dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2320
share rss forum feed


Go Cable Rox

@videotron.ca

CRTC sez: Broadcasting as we know it will never be the same

Has anyone been following the latest statements made by the CRTC chair today concerning TV?

‘Broadcasting as we know it will never be the same,’ CRTC chair tells Banff fest
»www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o···2489162/
»www.calgaryherald.com/entertainm···ory.html

quote:
The head of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission says the rules governing the TV industry need to be revisited — and he’s anxious to hear from Canadians on the issue.

“It’s time to ask ‘Do the assumptions that lie beneath our current regulatory policies still hold true?’” CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais asked during a Wednesday speech at the Banff World Media Festival.

“Broadcasting, as we once knew it, is no longer — and will never again be — the same.”

The CRTC will consult with Canadians beginning this fall in an effort to provide more flexible viewing options and make it easier for TV networks to compete with online challengers.

“We want to take the pulse of the population before undertaking any future regulatory proceedings. We need to hear directly from Canadians to make sure we do the right things, the right way, for the right reasons, in the right circumstances,” said Blais.

“It’s about ensuring that our television system serves the interests of all Canadians, not only those of the majority. There must be a range of choices and a diversity of content that reflects Canadians in all their circumstances.”

Blais says the CRTC has to have “the audacity to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons in the right circumstances.”

“Sometimes that means we, at the CRTC, have to step back. Boldly dare to let creative or market forces take over,” he said.

“But it can also mean stepping up — by regulating, over the offended protests of licensees, when necessary, to advance the public interest.” ...


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
Maybe we can get the CRTC's mandatory IPTV/ISP bundling loosened...


BThunderW

join:2010-02-16
Cambridge, ON
reply to Go Cable Rox
How about let US providers in? I miss my DirecTV.


Go Cable Rox

@videotron.ca
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Maybe we can get the CRTC's mandatory IPTV/ISP bundling loosened...

Loosen bundling?
That's the only thing going for big telco. Nothing of any quality beats the bundle. Reminds me of this topic, »Forced suscriber to videotron

I can't see bundles being touched.

Let us even look at the Vmedia quasi-a-la-carte versus Quebecor. They are more expensive, as we saw.

The likes of Bell are only interested in getting rates raised for people on Netflix (ie force netflix to have more Canadian content, or french), or for the CRTC to do away with this mandatory issue.

All I see, at the moment, is the likes of Bell wanting a better bottom line, that is, profit, or forcing higher costs on competition.

I think Quebec may be a step ahead of Ontario (or elsewhere) since we do have skinny + a-la-carte. But I would like to do away with the mandatory or basic skinny. They suck. No one watches them.

The only other issue QC has is the forced channels if you take TMN, or other specialty chan.

In Ontario it seems the "package" is still the rule there when we looked at the what and why's of Vmedia.

So I can see some differences just by prov. But no one is forcing Rogers and Bell to be that way. They are doing it by choice, versus what Quebecor does here. So I can see the CRTC jumping on that to make a true a-la-carte across the board.

In terms about how Canada gets some shows a year after it's release in the US, people just download them or use an American VPN. How can they fix that? Don't think they can.

What else can they do? What else is there?

Reselling of IPTV? I don't see what that does for anyone. Nor would it be less expensive with an IPTV reseller.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to Go Cable Rox
It's time to do the right things for the consumer, not the corporations!


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Go Cable Rox
By bundling he meant that for IPTV services like V Media you also need to subscribe to their internet service.

Guspaz would like to keep his TSI internet but get IPTV services from a vendor of his choice. Currently the CRTC has said no to that option.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Guspaz
Would be interesting to hear George Burgers side of this. Get a feel for what he envisions.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to Go Cable Rox
said by Go Cable Rox :

quote:
“But it can also mean stepping up — by regulating, over the offended protests of licensees, when necessary, to advance the public interest.” ...

In the immortal words of Alex Lifeson....

"Blah blah.... blah blah BLAH Blah blah... BLAH blah BLAH.... blah BLAH blah blah."

