Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    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.
    The way its worded is its a $25 cap meaning it can't go over.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,936
    It appears as though this $25 basic is real, the CBC just posted an article about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crtc-reforms-to-include-25-basic-cable-or-satellite-package-1.3001370

    I am sorry but I don't consider 25 bucks to be 'affordable' nor a reasonable amount. It says that basic will consist of the channels I listed above (locals, must-carry) plus all Canadian news channels. This is a joke, so much for the pro-consumer stance- 25 bucks is too high, especially since it doesn't include the US networks. If this is confirmed, most subscribers will not be happy.

    The article also says that the new changes will be phased in over the next year and a half- what a load of BS!


    Does a American add on for $3 make sense?
    I think its a reasonable amount, although Bell & Rogers would probably price it at $5 or $6.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    I bet Bell/Rogers are ready to party big time as they have just hit the jackpot.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    I think the Crtc knows there will be lots of backlash that is why there holding a 4:00 pm press conference while the one last one was at 1:00 pm.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,936
    The 4pm announcement has to do with the stock market, that is when it closes. All big CRTC decisions are announced at 4pm after the market closes because all these big conglomerates (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw) are publicly traded companies.

    Now I understand why the CRTC delayed this decision, which was originally supposed to be announced at the end of last year. They were busy negotiating a deal with the BDU's, this so-called 'skinny basic' which is actually a 'guaranteed revenue' package. 25 bucks makes sense, there is no way the conglomerates would settle for anything less, this is shaping up to be one big scam job- the consumer gets hosed YET AGAIN!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    The 4pm announcement has to do with the stock market, that is when it closes. All big CRTC decisions are announced at 4pm after the market closes because all these big conglomerates (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw) are publicly traded companies.

    Now I understand why the CRTC delayed this decision, which was originally supposed to be announced at the end of last year. They were busy negotiating a deal with the BDU's, this so-called 'skinny basic' which is actually a 'guaranteed revenue' package. 25 bucks makes sense, there is no way the conglomerates would settle for anything less, this is shaping up to be one big scam job- the consumer gets hosed YET AGAIN!
    Bell or Rogers better not come out crying saying its not fair we can't compete.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Although $25 is a rather steep price to pay for a few channels (+ then also paying for a digital box rental/purchase perhaps), at least it's a cheaper entry point into the walled garden, than dishing out more than $40/month. And if there are many more pick-and-pay channels made available in the future, that might help out a small minority of folks. The fact that few cord cutters or current subscribers will take advantage of the skinny basic package, means that the BDUs will hopefully be able to keep the previous plans close enough to the current rates.

    The CRTC can only do so much to bring about change. The rest is up to the consumers. If the masses refuse to fight back, things generally get worse.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    It might look cheaper but your getting less.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    It might look cheaper but your getting less.
    Oh, for crying out loud, we talked about this over and over and over.

    For 25$ or less, you get the ENTRY LEVEL basic service : OTA channels and the mandatory specialties (APTN, CPAC, House of Commons, CBC News...). From there, go your own way : pick a pre-built package that suits your needs or choose the channels you want. The price of basic service includes access to the Video-on-Demand free content, customer and technical service which is usally free, network maintenance. You'll most likely see additional fees such as Network fees or HD access fees.

    You're getting less, but if you don't have kids, you're not paying for useless kids channels such as YTV or Treehouse. You don't watch sports ? They do cost 2.50$ and more, each. Don't like Kardashian ? You won't pay anymore for Bell's Much crappy channel.

    Stop complaining, get the channels you want to watch.
    "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. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Another alternative would be to charge Canadians a $10/month entry fee into the walled garden, with ZERO channels, but the ability to use VOD services or to also stream (assuming you have the Internet) older content from Global, CTV, etc., as well as being allowed to subscribe to Crave and Shomi. Once you pay that $10/month entry fee you are considered a cable/satellite subscriber and can pick the channels or packages you want, from a set list.

    A cord cutter or current cable subscriber might find a $10/month entry fee less financially punishing, especially if they only have time for perhaps a premium movie channel, specialty channel, and a few hours a week watching some free OTA channels (via antenna). I had previously rejoined Rogers at the $10/month price level when it offered a free SD box and a bunch of basic channels (more than the proposed skinny basic) for a year.

