dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6804
share rss forum feed


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
kudos:4
reply to TypeS

Re: VMedia fights mandatory channel carriage

said by TypeS:

As Headspinning pointed out, who are we, as consumers, to tell a private enterprise how much profit they get to make? You get to do that indirectly by choosing a competitor but otherwise it's not really your business.

Wake up! Look around these canadians forums :
- We complain that we pay too much for cellphone with Robellus, so we expect small operators such as Public Mobile to buy spectrum and offer service for a much reasonnable price.
- Residential phone service from Bell is still overpriced, makes you pay 12$ for call display and $0.43 per minute for long distance calls if you don't take a LD plan, not to forget the 6$ LD network fee! VoIP is cheap and makes you realise you pay too much for options that are just an on/off switch and LD is cheap just like bandwidth.
- We complain that satellite/cable television costs too much but you guys living in the GTA (Toronto) area can get ALL conventional channels and Buffalo channels for free using an antenna.
- The whole UBB story at the CRTC makes you realise that IISPs are paying a static ~20$ per subscriber per month to Bell, leaving a 10$ of profit from the regular DSL offer for 30$/month while our big telecom companies set the regular internet at 45$ per month and try to convince you it's how it costs now.

Why aren't we complaining about the cost of cable TV ? This is why I posted reality costs here for specialty television, to make you realise you pay too much.

I'm sorry that you Rogers customers are paying way way too much for television, but you guys seem to be under the impression that a 40$ cable bill (for Basic Premium) is a fair price that you hope will compensate CTV, Global, Citytv, and all the specialties. I'm sorry to inform you that only 12$ out of the 40$ you'll pay actually goes to the broadcasters.

If you take a Netflix subscription, for 8$ you get a buffet of on-demand movies and television shows for a whole month, makes you wonder how they make money. Yet, you're OK to pay 40$ per month for IPTV that costs at minimum 12$ ?

Anyways, unlike IISPs, vmedia's price card is just one buck or two below Rogers, which may seem ok for you, but it's still expensive compared to Quebec tv offering (it's no different here, same channels), and I still find Videotron very expensive.

As I said earlier, George may have help Teksavvy during the UBB fiasco so we can continue to get internet at a fair price, but his IPTV offering is not based on real costs, but based on Rogers price card minus 5%.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

For one, I am not a Rogers customer other than for wireless.

I think you need a bit of wake up call. You're extrapolating too much. We all want fairer prices. That doesn't mean a company needs to accept a slim profit margin. You are attacking quite viciously only the front end of the entire Media industry. There's more a play here. And the ONLY way anything ever going get done to is to send the message to government setting all the rules.

NetFlix is purely On Demand, not mention the majority of the content is only available after DVD/BluRay release. None of the content is live except for the very few NetFlix owned series. It is by no means even comparable to TV subscription service. Please use something that actually offers a similar service if you're going to offer an alternative model.

BTW please prove to me that the EXACT costs (and I mean every costs supply, demand, overhead, advertising, operations) is only $12/month. You have yet to prove anything except supply.



Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

said by En Enfer:

=== Distribution ===
We need to establish an acceptable profit a distributor can make.

Who appointed you king of the universe? No you don't need to "establish an acceptable profit" - that's why there's competition and market forces.

The part that needs to be regulated are the unnatural barriers to entry due to vertically integrated BDUs.

Easy big guy. He's just playing with numbers. Thinking out loud type thing. What i'd like to see is a list of the stations versus what you pay for it in Quebec and what you pay in Ontario (Videotron versus Rogers Versus Vmedia Versus Acanac/Zazeen).

With the packaging it makes it kind of hard to follow Vmedia. But one could break it down.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:22
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

BTW please prove to me that the EXACT costs (and I mean every costs supply, demand, overhead, advertising, operations) is only $12/month. You have yet to prove anything except supply.

All the hardware required to run an IPTV BDU is very NOT cheap, not to mention all the development effort and manpower to pull it off... especially during the initial startup phase when you're doing all this stuff for the first time... I really don't see much of an issue with VMedia's basic package price. It's maybe $5 more than I think it should be, but nowhere near so dramatic as what En Enfer is saying (he wants the $40 package sold for closer to $15 or something, it seems)...