I'm sure The Oligopoly's timbers are shivering.



Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


Go Cable Rox

@videotron.ca
reply to creed3020
said by creed3020:

Guspaz would like to keep his TSI internet but get IPTV services from a vendor of his choice. Currently the CRTC has said no to that option.

He can already do that. Vmedia offers reselling options. They already do provide their services to other ISP's. It's teksavvy who doesn't want it. Nothing to do with Vmedia.

Guspaz doesn't have to stay with TSI. He can change to any other ISP who resells Vmedia.

But, Vmedia is Ontario specific. Guspaz would also have to move out of Quebec.

So two issue here in Guspaz case, none of which is an IPTV reselling or bundle problem. It's his ISP the problem.

loyd

join:2012-09-24
Niagara Falls, ON
Reviews:
·Acanac

1 edit
reply to Go Cable Rox
Have not been following CRTC, but just want to point out which way the world is going as far as internet is concerned:

European Union imposed consumer friendly price caps last years and now my brother is paying 15 EUR/m for 100Mbps internet, while not so long ago he was paying just a little less than me.


Go Cable Rox

@videotron.ca
Anyhow,

Let us look at how Ontario does stuff versus Quebec:
»Receive The West Coast Feeds For Free But Act Before July 31

And the guy who started this topic thinks it's *very good*, and *free*.

These theme packs are long over here, but it's still the rule in Ontario for some reason (well we know the reason, to gouge you)..

However, I don't think we have a choice with west coast versus east cost feeds here. And that is going to be something looked at apparently, on demand TV.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Go Cable Rox
As I've said before, the way I think TV ought to be revamped is:

Mandatory Carriage
1) CBC - English & French (we're paying for it)
2) CBC Newsworld
3) CPAC
4) all provincial legislative channels (similar to CPAC, and I mean show them all so we can see what's being debated across the country)
5) any provincial educational channel (TVO, etc...)
6) a channel showing local municipal government meetings
7) a full-time weather channel (for public safety & agriculture reasons)
8) maybe a Canadian film channel (since many films are heavily funded via the National Film Board ie. axes), thus we should see them someplace
9) a channel with nothing but stock tickers of Canadian & world markets
10) a local community channel

Once you've added all the provincial government/etc... channels, you're looking at about 25 channels of mandatory public interest channels in total - out of a universe of hundreds or thousands of possible digital channels.

A La Carte
Everything else
Channels should be offered as singletons, and in 5-packs with the channels in the 5-pack chosen on a mix-n-match basis solely by the customer. That way a customer who wants say 13 channels will buy two 5-packs and 3 singletons to get 13 more channels above the mandatory carriage group. If the 5-packs are cheaper than purchasing 5 singletons, then maybe the customer will opt to get three 5-packs instead. The channel lineup in a 5-pack is NEVER chosen by the BDU or content provider.

Other Issues
The flip side of the 'broadcast' coin is the content providers. All providers should be be treated equally by the BDU, ie. if the content provider has 8 channels, then each channel shall be treated the same as a single channel provided by a different content provider. ie. if there are any charges by the BDU to the provider, then the charges must be the same per channel irrespective of the number of channels a content provider has, and those charges must be regulated and equal across the country so as not to favour one content provider or BDU.


joeblow3

join:2000-12-27
London, ON

1 recommendation

reply to Go Cable Rox
"make it easier for TV networks to compete with online challengers."

In other words tax/charge the online challengers so as to be as expensive as our current TV offerings.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Go Cable Rox
said by Go Cable Rox :

He can already do that. Vmedia offers reselling options. They already do provide their services to other ISP's. It's teksavvy who doesn't want it. Nothing to do with Vmedia.

Guspaz doesn't have to stay with TSI. He can change to any other ISP who resells Vmedia.

But, Vmedia is Ontario specific. Guspaz would also have to move out of Quebec.

So two issue here in Guspaz case, none of which is an IPTV reselling or bundle problem. It's his ISP the problem.