    I only have a Rogers SD box (was free), but I suppose if I really wanted to watch something that I didn't think would appear online for free, I might be tempted to briefly signup to watch one channel for a few hours (if it cost $5 perhaps) and then keep it for the month (since they wouldn't let you cancel the next day). However, once I was hooked up, I'd probably watch some of the other free digital channels and perhaps notice something else listed within the TV guide that I would like to watch and perhaps pay for.

    The proposed "up to $25/month entry level" price point seems a bit high for me (unless perhaps I didn't already have the free OTA channels), so I'm not sure that I would jump at the chance to play in the Rogers sandbox at that price level.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,936
    Stop complaining, get the channels you want to watch.
    Now, now, complaining is what Canadians do best and cable/satellite are pay services so we have every right to complain. I agree with ottawasnowdog, you are getting less- the cap is set too high, it should have been set at $20. We all know that Bell & Rogers are going to charge the maximum amount they are allowed to, enough of this '$25 or less' crap, I will be waiting to see how many BDU's charge less then 25 bucks for this skinny basic package.

    The only consolation is that they will be allowed to continue to include the US networks in basic, if they choose to. I think the big boys (Bell, Rogers, Shaw) will focus on their existing basic package which includes some specialty channels, the skinny basic will just be an afterthought that will not be marketed very much, if at all.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    919
    It didn't take long to see some specialty channel adjustments based on the new rules. Earlier this week OLN aired a YES Network produced Blue Jays game against the Yankees. I wonder how long it will take for Much and M3 to start drastically reducing music content.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    It didn't take long to see some specialty channel adjustments based on the new rules. Earlier this week OLN aired a YES Network produced Blue Jays game against the Yankees. I wonder how long it will take for Much and M3 to start drastically reducing music content.
    I take it that the new content rules are effective immediately?! I wonder how many channel re-brands we will see in the coming months, I wonder if Bell might bring in VH1, not sure how well it would do in Canada but it is one American brand that is not available here. I would prefer to see some consolidation, some channels shut down and content merged together with other channels.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Very happy the CRTC will continue to allow the option of theme packs for consumers. The changes he made to specialty channels (allowing them to air whatever they want, reducing Canadian content requirements) looked like decisions for the broadcasters to survive in a pick and pay only world, which would be bad for consumers as channels cost more with pick and pay.

    I'm also happy providers will not be required to force all their customers to buy the $25 dollar skinny basic. I think very few consumers will decide to switch to skinny basic as most will see it as a rip off since it only includes free OTA channels and 91h services. Consumers who are used to basic packages that include many popular specialty channels for just a few dollars more are not going to think this is a good deal. I also don't think anyone not willing to spend over $25 dollars for cable is going to be okay with just getting the channels available in skinny basic.



    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Oh, for crying out loud, we talked about this over and over and over.

    For 25$ or less, you get the ENTRY LEVEL basic service : OTA channels and the mandatory specialties (APTN, CPAC, House of Commons, CBC News...).


    Actually, CBC News Network will not be part of skinny basic. If 24/7 news and breaking news is something you care about, the skinny basic alone is not a viable option. You could buy the skinny basic and then pay more for CBC News Network, Global News 1, CTV News Channel, BC1, CP24, etc.. in pick in pay or buy them together in a news theme pack,
    Last edited by TVViewer; 03-19-2015 at 09:44 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    I take it that the new content rules are effective immediately?!
    They haven't even written the new regulations, but I assume they're not going to enforce rules that are on the way out.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    I would prefer to see some consolidation, some channels shut down and content merged together with other channels.
    The zombie channels that are most likely to get shut down don't have content worth merging, do they? I'd like to see all of Comedy Central's shows on on Comedy rather than half of them on Much. I'm not optimistic.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan View Post
    They haven't even written the new regulations, but I assume they're not going to enforce rules that are on the way out.

    The zombie channels that are most likely to get shut down don't have content worth merging, do they? I'd like to see all of Comedy Central's shows on on Comedy rather than half of them on Much. I'm not optimistic.

    It makes zero sense for Bell Media to do that as Bell benefits from both channels splitting Comedy Central programming. In fact, with only the option of pick and pay for every channel on the way it has never made more sense to spread programming across several channels. Someone is way more likely to subscribe to an $8 dollar theme pack that includes MUCH and Comedy Network plus 6 other channels if both offer Comedy Central content instead of paying $4 dollars for MUCH and $4 dollars for Comedy Network in pick and pay. This way, even if you are in the small tiny minority who is only interested in Comedy Central programming and nothing else, you still don't benefit from pick and pay. Broadcasters don't even need to go this far since the vast majority of consumers are still better off with theme packs instead of choosing pick and pay but it is possible for Bell to ensure that even the small tiny near non-existent minority of people who would have been better off with pick and pay are actually better off sticking with theme packs.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.


