dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6803
share rss forum feed

Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to GeorgeBurger

Re: VMedia fights mandatory channel carriage

I do hope you have more ISP's in the pipe that are not listed on your current vmedia website. A few have horrible reviews listed on them, and some are not available unless you live in a specific building serviced by them. Many of them don't even have the speeds I am looking for.

Basically, if you want to get people, I hope you are peering up with Start, Tek, Ebox etc.

I am looking to ditch Rogers, but I have to find a provider who won't destroy picture quality, will offer 5.1 sound, HBO, TMN etc. However, I won't just switch to any old ISP with an unproven track record. I also won't invest in gear for 3 or 4 TV's, if I cannot count on the ISP being able to deliver the downstream needed to accommodate 3 TV's at once, plus leave additional BW for voip and net traffic.


Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

I guess I should add, I am concerned who will ensure some form of QOS for the delivery of the tv content. Last thing I want is stuttering issues because the backend is congested and slowing down.


GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2
reply to Viper359

Hi Viper these are all legitimate concerns. Our primary focus with our launch is to provide our own internet service together with the IPTV service(though we will be offering internet alone at competitve rates and on competitive terms as well if that is what the customer wants). Also we are keeping the capacity demand below with our first priority being to deliver HD, so our sound is stereo although we are working on providing top end sound.As with the launch of any new innovative product, the initial target market are early adopters who are keen to change existing arrangements and are willing to try something new. As with anything new, there are alot of people who want to wait and see. So stay tuned, and when you get comfortable with our value proposition we'll be happy to respond.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

George, how are you offering AMC HD, when even Rogers doesn't have it? I thought Bell got exclusivity on it for "fibe"


GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Hi Elwood, we have not finalized a deal with AMC so I can't comment, but Rogers is now for sure getting AMC HD(not that I want to plug Rogers).



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

The thing is people don't want to have to change ISP to get IPTV. I don't, anyhow. There is an advantage to offering IPTV through a peering arrangement with another ISP; you (the IPTV provider) pay basically nothing for bandwidth (because it goes through peering), the incumbent CBB costs are all covered by the ISP rather than the IPTV provider.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

Just noticed this thread today...

- It's an Ontario-only service. Yawn.

- As the topic says, you want to "fight mandatory channel carriage", but when you click on the "TV" link on vmedia's website, you notice that the basic package contains optional specialties. MuchMusic, MuchMore, YTV, E!, CP24, VisionTV, CTV News, TSN1 & TSN2 are NOT mandatory. What *IS* mandatory is whatever you can receive over-the-air + CBC News/RDI + Weather Network + CPAC + AMI + Legislature + TVA + TVO/TFO (for Ontario). All those Bhell specialties have nothing to do there.

- You offer packages. You do not offer "à la carte", but you state on your homepage "our mission is to help you watch what you want, where you want to watch it". Hmmm. Just give what customers want then : pick the channel you want to watch. Otherwise, you're no different than Bell TV Ontario and Rogers Cable.

- Don't list channels you don't carry. Videotron, the major cable provider in Quebec province, just added AMC last month and explained that they negociated for the last 3 years and it was difficult because they're a regional provider. Unless this is a big lie, I don't see how a small unknown IPTV provider would sign a deal with AMC, unless you're reselling a service from a big provider.

- Just like Bhell uses Let's Talk campaign for free promotion, and Teksavvy was the center of the attention for UBB, is Vmedia using their strong opposition to mandatory channel carriage to make self-publicity ?
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Hi En Enfer,

Let me try to respond to your points.

1. We are Ontario-only for now, but we are looking to expand to the rest of Canada as soon as we can. Right now we are pretty swamped with getting the product up and running and launching, and we have a very lean team. But we'll get to Quebec soon.

2. Not sure there is a contradiction. We make decisions on what we put into Basic beyond the mandatory channels based on a variety of considerations, including how to provide our customers with the best value packages. But at least the decision regarding which specialties we include is our choice, based on what we think our customers will be interested in paying for. The mandatory channels give no one any choice, and is still a development well worth resisting. The bottom line is our Basic will be the best value in the market.

3. Again no contradiction. Being obviously very knowledgeable in this arena, you would know that rules that channel suppliers attach to their services have to be followed. Our point is that having regard to the rules, we try to maximize our customer's flexibility as much as we can. In any event as you can see from reading our posts and our existing website, we will be offering a la carte, over 40 channels that you can package yourself, and about 60 that you can choose standalone.

4. You sound pretty hostile in this one, and I am inclined not to dignify it with a response.

5. Again, pretty testy. Do you have an issue with our opposition to the mandatory carriage proceedings?I suggest you read our intervention at »www.vmedia.ca/publish/news/, our arguments speak for themselves.

