that collect a very low subscriber fee from being included in basic shouldn't be a realistic concern. You pay a lot more for CBC, go complain about that if you have a problem with a television station you don't watch getting your money.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    922
    TVViewer, let's wait and see what the decision is tomorrow. I have no reason to believe the CRTC will force only a pick n pay model for television. I'm pretty sure cable systems are going to be allowed to continue offering packages because consumers do like bundles too.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan View Post
    Blais' speech made me doubt how well he and the other commissioners understand the industry.

    Of the great non-American series he suggested looking to for inspiration, all but one of them were produced by public broadcasters. No regulations are going to get Canada's private broadcasters to make shows like those.

    Their "new" idea of adapting Canadian novels for television is insulting to the creative people in the industry. We are already doing a fine job of making television based on Canadian novels, but what makes novels better or more important than original ideas?

    The CRTC doesn't even seem to understand the use of temporary productions companies; a practice that is as common in the U.S. as it is in Canada.


    I have been making this point for weeks. They are clueless about so many things of the broadcasting industry they regulate. They have put forward so many proposals and announced so many decisions that someone who really understands how broadcasting works would simply not make.

    There is also the disturbing pattern of how he makes eliminating/reducing Canadian content the solution for every bad decision he implements. He left local conventional stations under an unsustainable business model with the only solution of eliminating Canadian content requirements outside of primetime. He reduced Canadian content requirements for specialty channels to 35% as the solution for whatever decision he makes with packaging, and now he's saying if services like CraveTV and shomi are offered to cord cutters they can be exempt from Canadian content requirements VOD. Reducing cancon obligations may be the fair response to decisions that bring financial harm to these companies, but this shouldn't be the goal of the regulator. In my opinion the regulator should want a strong healthy industry that is able to serve Canadians with Canadian content, not one that can only afford to commit to a little bit of Canadian content.


    I'm far from the biggest supporter of the Canadian independent production industry, I think they should be grateful that they are able to do the job they love because they wouldn't be able to do so if we had a free market system since most Canadian programming is unprofitable, but I think they have every right to be upset that the broadcast regulator is imposing regulations that put their jobs at risk, regulations that are the exact opposite of free market decisions. In a free market (like the one that exists in the U.S.), local stations wouldn't be prohibited from protecting the exclusive rights they paid for if they don't broadcast OTA, but the CRTC has put in extreme regulation requiring that only stations who operate under an unprofitable advertising-only business model can have their exclusive rights protected. In a free market (like the one in the U.S.), cable companies are able to sell channels in theme packs, It's not a free market if cable companies are regulated to only sell channels individually or not include them in basic. These are regulations that bring harm to the Canadian production industry, and it's hard to see how the Canadian production industry should accept anti free market regulations that put their jobs in jeopardy. Even though it wont have as big of an impact as the other decisions, they should be the most upset about the CRTC's proposal for a third VOD category that doesn't have Canadian content obligations and can keep their content exclusive from other BDU's if they offer their service to everyone on the internet. You have VOD services like shomi and CraveTV willing to commit to Canadian content requirements and obligations and then you have the CRTC trying to entice them to NOT fund Canadian content. Even though it's unlikely that anyone will want to move from the existing VOD regulations (which are not changing) to the new less regulated VOD category the CRTC is creating, the fact that the CRTC wants and is encouraging them to do so and providing no Canadian content obligations as the main incentive should be infuriating for Canadian producers. The CRTC isn't just not protecting them, this CRTC is out to get them.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    TVViewer, let's wait and see what the decision is tomorrow. I have no reason to believe the CRTC will force only a pick n pay model for television. I'm pretty sure cable systems are going to be allowed to continue offering packages because consumers do like bundles too.
    I hope you are right.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,466
    The CRTC (regardless of who's calling the shots) is not strong enough to fight the BDUs. The CRTC created the monsters and now they want to kill them or put them back in their cages? Good luck with that.

    Even if the CRTC (and even FCC) one day abolished the packaging of channels (in favour of a pick-and-pay system) due to the increased popularity of the Internet, the BDUs would simply raise prices and drop any US channels that refused to be part of Canada's pick and pay system. And if that in turn caused consumers to drop cable/satellite/Internet/phone services in retaliation, the BDUs would simply offer them sweetheart deals to keep the majority hooked up.

    Even when things were much worse (no Internet), the majority of North Americans still remained hooked up. And now even with more options via the Internet, the BDUs still seem to have a captive audience (at least for now). You can't really escape their clutches (they get a piece of almost everything).