    But you knew of the hearings, your happy with how everything is (or was) with the system (eg BDU/Broadcast regulations), and you participate here with those opinions. You can't lead me to believe your the only one on the Internet who was happy with existing system?



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.

    I don't think it was overly "complex" than your making it out to believe. I agree, some didn't know what they where talking about, but it's hard to defend broadcaster who's main goal is to import as much U.S. programming as possible; along with BDU's who add so much markup on per-channel price that it's raising the cost of having an BDU services now exceeds inflation[source] so its not hard to see why people have a problem, and even anger with the way our system works.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    No business anywhere would find the Let's Talk TV focus group acceptable.


    You have no idea what world you live in now? Do ever wonder why you they say "hashtag wordHere" or text "wordHere" to "100101" and even "Like us on Facebook"? That's how they gauge the audience and gather viewer opinions now. Just be happy that we haven't starting using hashtags on here yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The demographic wasn't even remotely close to reflective of Canada.


    Most if all surveys never do reflect or even remotely reflect any given population, especially these days with most people opting out of group participation's and refusing to-do phone surveys. This is been reported heavily in the news when election predictions have been far off on who gets voted in on election night.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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)

    Well, it was open to ALL Canadians, if they didn't want to participate that was their choice, and the ones who preferred the system as it was, but stayed silenced will pay the price for it. You can't assume that traditional survey's would get groups that included enough women or adults with families; the only survey that ever got that detailed in Canada was the long form census survey, and that was only because it was mandatory then.




    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Very happy the CRTC will continue to allow the option of theme packs for consumers. The changes he made to specialty channels (allowing them to air whatever they want, reducing Canadian content requirements) looked like decisions for the broadcasters to survive in a pick and pay only world, which would be bad for consumers as channels cost more with pick and pay.


    I don't think there was any indication that the CRTC would ban the sale of theme packs for consumers, only adding another option, pick-and-pay.

    But of course pick-and-pay would be more expensive because how else could Bell, Rogers and Shaw be right? Because if it was reasonably price, then they'll be wrong , which is wrong, because their right, and always will be right, even if their wrong, which will never happen, because their always right. Do you understand now?:cool2:

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm also happy providers will not be required to force all their customers to buy the $25 dollar skinny basic. I think very few consumers will decide to switch to skinny basic as most will see it as a rip off since it only includes free OTA channels and 91h services. Consumers who are used to basic packages that include many popular specialty channels for just a few dollars more are not going to think this is a good deal. I also don't think anyone not willing to spend over $25 dollars for cable is going to be okay with just getting the channels available in skinny basic.
    Only customers in existing packages before the switch over date won't have to buy the skinny basic. All new customers will have to buy skinny basic before they can buy pick-and-pay or theme package option.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Actually, CBC News Network will not be part of skinny basic. If 24/7 news and breaking news is something you care about, the skinny basic alone is not a viable option. You could buy the skinny basic and then pay more for CBC News Network, Global News 1, CTV News Channel, BC1, CP24, etc.. in pick in pay or buy them together in a news theme pack,
    CBC puts urgent breaking news onto its local stations if its a serious event, otherwise its something you can get over your smartphone these days.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;68447]

    But you knew of the hearings, your happy with how everything is (or was) with the system (eg BDU/Broadcast regulations), and you participate here with those opinions. You can't lead me to believe your the only one on the Internet who was happy with existing system?

    I'm saying it made little sense to participate in a very vague discussion about TV if you didn't really have any issues and didn't care if nothing gets changed. I'm sure most people would welcome any changes that benefits them but not even remotely close to enough people participated to give any indication whatsoever that the majority of Canadians are very unhappy with the existing system, and it simply doesn't make sense for someone who is happy or okay with the existing system to waste their time with the CRTC hearing.

    Regardless of the reason, The facts are a non-existent fraction of the population participated in a discussion about something used by almost the entire country. The vast majority of consumers either didn't know about it or overwhelmingly ignored the CRTC's Let's Talk TV.