It shouldn't matter what ISP I use, and the CRTC's requirement that my ISP an IPTV provider need to have some sort of partnership is ridiculous. It's an arbitrary and nonsensical requirement from the CRTC, and it's not TSI's fault (or any other ISP's fault) that the ridiculous requirement is there.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!


Spike
Premium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

As I've said before, the way I think TV ought to be revamped is:

A La Carte
Everything else
Channels should be offered as singletons, and in 5-packs with the channels in the 5-pack chosen on a mix-n-match basis solely by the customer. That way a customer who wants say 13 channels will buy two 5-packs and 3 singletons to get 13 more channels above the mandatory carriage group. If the 5-packs are cheaper than purchasing 5 singletons, then maybe the customer will opt to get three 5-packs instead. The channel lineup in a 5-pack is NEVER chosen by the BDU or content provider.

This would probably destroy much of their lucrative profits, which basically explains the current racket they have going on.
Considering how most of their profits come from people having to pay for crap they never watch just to get the stuff they do watch.

Case in point: HD, look at the extra crap one has to subscribe to to get most of the HD content.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to joeblow3
said by joeblow3:

"make it easier for TV networks to compete with online challengers."

In other words tax/charge the online challengers so as to be as expensive as our current TV offerings.

LPIF is being phased out - that was the actual taxes from tv subs that went to subsidize the television stations.

We'll still have tv shows being subsidized through the various grands from gov of Canada, but nothing taxed via the cable co to the user.

Cable cos won't be able to complain anymore that they can't compete.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 recommendation

reply to joeblow3
said by joeblow3:

"make it easier for TV networks to compete with online challengers."

In other words tax/charge the online challengers so as to be as expensive as our current TV offerings.

This is exactly what this whole thing is about.

Rogers & Bell: Online streaming is killing us! People are cutting cable! CRTC please help kill off streaming services.

CRTC: Where is our movie check?

Rogers & Bell: *slips envelop in crtc back pocket*

CRTC: *New Announcement*
We will make it easier for TV networks to compete with online challengers.

- English translation from media speak -
We're going to make it much more difficult for companies to stream in Canada now. We will introduce a $30 per user internet broadcasting tax for every user a streaming company adds.

CRTC: *Whispers to Rogers and Bell*
Will that work?

Rogers & Bell: *smiles evilly* Yarr.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Go Cable Rox
We already have a-la-carte in Quebec, so I'll be biased and say we don't need to focus on that, go for stuff that helps all Canadians :P
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Go Cable Rox
Not that I have cable TV due to the insane cost & crappy content, if there was one rule I'd like them to implement it would be to disallow in show advertising of all types (including the channel watermark)

Why would you want to pay for content that's covered in ads is beyond me. Bhell is of course among the worst of the bunch with their 1/3rd screen coverage seemingly at the most dramatic moment of a show.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to Go Cable Rox
What, if any, are the rules surrounding a la carte online broadcasting of channels?

Do CRTC regulations reach online in terms of limiting current broadcast channels from broadcasting an exact feed online (for a fee)?

I would pay for this kind of service for a reasonable fee for some of the sports channels, especially if there were some set top box integration (i.e. Xbox app).

I have a pretty good idea why Bell and Rogers would want to keep TSN and Sportsnet bundled, but I was wondering if the reason goes beyond that into regulations.


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
reply to Go Cable Rox
People are forgetting this means can-con only on youtube and the rest of the internet.

Or they will finally realize that can-con on open new media will require techniques of repressive regimes to actually carry forward and call it off for another few years

Just like last time.

Cloneman

join:2002-08-29
Montreal
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Fibe

1 recommendation

reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

We already have a-la-carte in Quebec, so I'll be biased and say we don't need to focus on that, go for stuff that helps all Canadians :P

I want to pay 7$ /month for my TV and only have RDS & TSN. That is how I define a-la-carte.


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

I want to pay 7$ /month for my TV and only have RDS & TSN. That is how I define a-la-carte.

