dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6998
share rss forum feed


JoePro

join:2006-11-01
canada
reply to hm

Re: VMedia fights mandatory channel carriage

said by hm :

BTW, Brama Telecom is stating they are in bed with Vmedia:
»www.bramatelecom.com/packages/tv···oduct=-1

Is this the other Canadian Vmedia? These two Vmedia's in Canada is getting confusing.

»www.vmedia.ca/info/partners.aspx


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

said by HeadSpinning:

The costs are not one time. Equipment and software have licensing and service contracts. There are per subscriber fees for middleware. There are required upgrades as time goes on.

Yeah, ok, so does Rogers, Shaw, Videotron, Cogeco, and Bell Fibe. Expenses for maintenance are no different here.

said by HeadSpinning:

That translates in to a per subscriber cost. I'm just trying to point out that your assertion that everything above the programming costs are pure profit are overstated.

Ah, I get it. Maybe I used the wrong terms.

The CRTC have numbers on public record that gives an idea how much each specialty channel receives in subscriber revenues. That ~5$ from your cable bill actually goes to the broadcasters who re-invest that money by producing and acquiring rights to shows.

We have no clue (and no desire to know) how much it costs for the company to run day-to-day operations : building, equipment, salaries, transit costs... and the rest goes to pure profits. Off course, for any new company launching a product from scratch, there won't be any profit during the first year. I should have said instead "revenues minus known constant expenses is 20$".

The problem, as I pointed out, is that Vidéotron in Quebec offers standalone digital TV basic service for 23$, and they must charge extra in each product for the distribution costs (fiber, poles usage, digging, repair).

How do you explain that Vmedia charges 25$ for a similar basic (with a ~2.44$ difference for extra channels), but have no expenses on similar distribution costs? IPTV is just data that transits trought your internet connection. Your IISP pays the incumbent provider for the usage of last mile, not content providers like Google, VoIP or IPTV.

Let me rephrase the question for you: Which expenses IPTV providers have to pay extra that Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco or Videotron don't ? What justifies such a high price ?
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


Exidor
Premium
join:2001-05-04
Brampton, ON
reply to GeorgeBurger

On the topic at hand, from The Globe and Mail:

IPTV’s new wave looms over cable’s old guard

»www.theglobeandmail.com/technolo···0326529/

You may/may not need a membership subscription to view the article, I honestly don't know.


GeorgeBurger

join:2011-12-30
kudos:2

Wow thanks Exidor, hadn't seen it yet!



neuromancer1

join:2007-01-22
York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia

1 edit
reply to GeorgeBurger

This off topic but they've 25/2 cable internet package for $36.95 will this be available in North York, GTA? What's the bandwidth cap on this package? I assume a Docsis 3.0 modem is required? Are you allowed to bring your modem? I would be interested in signing up as I'm ready to leave Teksavvy after 7 years and looking for an ISP with better customer service and lower prices.



rosenqui
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Kanata, ON
reply to En Enfer

Where do you get the idea that transit is free for the IPTV provider/ISP? According to Acanac/Zazeen, that's going to be one of the largest costs in their IPTV service - increased capacity charges from Rogers/Bell/etc. due to the extra traffic incurred by their IPTV customers.

The CRTC does not allow regulated TV channels (CTV, TSN, HGTV, etc) to be delivered "over the top" a la Netflix. It must be done using what they deem to be a "closed network", which means vMedia must partner with one or more ISPs or be an ISP themselves in order to be able to service any customers. It's the ISPs that incur all of those extra transit charges, and that cost is reflected in the TV subscription price.

If vMedia was allowed to offer their service over the top, then you would have a valid argument and it's quite likely that their prices would be somewhat lower.
--
Adventures in Canadian cord cutting - »canadiancordcutting.blogspot.ca/



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to GeorgeBurger

IPTV providers are required to deliver service over a closed network, either their own or via peering arrangements. There are no transit costs for IPTV because they're not allowed to let it pass through the public internet. The only capacity-based costs would be CBB costs.

EDIT: Clarification, "transit" normally refers to internet transit, not CBB costs.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



TypeS

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

said by Guspaz:

IPTV providers are required to deliver service over a closed network, either their own or via peering arrangements. There are no transit costs for IPTV because they're not allowed to let it pass through the public internet. The only capacity-based costs would be CBB costs.

EDIT: Clarification, "transit" normally refers to internet transit, not CBB costs.

This implies then the IPTV servers and headend equipment would need to be located at the peering ISPs data center? Does everyone in Canada operate out 151 Front? If so I don't see a problem I think.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

said by TypeS:

This implies then the IPTV servers and headend equipment would need to be located at the peering ISPs data center? Does everyone in Canada operate out 151 Front? If so I don't see a problem I think.

You can peer over a remote link like a LAN extension, but most IPTV providers are either located in or connected to 151 Front. The exception might be Colba, but they're not interested in peering with anybody. Furthermore, word is that Colba may be restricting their IPTV service to people connected to their own DSLAMs.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1

Dedicated WAN links are not cheap lol. That would definitely be an expensive monthly cost. But sounds like everyone's operating out of 151 Front anyway.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to GeorgeBurger

They're not expensive... IIRC a GigE would be under a thousand a month, and if you're in an urban area it may even be cheaper to just lease the fiber directly, or pay to have your own pulled through the conduits.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rosenqui

said by rosenqui:

According to Acanac/Zazeen, that's going to be one of the largest costs in their IPTV service - increased capacity charges from Rogers/Bell/etc. due to the extra traffic incurred by their IPTV customers.