    May I remind you that when broadcasters appealed directly to viewers with Local TV Matters, almost 115,000 Canadians submitted comments to the CRTC in support of their local station and the Local TV Matters campaign with just one hearing. The CRTC even admits that only about 13,000 Canadians participated in some part of Let's Talk TV throughout the entire process. Of all the topics up for discussion, all the platforms they made available, and all the time and resources they put into it the result was only about 13,000 people participating in some way (and it's likely less than that since the same people likely participated throughout the 3 parts of the process and were counted twice). The CRTC failed miserably at getting consumers to participate. There is no way they are not extremely disappointed with how many consumers engaged in the discussion. If a private business did something similar with the same disastrous results the people responsible for the campaign would probably be fired for wasting so much money.


    I don't think it was overly "complex" than your making it out to believe. I agree, some didn't know what they where talking about, but it's hard to defend broadcaster who's main goal is to import as much U.S. programming as possible; along with BDU's who add so much markup on per-channel price that it's raising the cost of having an BDU services now exceeds inflation[source] so its not hard to see why people have a problem, and even anger with the way our system works.
    I disagree, I think the issues were extremely complex for the average consumer, the consequences weren't stated, and nothing was explained very well by the CRTC

    You have no idea what world you live in now? Do ever wonder why you they say "hashtag wordHere" or text "wordHere" to "100101" and even "Like us on Facebook"? That's how they gauge the audience and gather viewer opinions now. Just be happy that we haven't starting using hashtags on here yet.

    It's one way to connect with consumers, it's not how companies make major decisions. No organization is saying "this is what people want, let's do this" because of a few Facebook or Twitter comments. A small number of online comments all coming from one certain demographic are not going to be taken very seriously by a business who doesn't just serve that demographic.
    Most if all surveys never do reflect or even remotely reflect any given population, especially these days with most people opting out of group participation's and refusing to-do phone surveys. This is been reported heavily in the news when election predictions have been far off on who gets voted in on election night.

    It's still more than possible to do a survey not heavily skewed to one demographic. Companies do it all the time, broadcasters have online panels where the demographic is controlled. You can control how many people participate with a certain income, age, gender, kids, location, etc..

    Well, it was open to ALL Canadians, if they didn't want to participate that was their choice, and the ones who preferred the system as it was, but stayed silenced will pay the price for it. You can't assume that traditional survey's would get groups that included enough women or adults with families; the only survey that ever got that detailed in Canada was the long form census survey, and that was only because it was mandatory then.
    Well, not really because most of the things they liked didn't change. Also, I think most people would agree that the CRTC is only using the "Canadians told us they wanted this" card for issues they were already planning to implement. A lot of the people who did participate in the discussion wasted their time as the CRTC didn't implement a lot of what they wanted. A lot of what was implemented were CRTC original ideas, not ideas from the online comments.


    I don't think there was any indication that the CRTC would ban the sale of theme packs for consumers, only adding another option, pick-and-pay.

    But of course pick-and-pay would be more expensive because how else could Bell, Rogers and Shaw be right? Because if it was reasonably price, then they'll be wrong , which is wrong, because their right, and always will be right, even if their wrong, which will never happen, because their always right. Do you understand now?:cool2:



    Only customers in existing packages before the switch over date won't have to buy the skinny basic. All new customers will have to buy skinny basic before they can buy pick-and-pay or theme package option.
    No BDU is required to force anyone to buy the skinny basic, they just have to make the skinny basic option available. If they want they can still have their own basic and consumers can choose if they want to buy skinny basic or the other basic. They could decide to make skinny basic the only basic available for consumers, but there is no requirement for them to do so. They do have to force you to buy some sort of basic though, you can't just buy theme packs and/or pick and pay channels.