Ah, yes, well, the inability to do that is directly due to the CRTC's mandatory carriage rules. Which I consider to be highly anti-competitive and the CRTC has no business enforcing such a thing. Even if TSPs wanted to get rid of the concept of "basic" packages (and they generally don't anyhow), the CRTC forbids them from doing so.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!

Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

As I've said before, the way I think TV ought to be revamped is:

Mandatory Carriage
1) CBC - English & French (we're paying for it)
3) CPAC
4) all provincial legislative channels (similar to CPAC, and I mean show them all so we can see what's being debated across the country)
6) a channel showing local municipal government meetings
10) a local community channel

Those parts I agree with. But 6 and 10 may overlap somewhat.

said by MaynardKrebs:

2) CBC Newsworld

That's a pay-TV channel. It should be optional, i.e. a-la-carte.

said by MaynardKrebs:

5) any provincial educational channel (TVO, etc...)

Careful there. Some of these channels negotiate rather limited rights for some of the programs they show. The rights may be restricted to their specific province.

said by MaynardKrebs:

7) a full-time weather channel (for public safety & agriculture reasons)

I don't need no steenkin Weather Network. It's a pay-TV channel, which used sleazy tactics to maintain its must-carry-on-basic status. I can get the latest forecast and conditions every 10 minutes from a local radio station. If you have even basic dialup internet, you can get conditions and forecasts for locations out in the boonies at...
»m.weather.gc.ca/canada_e.html

said by MaynardKrebs:

8) maybe a Canadian film channel (since many films are heavily funded via the National Film Board ie. axes), thus we should see them someplace

Maybe, but »www.nfb.ca/ already exists

said by MaynardKrebs:

9) a channel with nothing but stock tickers of Canadian & world markets

Are you serious? That belongs on the web.


infamouskid

join:2007-01-24
North York, ON
reply to Guspaz
+1

said by Guspaz:

Maybe we can get the CRTC's mandatory IPTV/ISP bundling loosened...

--
BELL CAN SUCKADANUTZ!


infamouskid

join:2007-01-24
North York, ON
reply to BThunderW
+1
said by BThunderW:

How about let US providers in? I miss my DirecTV.

--
BELL CAN SUCKADANUTZ!


infamouskid

join:2007-01-24
North York, ON
reply to Go Cable Rox
i would love to see something like aereo come up north.
--
BELL CAN SUCKADANUTZ!

Fraoch

join:2003-08-01
Cambridge, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Not that I have cable TV due to the insane cost & crappy content, if there was one rule I'd like them to implement it would be to disallow in show advertising of all types (including the channel watermark)

Why would you want to pay for content that's covered in ads is beyond me. Bhell is of course among the worst of the bunch with their 1/3rd screen coverage seemingly at the most dramatic moment of a show.

YES!! I thought I was the only one bothered by this!

It's escalating, they are continuously getting more and more intrusive. Teletoon now has a live Twitter feed across the bottom showing just how moronic their host Fearless Fred is (as if we weren't convinced already ) that goes on several minutes.

Recently The Comedy Network has been interrupting shows with an ad for a movie (I am not going to advertise for them by repeating the name) which covers 1/2 the screen on the right and 1/3 the screen across the bottom. Incredibly frustrating.

Advertisers: if you advertise this way I will never ever purchase your product out of general principle. Ever! Even if I want it!
--
TekSavvy 28/1 cable - Technicolor DCM476 - Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite - Amer Networks SGD8 switch - ASUS RT-N66U (as WAP)


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

i would love to see something like aereo come up north.

Aereo exploits a very specific loophole (or quirk at least) in US copyright law (not broadcast law) that stems from a single particular court ruling, and as such is beyond the scope of anything the CRTC could do.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Fraoch
said by Fraoch:

Recently The Comedy Network has been interrupting shows with an ad for a movie (I am not going to advertise for them by repeating the name) which covers 1/2 the screen on the right and 1/3 the screen across the bottom. Incredibly frustrating.

I haven't noticed this here. Might be station specific or incumbent specific. Dunno...

I know that would tick me off enough to complain.

Guspaz, you ever notice the likes of the above on videotron?