The killer for VMedia, as pointed out, is the forced bundling is particularly bad. It seems like they're competitive on the lower end, but they don't compete well (even in Ontario) for higher-end customers. They don't have any equivalent of Videotron's "telemax" package or the Rogers equivalent, the classic two-package service where you get the basic channel pack and the extended channel pack for something like $25-30 extra that includes pretty much everything most people want. VMedia's "basic+premium" pack is probably the closest equivalent, but doesn't have anywhere near enough channels on top of basic to be a "telemax" style thing.

VMedia's basic pack is solid. It's actually a better value than Videotron's basic pack, including more channels for about the same cost. But VMedia's $15 premium pack leaves a big gap after it; there's no $25-30 general pack (non-theme) that would give you stuff like Teletoon or HGTV...

I think that VMedia's "UChoose" will help. It will make the $40 basic/premium a viable option if you can just tack on the missing channels instead of needing tons of expensive packs, and that may well make the package for high-end customers a good value.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

NetFlix is purely On Demand, not mention the majority of the content is only available after DVD/BluRay release. None of the content is live except for the very few NetFlix owned series. It is by no means even comparable to TV subscription service. Please use something that actually offers a similar service if you're going to offer an alternative model.

As I said earlier, live television broadcaster do all the heavy lifting : production, acquisitions, advertisement sales, release a schedule, and put the content on the air.

Bell and Rogers just sit on their ass and takes care of selling the combined final products to the customers, along with the technical support, but they're in NO WAY responsible for the content. But they get more than a 100% cut for relaying the (compressed) result to the customer's home.

Netflix have acquisitions, a few production, encoding, sales, customer service and technical support service. The only thing they can't do is sell an internet connection, which is also something IPTV providers don't have to do.

So, why does Netflix cost less than live TV when they're doing twice the job than a live broadcaster ?
Also, just like Youtube, Netflix could technically also offer live streams of promotional content.

said by TypeS:

BTW please prove to me that the EXACT costs (and I mean every costs supply, demand, overhead, advertising, operations) is only $12/month. You have yet to prove anything except supply.

I don't have to prove anything to you. It's all public information on the CRTC's website.

Basic service (listed after the introduction) : »crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-19.htm

Specialties and Pay-per-view financial summaries : »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/stats4.htm

Each specialties have revenues (subscription, advertising, other), and expenses (programming, administration, sales, technical).

Offer vs. demand, it's ratings vs. advertisement sales.

Have fun with number crunching.

said by Guspaz:

It's maybe $5 more than I think it should be, but nowhere near so dramatic as what En Enfer is saying (he wants the $40 package sold for closer to $15 or something, it seems)...

Constant cost + acceptable profit.

If IISPs are able to sell 10$ profit per subscriber, if voip.ms is able to sell phone service for less than 5$ per month, why are IPTV providers making a 30$ profit per subscriber?
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by En Enfer:

I don't have to prove anything to you. It's all public information on the CRTC's website.

Actually, YES you have to prove it. You have not proven VMedia's costs AT ALL except for supply. Are you dense enough to not how a business (any business) operates? Again, you have yet to forth any foundation for your vicious and ludicrous accusation earlier of "500% profit markup".

And why do you keep bringing up NetFlix? They do not offer the same service. Are intentionally being obtuse? They are almost entirely a VOD service. Please show me where on NetFlix I can watch local news, sporting vents and watch all currently airing TV show seasons that NetFlix does not own.


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
kudos:4

said by TypeS:

And why do you keep bringing up NetFlix? They do not offer the same service. Are intentionally being obtuse? They are almost entirely a VOD service. Please show me where on NetFlix I can watch local news, sporting vents and watch all currently airing TV show seasons that NetFlix does not own.

You still haven't answer my question.

How do you explain that Netflix costs only 8$/month for a buffet while live broadcasting costs 25$/month ? They both deliver video data over IP protocol from the source to your terminal.

You keep telling me it's not the same service, but it's about the *content*, not the *distribution*.

Your local news, you can get them using an antenna (CFPL-DT 10.1, transmitter located on Gordon avenue in London).

The vmedia terminal interacts with the internet, you can get the CTV, Global and Citytv apps to watch any TV shows that Netflix does not own. Alternatively, you can plug your computer or laptop to your big screen TV for additional content.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

Wow you either dense or escape the mental institution.

They are not the same services, at all. Why the hell would I want to go through the trouble of installing an antenna? If I wanted to do that, I already would have.