    Tired of the high prices? Switch to a company's unadvertised plans that are much cheaper because they offer fewer channels or no frills (these unadvertised plans are open to everyone, but rarely mentioned, even if cancellation is threatened) ... such as Rogers' Skinny Basic service, Bell's access land line, etc.

    Big changes to the system that upset the BDUs would most likely make things worse for the fringe element. When you anger the BDUs, they tend to fight back in unpredictable ways. However, as several others have previously mentioned, there should always be some safeguards in place to protect both the masses and the fringe element from the raging BDUs ... absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

    Do consumers now need a safeguard to protect us from a CRTC that might end up doing more harm than good? Well, I never trusted the CRTC to fix any previous problems (many of which they created in the first place), so I always hoped they would just quit and go back to working for the BDUs and stop hiding behind the illusion of being on the consumer side of things.

    I have nothing to do with the TV industry, I just watch TV ... all kinds of stuff, from many different countries. Do I care what country makes what? To some degree, yes. However, if all the Canadian content disappeared from the airwaves and the Internet offered nothing fresh from "our home and native land," so be it. Instead of trying to preserve Canadian content just because it's Canadian-made, let's clear the air from the stench of the past, and fill the air time with more of the quality stuff that Canadians are getting better at producing and creating.

    Regardless of what the CRTC does, or doesn't do, the consumer gets the final word ... you either pay for the services offered, or you don't.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 03-19-2015 at 01:22 AM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,011
    Well, I never trusted the CRTC to fix any previous problems (many of which they created in the first place)
    While I agree that the CRTC is to blame for many of the problems that exist in the industry today (vertical integration, over regulation, cancon quotas to name a few), each administration is not the same. The current Commissioner has taken a pro-consumer stance (probably at the direction of his political masters) as opposed to previous guys who were simply industry shills that didn't even give the time of day to consumers let alone rule in their favour. I for one welcome the change and hope they continue making changes that are favourable to us lowly consumers instead of the big greedy conglomerates.

    With that in mind, I am hoping for the following from today's rulings:

    1- Skinny basic with a mandated price (Affordability should be at the heart of this decision, ALL Canadians should have access to a simple, basic service)
    2- Pick n' Pay with affordable pricing scheme (not Bell's $4 a channel crap- most specialty channels are not worth 4 bucks a month).
    3- Customizable packages with affordable pricing scheme
    4- Elimination of ALL linkage rules for Ethnic channels, freedom to subscribe ONLY to the channels you are interested in

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Skinny basic-Ctv/Ctv2/City/Omni/Chch/Global/Cbc/Aptn $15.00
    American add on-Nbc/Cbs/Abc/Fox/Cw $3.00

    If they come out with something like that I would be very happy.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,011
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    Skinny basic-Ctv/Ctv2/City/Omni/Chch/Global/Cbc/Aptn $15.00
    American add on-Nbc/Cbs/Abc/Fox/Cw $3.00

    If they come out with something like that I would be very happy.
    Looks good to me, especially the $15 price point because that is what I would price it at as well. You forgot a few of the must-carry channels, here is what the skinny basic would look like if they decide to go this route:

    CBC
    CTV
    CTV Two
    City
    Global
    Ici Radio-Canada
    Educational service
    (where one exists)
    Multicultural channel (where one exists)
    Religious service (where one exists)
    Indie broadcasters (CHCH, CHEK, NTV)

    Must-Carry [9 (1) (h) channels]
    AMI-tv
    AMI-télé
    AMI Audio
    APTN
    Canal M
    CPAC
    Ici RDI
    Unis

    Provincial legislature channel (where one exists)

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Does a American add on for $3 make sense?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    the regulator should want a strong healthy industry that is able to serve Canadians with Canadian content
    As long as Canadian programming expenditure requirements are maintained, how much will the industry be hurt by lower Canadian content requirements?
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    In a free market (like the one in the U.S.), cable companies are able to sell channels in theme packs, It's not a free market if cable companies are regulated to only sell channels individually or not include them in basic.
    But it is not a free market, for many reasons, but the most relevant is that it is an oligopoly with regionally dominant firms that became entrenched as monopolies. Markets like these need to be regulated for the benefit of consumers. Despite that, I don't support regulated pick-and-pay and don't think many will benefit from it.
    Last edited by SportsFan; 03-19-2015 at 02:50 PM.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    The Ottawa Citizen has leaked a bit of it there will be a cap of $25 I really hope this is not true.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,011
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    The Ottawa Citizen has leaked a bit of it there will be a cap of $25 I really hope this is not true.
    What does that mean?! Will the price of basic be $25 or will the price not be allowed to exceed $25?! I really hope its not the former, 25 bucks for a basic package of Canadian locals is too much IMO.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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