Have a nice weekend.


GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2
reply to GeorgeBurger

Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised?



silvercat

join:2007-11-07
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by GeorgeBurger:

Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised?

It's just a little note that En Enfer put there. For amusement. I'm sure the account isn't really "compromised".

GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Thanks, silvercat.


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to silvercat

said by silvercat:

said by GeorgeBurger:

Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised?

It's just a little note that En Enfer put there. For amusement. I'm sure the account isn't really "compromised".

In the DOS days, I would name the disk volume "DAMAGED", which would always cause people to take a second look when the did a DIR:

Volume in drive C is DAMAGED
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to GeorgeBurger

said by GeorgeBurger:

Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised?

A person can write "compromised" or "I luv McNuggets".

A person can put anything there. Means nothing.


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

said by GeorgeBurger:

2. Not sure there is a contradiction. We make decisions on what we put into Basic beyond the mandatory channels based on a variety of considerations, including how to provide our customers with the best value packages. But at least the decision regarding which specialties we include is our choice, based on what we think our customers will be interested in paying for.

Well, that is the problem.
In one hand, you do not want the CRTC to add more specialty channels you must throw down your customer's throat (and be forced to pay for them), but on the other hand, you are yourself shoving some specialties down your potential customers throats.

In average, english specialty are collecting ~44 cents per subscriber per month, except TSN costing 1.50$ and rising (ESPN in the US on basic now costs 5$). In other words, you're inflating the price of basic service with channels customers didn't requested. Why not offer the strict mandated-by-the-CRTC-basic and let customers choose their own packages and channels?

Also, didn't the CRTC authorized distributors to offer skinny basic a few years ago? Skinny basic allows you to distribute only the OTA channels without the CPAC-APTN-etc garbage.

What ticks me off here is that your "choices" ended up with six (6) optional Bhell specialties, one Corus and one Znaimer.

Back in 2011-2012, Bhell forced Telus and a group of independent distributors to carry some of their analog specialties on basic service in order to force a certain penetration and consequently, guaranteed subscription revenues. The CRTC resolved the dispute, giving advantage to Telus but gave the middle finger to independent distributors.
See Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2012-393.

So, it sounds like Bhell got you by the balls on this, or either you're trying to get on the good graces of a bully, or you're reselling their service, or you have questionnable choices.

said by GeorgeBurger:

3. Again no contradiction. Being obviously very knowledgeable in this arena, you would know that rules that channel suppliers attach to their services have to be followed.

Off course. Running a specialty channel, penetration must reach a specific level in order to make ~20 million in profits each year. But I don't see why subscribers who don't watch sports would be forced to pay for TSN. Remove TSN from basic, price goes down by 2$.

As I previously gave as an example, Vidéotron's basic service is the strict basic, and they do offer à la carte since the beginning of their digital tv service in 1998, as well as "popular english" and "popular french" and thematic packages. They are not forced to distribute MuchMusic or any Cat A specialties on basic and still manage to respect the braodcaster's penetration minimum in a bilingual market. Consequently, I don't see the point of forcing Cat A specialties on basic.

Bottom line, I cancelled my cable TV subscription a year ago due to sky-rocket prices, went with OTA antenna, but I do miss a lot of programming dumped on Showcase, Space, bpm:tv, the UFC prelims on Sportsnet East/One... but I refuse to pay 20$ for basic + 3$ network fees + 20$ for a package (total 43$+tx) just to get to watch the channels I want (and consequently pay for a bunch of other channels I never asked for).

And for those living out of the big cities, they lost their analog CBC/SRC transmitter and were forced to pay 30$+ for basic cable. There are currently no decent alternative IPTV provider offering the minimum for a reasonably low price. Obviously, yours ain't gonna be one.

said by GeorgeBurger:

Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised?

Just a tagline.

P.S.: Sorry for the long message, but just wanted to make a point.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."

GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

$24.95 is a pretty low price of admission. Can't really help you out with your anger at Bell, but as for an alternative, once we are up and running and fully loaded with our channels, I will defy you to find a better one.Have a nice weekend.



TypeS

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

said by GeorgeBurger:

$24.95 is a pretty low price of admission. Can't really help you out with your anger at Bell, but as for an alternative, once we are up and running and fully loaded with our channels, I will defy you to find a better one.Have a nice weekend.

You'll never be able to please everyone George, these forums are riddled with people who think they know how to run companies better than the CEOs/Presidents currently at the helm. No number of bones thrown at them will satisfy them all, there's always going to be one person who wants more.

