Viper359Premium
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. |
|
Viper359Premium
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. |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | George, how are you offering AMC HD, when even Rogers doesn't have it? I thought Bell got exclusivity on it for "fibe" |
|
| 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). |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:19 | 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 EnferThis 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." |
|
| 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. |
|
| reply to GeorgeBurger
Just curious, does anyone know what it means that En Enfer's account has been compromised? |
|
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". |
|
| Thanks, silvercat. |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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 EnferThis 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." |
|
| $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 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.  |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 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. |
|