Suggesting I always connect, my computer to my TV is always anothter stupid idea. I already do that for my family and it still doesn't cut it.

NetFlix is not the same service.

Since you keep bringing it up, NetFlix's choice in Canada is abysmal compared to the U.S.

Tell you what, why don't you go start a campaign, go to all the Rogers, Videotron & Shaw customers across the Canada, and tell me how many don't laugh you off their property when you tell them they can replace their cable TV service with NetFlix and have the exact same experience.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:22
reply to GeorgeBurger

Netflix has to encode content a single time and then can serve it up over and over again. When they need to encode a new video, they just spin up a few cloud instances to do the encoding, and then kill them when done. No infrastructure costs for that. IPTV providers must have active live encoders for every single channel they offer running 24/7. If you offer 100 channels, you must have physical hardware to encode 100 separate h.264 streams at all times, and this is generally expensive dedicated hardware, not stuff done in software.

Netflix and IPTV providers have very little (if anything) in common. Licensing content works completely differently, regulation works differently, the type of video compression (offline VBR versus live CBR) is very different, the hardware on the customer end is different, the network protocols are dramatically different. There are few if any similarities between Netflix and an IPTV provider other than that they both deliver moving images over a network. Making any comparisons between them and their costs just demonstrates ignorance.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



En Enfer
This account has been compromised

join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
kudos:4

said by Guspaz:

Netflix and IPTV providers have very little (if anything) in common.

As you mentionned, encoders are needed to re-encode video data in real time at desired compression and smoothing. Granted, there's more hardware required for live encoding, while on-demand service needs more storage hard disks. They both need hubs for overload balance.

The rest remains the same regardless it's on-demand or live steaming: the terminal listens to a specific IP address:port it was assigned when it authenticated to the IPTV network, decodes video data and send it to your TV. AFAIK, the terminal does not download the entire on-demand show on its HDD/memory.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

You are over-simplifying it way to much in your endeavour to try and make NetFlix a comparable alternative to any TV subscription service.

Honestly it seems like you want VMedia to mold to what you believe they should be offering. While everyone's entitled to their opinion, no one's force feeding VMedia IPTV down your throat. They're aren't even available in Quebec yet, or a good chuck of Ontario (I tried my postal code, no service).

You don't think VMedia's offering a good value for what you pay? Good thing you're in Canada where you vote with your wallet. Don't subscribe to service. Let them know why you don't like it and maybe in the future they will look all the feedback in make changes.

But you seem to be on a crusade to crucify VMedia unjustifiably. So continue you're ranting, it seems as though no level of logic will get through to you.

Have a good night.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:22
reply to GeorgeBurger

On demand? We're talking about broadcast television here, there's no on demand. You can't buffer. They don't even use the same network protocols. Netflix is offline VBR over TCP that can buffer as much as it likes, while IPTV is live multicast UDP that has to drop frames if there is any slowdowns/delayed packets/jitter (they also need to make it fault-tolerant because there WILL be data loss, so maybe even some error correction going on). The compression techniques used are very different, and while you can probably feed it into the same h.264 decoder at the end of the day, that's about the only thing they have in common.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Goldielover

join:2008-02-29
Toronto, ON
reply to TypeS

Nothing wrong with using an antenna. I'm in the GTA and have been using one for several years now. As far as I'm concerned, the $3500.00 I've saved to date is far better off in my pocket than in Rogers. I was with them for thirty three years when I cancelled. I got tired of paying for stuff I never watch, and the constant price hikes. I get 28 channels, many in far better HD than the compressed versions the cable companies offer, and that's more than enough for me.



TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Goldielover:

Nothing wrong with using an antenna. I'm in the GTA and have been using one for several years now. As far as I'm concerned, the $3500.00 I've saved to date is far better off in my pocket than in Rogers. I was with them for thirty three years when I cancelled. I got tired of paying for stuff I never watch, and the constant price hikes. I get 28 channels, many in far better HD than the compressed versions the cable companies offer, and that's more than enough for me.

Yup, I realize there is antenna, but I am also a customer. If there's another option I am willing to pay for I can go for that too.

That being said, I have recently (a wee ago) checked what is actually available OTA in my area, and it's not much. To get anything decent I'd have to get into a pretty complicated setup and possible (expensive) to gain some signals that are weak in my area. The same thing with FTA, it has a huge cost in obtaining the hardware and installation (I mean real FTA here, not the grey market stuff).