Kudos on the IPTV offering, I hope you guys can partner up with TekSavvy in the near future. I'm in the same boat as Guspaz, I'd need a hell of convincing to switch ISP providers.

GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Thanks for that, and please feel free to drop Marc a note to encourage him.



uhh

@videotron.ca
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

No number of bones thrown at them will satisfy them all, there's always going to be one person who wants more.

Um. He isn't asking for more. He's actually asking for less. You may want to re-read what he said, and maybe this time try to understand it.

The guy isn't wrong. I find myself in agreement with what he stated.

It's not for me, but I guess maybe it's a choice for others who want to have to pay for nothing. As long as they pay for nothing and it's less than Rogers or Bell. That is all that matters to some (or most) people.

Anyhow, it's a choice. Better than no choice.

GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Lol, thanks Uhhhh! I'll take what I can get. Good morale boost after being in the office all day today, and more tomorrow, and of course there will be lots left undone. You definitely can't satisfy everyone, but whether it is good business or just that we are a bunch of nice guys who want to make things better, we will keep trying. Just have patience with us as we move forward.

Have a great weekend everyone!



TypeS

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

said by uhh :

said by TypeS:

No number of bones thrown at them will satisfy them all, there's always going to be one person who wants more.

Um. He isn't asking for more. He's actually asking for less. You may want to re-read what he said, and maybe this time try to understand it.

The guy isn't wrong. I find myself in agreement with what he stated.

It's not for me, but I guess maybe it's a choice for others who want to have to pay for nothing. As long as they pay for nothing and it's less than Rogers or Bell. That is all that matters to some (or most) people.

Anyhow, it's a choice. Better than no choice.

No I believe you need to learn the English language a bit better before you go criticizing what someone said.

Since you can't understand what I said, I'll have to spell it out. When I said "more", I mean they expect more from the company despite the company continually trying to improve their product or service. It does not mean he wanted "more" channels. And BTW, that was directed at not just him a but a lot of people that gripe at all the alternative media providers and IISPs about every little detail and disregard everything else these companies have tried to do for Canadian consumers.

Not sure where you going with this "pay for nothing" thing, but if you could, find me a TV service provider a true a la carte offering where you pick channel by channel what you want and you don't pay for any channel you'd never watch.


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

It might be nice to have a skinny basic option with just the mandatory carriage stuff, and then let people add the channels they want on top of that.
--
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 GeorgeBurger

said by GeorgeBurger:

$24.95 is a pretty low price of admission.

25$ for basic only ? Yikes! That's insanely HIGH !

Sure, it's low compared with Rogers cable and Bell satellite/fibe in Ontario... but...

Indeed, as a sole IPTV provider, you are not paying for the "last mile", customers are paying that to their wholesale service provider, who must also pay for the extra capacity (CBB).

Any VoIP customer such as freephoneline or voip.ms is not paying 20$ per month for the last mile, so without these "extra fees", your IPTV project sounds like a money grab with 500% profits.

Pass.

P.S.: It's interesting you don't confirm or deny anything about Bell's involvement in your team's "choices" to set 6 optional Bell channels on basic.
Concerning my "anger at Bell", well, we both know that using their media power to force their specialties on basic service to its small competitors is just wrong. They're not licenced as basic. Someone have to stand up to them instead of letting them so whatever they want... (think UBB).
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


uhh

@videotron.ca
reply to GeorgeBurger

said by GeorgeBurger:

Lol, thanks Uhhhh!

lol, I don't mean anything bad by it. I imagine it's going to be a good deal. Just... like maybe one day when the fights to even get access have cooled down (Loved the words you brought to the CRTC) and others stop playing stupid with you by not even quoting you, or trying to force your (and our) costs to increase, then maybe once all that has settled there could be room to look at what the guy above stated. In the end, it's just another option (or choice) to give people. Choices are good. Just saying... I think offering something like this would be an advantage over others. I see positive in it and maybe something to work towards offering.

Keep in mind, a heck of a lot of DSL users jump ship for a lousy 1$ savings (as sad as that is). I like to see you succeed. As far as I know the only other alternative ISP + IPTV provider would be Acanac. And I'm not sure they are even fully deployed yet. Still in Beta I think.

Anyhow, I look forward to seeing the new website and prices when it launches.


uhh

@videotron.ca
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

Not sure where you going with this "pay for nothing" thing, but if you could, find me a TV service provider a true a la carte offering where you pick channel by channel what you want and you don't pay for any channel you'd never watch.

En Enfer already answered this question.
said by En Enfer:

As I previously gave as an example, Vidéotron's basic service is the strict basic, and they do offer à la carte since the beginning of their digital tv service in 1998, as well as "popular english" and "popular french" and thematic packages. They are not forced to distribute MuchMusic or any Cat A specialties on basic and still manage to respect the braodcaster's penetration minimum in a bilingual market. Consequently, I don't see the point of forcing Cat A specialties on basic.