    CBC puts urgent breaking news onto its local stations if its a serious event
    CBC is among the worst for not airing breaking news coverage, especially local breaking news, on the local CBC station. CBC will often continue with regular programming even when CTV and Global break in, and this is WITH CBC News Network in basic for all Canadians, this is going to get even worse now that CBC News Network wont be in basic for everyone (and this is also going to result in CBC News Network losing more subscribers than most other channels, as most channels are not in basic on all providers) CBC News Network and other all news channels will need to do everything they can to ensure that as many people as possible subscribe and I think one of the results of this will be less breaking news and special coverage on conventional stations. Last Thursday Global stations aired a 1 hour live special covering the Alberta budget while CTV, CBC, and City stations in Alberta continued with regular programming (although a special did air on CTV2), I wouldn't be surprised if next time all the Alberta conventional stations air regular programming with the budget only on Global News 1 as there is now more incentive for Global News 1 to be the only station broadcasting a 1 hour live special of the budget instead of Global. The CRTC has given broadcasters a huge incentive to ensure news channels have as much exclusive valuable content Canadians want as possible.


    otherwise its something you can get over your smartphone these days.
    I know you don't think television news is important but the audience data is quite clear that television news, especially local news, is still very important to most Canadians. Just like any channel or type of programming not every single Canadian is going to want television news or 24/7 news channels but I see no reason to believe that most people wont continue to subscribe to news channels with theme packs & pick and pay. There is no way CBC News Network wont survive, it just wont bring in as much revenue as it does now.

    However I do think a negative outcome of this will be more job losses and cuts at CBC News. The budget for CBC News was likely made under the assumption that every Canadian would continue to be paying a subscriber fee for CBC News Network. Last I checked CBC News Network had more subscribers than any other specialty channel in Canada but they are far from the #1 most watched specialty channel in Canada. Even providers that were offering every other news channel in theme packs were offering CBC News Network in basic. It's certainly possible for a 24/7 news channel to be successful in a news theme pack but CBC News Network currently doesn't operate under a theme pack business model, they operate under a model where even the people on the far right who hate CBC News are paying a subscriber fee for it. Other channels that many providers include in basic like MUCH, CMT, MTV, etc. can adapt by changing their programming and charging a higher subscription fee. YTV can adapt with less Canadian content (they can air less due to the CRTC's new rules and their spending on cancon is tied to their revenue), but CBC News Network? The only option they have is to spend less money on CBC's news operations. They can do everything they can to ensure as many Canadians who want CBC News subscribe to CBC News Network as possible, but they have the most subscribers to lose and their revenue is pretty much guaranteed to decrease. They will now have to worry about someone who only cares about local news buying CP24 or Global News 1 in pick in pay instead of a theme pack with CBC News Network. Also, unlike most of the entertainment channels in basic, the carriage fee for CBC News Network in basic is quite high, I think it will be a challenge for them to raise their carriage fee even more when there are other national news channels like CTV News Channel asking for a much lower fee.
    Although it is a good thing for the other news channels for CBC News Network to be at a level playing field, it's not good for CBC News as they benefit from everyone being forced to pay for it. The Weather Network is another channel that doesn't have a theme pack business model and I think will face some challenges.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 03-29-2015 at 10:30 AM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,140
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post


    I'm saying it made little sense to participate in a very vague discussion about TV if you didn't really have any issues and didn't care if nothing gets changed.
    What an idiotic statement or typical TVViewer, just stating nonsense to suit his views. You think only those who participated in those hearings were people who wanted changes or were upset with the way things currently are? So, people who protest issues in the streets, you may get a thousand let's say in Toronto of millions. So, only a thousand people in those millions care about whatever the issue is? Those who vote, those are the only people who care about the issues or have a gripe about an issue in an election? What BS, but not surprising from this guy.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    What an idiotic statement or typical TVViewer, just stating nonsense to suit his views. You think only those who participated in those hearings were people who wanted changes or were upset with the way things currently are? So, people who protest issues in the streets, you may get a thousand let's say in Toronto of millions. So, only a thousand people in those millions care about whatever the issue is? Those who vote, those are the only people who care about the issues or have a gripe about an issue in an election? What BS, but not surprising from this guy.
    Happy to see you feel this way about anything I say, but unfortunately I didn't say that only the people who were upset with the existing system and wanted things changed were the ones who participated in the hearing. I do have the view that a low number of complaints is an indication that not many people are upset about a certain issue, which is the same view every business, Government, etc. has about complaints/protests/votes/anything. It's my view that something a large number of people use should not be changed just because a small tiny fraction of the people who use it complained, but I certainly didn't say the only people who were upset were the ones who complained at the CRTC hearing. I always consider it a good thing when you claim whatever I said was "idiotic" or "nonsense" so it's upsetting that this is one of the times you had to change what I said to do so. Can you please reassure me that you think what I actually said is idiotic and nonsense instead of what you made up?
    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
  •