I am under the impression that Acanacs proposed throttling (cutting speed in half, or more) is the direct result of their IPTV offering.

Paul (Acanac) stated he used something like just under 1000-gigs a month for 3 STB's. So to me they are recouping costs, or preventing congestion (priority to IPTV) by their throttle. So in effect, if you don't even have IPTV with Acanac you end up footing the bill and getting throttled for their IPTV subscribers. At least, that is the plan as they wrote it here to my understanding.

It will be interesting to see how Vmedia (the ISP) handles congestion and spikes at peak time.

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

The lack of surround sound is what will prevent this early adopter from joining you. I didn't spend nearly 10K on my home entertainment system to listen to 2.0 channel stereo audio for my tv shows.

I mean come on, DD doesn't add that much bandwidth. This sounds more like licence fee's are getting in the way.



Tell Me

@videotron.ca

Is it just me or did the countdown timer on vmedia.ca get pushed back a couple of times?

So what are the prices and service changes?

Vmedia.ca only shows 19.95 on it's un-updated webpage, while Vmedia's other site, viatnettv.com shows 24.95$

Is vmedia just copying over the IPTV costs and internet costs from vianettv.com as it's update?

Not sure what's going on with this.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to GeorgeBurger

vianettv.com also shows "from $19.95", but the basic package is priced at $24.95.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


darrylr

join:2003-02-10
Nepean, ON
reply to Viper359

+1

I wouldn't sign up for a 2.0 only provider.


GeorgeBurger

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

Nothing's going on, the $19.95 was a holdover from our original even skinnier basic plans, but then life got in the way, and we were slow to fix it because we were focused on the new site, and a million other things we had to do. Sorry for the oversight.



En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

Some maths for an educated guess.

Let's establish the real costs of a specialty package with common sense.

I already established on page 4 that only ~5$ out of the 25$ from basic service will actually go to the channels, the remaining 20$ stays with vmedia for operation costs and profits.

Those prices come from public financial data from the CRTC (added revenues / subscribers / 12)
=== Premium Basic ===

Showcase	$0.38
Bravo! $0.29
Discovery $0.52
Comedy $0.35
MTV Canada $0.12
BNN $0.29
Space $0.27
Sportsnet $1.29
Sportsnet One $0.70

Total : $4.21

AMC, A&E, CNN, NFL Network, HLN and TCM : american specialties, unknown numbers.

Since I don't have numbers for the six american specialties, I'll take the average from the numbers I already have ($4.21 / 9) : 0.47$ x 6 = $2.82

Grand total : ~7.03$ from this 15$/month package actually goes to the broadcasters. The remaining 8$ is pure profits.

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

Obviously, a specialty channel do the hard work: producing shows, sell advertising, put them on the air, etc., while a distributor just takes the signal an delivers it to the subcribers. So, a 100% profit should be logic's maximum.

George says he expects to offer à la carte, so let's comapre with the established competitors :

Videotron : 10 channels for 20$, 15 channels for 23$, 20 channels for 26$, 25 channels for 29$, 30 channels for 32$ (ranges between $1.07 and 2$ per channel)
»www.videotron.com/residential/te···at620047
Bell Fibe (Qc) : 15 channels for 18$, 20 channels for 22$, 30 channels for 25$ (ranges between 0.83$ and 1.20$ per channel)
»fibetv.bell.ca/global/resources/···20130212

Conclusion, paying 1$ per channel per month sounds like a acceptable reasonable price for à la carte, and is nearby the 100% profit logic.
On the other hand, pre-assembled packages where channels costs them between $0.40 and $0.48 in average with profits should be sold to the customer at a lower rate than 1$ per channel. If Bell is able to make money at 0.83$ per channel...

Vmedia's basic service costs 25$. Their Premium Basic costs 40$. A 15$ difference. Yet, as calculcated up there, channels in that package cost them 7$ for 15 channels.

If I use above logic, vmedia should make only 6$ of profit instead of 8$ to be a good deal, so "basic + premium basic" should cost 38$ or less, not 40$.

When you visit vmedia's Theme Packs section, you'll notice that packages containing 6 channels costs 7$, except off course Pay TV ones.

Obviously, Vmedia can cost less than Rogers Ontario in the end, but it's still making huge profits. It's not gonna revolution the IPTV landscape like VoIP and IISPs.

Amen.

--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5

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.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


TypeS

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

said by En Enfer:

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

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. Last I checked we live in a social democratic nation with a pseudo free market economy. Chasing profits and recognition is the bases of starting your business. I'm sure you like it when your employer rewards you with raise for a improving your productivity. Or getting paid for a certain level of education and skill set. Not to mention you've ignored pig portion of any companies costs, labour. Everyone wants an above fair salary where they've got enough to live off and spend on luxuries without going paycheck to paycheck; as well as saving for retirement and a rainy day.

Obviously, Vmedia can cost less than Rogers Ontario in the end, but it's still making huge profits. It's not gonna revolution the IPTV landscape like VoIP and IISPs.

VoIP is far from having revolutionized the home phone industry. It still has no where near the reliability or guarantee of quality that POTS has.

As for IISPs, their costs are being defined by government regulatory body, their current profit margins I am sure not purely by choice. We've all read the CBB decisions, the capacity rates are bogus. If they were fair and representative of real cost, I don't think we'd see IISPs racing to the bottom of barrel for price. A fair price on a service does not mean a slim profit margin.


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

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

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:23
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:23
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."