Maybe you don't have this in Ontario? Dunno.


TypeS

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

We don't, Rogers basic goes up to channel 42 or something like that. I forget now. Don't about Cogeco. Though even skinny basic still isnt full blown a la carte, there some channels in any carrier's basic line up that I don't care for, but they're going to be there regardless.

I care more for the price I am paying, if its reasonable (ie, Rogers price for basic is outrageous before you get into digital packages to get just 1 or 2 channels you do like), I don't mind bundling. Traditional TV service's (be it cable, iptv or satellite) days are numbered though IMHO. The Nort American day is much more than 9-5 now, pretty much 18-24/7, so many store chains dont close at all anymore, people's schedules are fitting less and less into what they used to be. We've become a pretty busy society in North America. I think on-demand services like NetFlix are going to gain popularity. Watch what you want to when you want. Of course there will always be the news, sporting events and other live events. Put stuff like prime time viewing will probably shift to on demand.



TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to En Enfer

said by En Enfer:

said by GeorgeBurger:

$24.95 is a pretty low price of admission.

Any VoIP customer such as freephoneline or voip.ms is not paying 20$ per month for the last mile, so without these "extra fees", your IPTV project sounds like a money grab with 500% profits.

Pass.

I'm going to just say straight out that you seem to have a heavy bias and a grind to axe with something. I pay $30/month for VoIP and it is not over priced by any means. Not for what I get. You're judgement of what is a fair price and what isn't is way off. And not every company wants to live with slim profit margins either.


uhh

@videotron.ca
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

I care more for the price I am paying,

You basically just qualified everything I said, yet previously you ragged on it. You even ragged on En Enfer, yet you also qualify his statements.

said by uhh :

...
The guy isn't wrong. I find myself in agreement with what he stated.

It's not for me, but I guess maybe it's a choice for others who want to have to pay for nothing. As long as they pay for nothing and it's less than Rogers or Bell. That is all that matters to some (or most) people.

Basically you are ok with paying for nothing as long as it's less than Bell or Rogers. heh

Why pay for channels you don't even want and will never look at? Why is Vmedia even making the basic offer like this?

Makes zero sense to me. But, hey, if that is what the Ontario market asks for (just be less than Rogers and we're happy, which is basically what you said) then so be it.

Will await their launch.


uhh

@videotron.ca
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

It might be nice to have a skinny basic option with just the mandatory carriage stuff, and then let people add the channels they want on top of that.

Yeah. That makes 3 of us now basically saying the same thing. I think that is the way to go to steal customers from others, and to have people taking a second and third look at Vmedia. Should come out less expensive and should attract more people, or get their interest more.

Anyway, maybe one day.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to GeorgeBurger

Here's what kills me.

CTV ottawa/Sudbury/toronto/Kitchner/north bay.

Why? Isn't the programming exactly the same? is there any "local' programming?

TVA/TV5 , Quebec centric, who the hell wants anywhere else in the country?

CTV2 in barrie/windsor/ottawa/london -- see CTV above.

Much Music is must carry, since when?
TSN/TSN2 also must carry??
E! WTF a rehash of celeberity news from the US with a minute amount of CANCON (you have no idea the bs these "infotainment shows" have to go through to justify CANCON rules.

Ami-TV, never heard of them.

This is not so much the fault of Vmedia, but the fault of failed regulations. I'm not interested in pay for the same channel 4x.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......



En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

1 edit

said by elwoodblues:

CTV ottawa/Sudbury/toronto/Kitchner/north bay.

OTA channels (those you can get with an antenna) costs nothing.
I guess all ontario versions are there because maybe vmedia doesn't plan on being exclusive to Toronto.

said by elwoodblues:

TVA/TV5 , Quebec centric, who the hell wants anywhere else in the country?

TVA Montreal have a special mandatory carriage for the rest of Canada, it's there in order to provide an alternative to Radio-Canada in our beautiful bilingual country...

said by elwoodblues:

Ami-TV, never heard of them.

It's a channel with the "described video for those who are visually impaired" as the main audio track. Normal people will just find this annoying.

said by TypeS:

I'm going to just say straight out that you seem to have a heavy bias and a grind to axe with something. I pay $30/month for VoIP and it is not over priced by any means.

30 bucks ? Whoa! That's way more than a Bell landline. Who's your provider?

Well, in fact, I don't use my phone very often, but I have many options on voip.ms and it doesn't costs more than 5$ per month.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."