dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1438
share rss forum feed


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

Bell will fight unbundling of channels

Kevin Crull has started the campaign to "warn Ottawa" that unbundling channels will hurt Canadians and it will have "unintended consequences" .

Specifically, there could be less funding for original Canadian programming, which could deal a blow to the domestic television sector.
“As we move forward in responding to consumers, we need to be clear that there is an inherent risk. When buying less, the unit cost is going to be higher and overall savings, if any, may be small. As well, variety and quality could decline – maybe dramatically,” Mr. Crull said during a keynote address at the Canadian Chapter of the International Institute of Communications’ annual conference on Monday.

So in other words, they're going to fuck Canadians over in the same way they did with the cell phone contracts. Jack up the price to make it unbundling unpalatable.

»www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o···5499777/
--
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.......


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Yep, ridiculous...

The government is painted into a corner, but they did it to themselves, they allowed these tv distribution companies to own and control so much content, they have everyone by the balls.
--



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by HiVolt:

Yep, ridiculous...

The government is painted into a corner, but they did it to themselves, they allowed these tv distribution companies to own and control so much content, they have everyone by the balls.

The Americans broke up AT&T how hard can it be to break up Robellus.

Worse case scenario.. Functional Separation.
--
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.......


MacGyver
Don't Waste Your Energy
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:2
reply to elwoodblues
The system is so broken and archaic there really isn't any hope for it. Who needs a "channel" when the content desired can be downloaded and viewed on demand. I actually find it weird to watch TV with commercials anymore.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by MacGyver:

The system is so broken and archaic there really isn't any hope for it. Who needs a "channel" when the content desired can be downloaded and viewed on demand. I actually find it weird to watch TV with commercials anymore.

I know that feeling very very well.
--
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.......


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to elwoodblues
Errm, Bell already unbundled channels in Quebec voluntarily... Nobody forced them to do that (except, perhaps, competitive pressures). If it was good to do in Quebec, why not everywhere else?

I do agree with them, though. There are no cost savings for consumers in unbundled programming. Having experienced it with Videotron, they price stuff so that you end up paying about the same.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
If unbundling will cost more the carriers should do a better job to convince me why I need dozens of channels all showing the same content in one way or another.

Here is a crazy idea lets make Theme pack channels "theme Channels" and keep all un related content of the channel if it doesn't fit into that theme channels theme.

I do not need a hundred channels all showing reality tv crap.

BoogaBooga

join:2004-06-12
Canada
Reviews:
·VMedia
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

I do agree with them, though. There are no cost savings for consumers in unbundled programming. Having experienced it with Videotron, they price stuff so that you end up paying about the same.

This.

There is no way in hell that unbundling will lead to savings for the average consumer. You want 10-15 channels..? Each one will be $3-$5.

There is no way bell and rogers are going to take a hit on this. None.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to elwoodblues
The US government thought it had disassembled AT&T, but look what has happened ... apart from a few very small companies of which there were a few before, virtually ALL of AT&T has done a "Terminator" and reassembled itself into one of SBC (Southwestern Bell ... now known as AT&T), Verizon and CenturyLink. The former two being by far the larger two.

So, disassembling these giants will only result in a later reassembly.


fred_8987340

@spcsdns.net
reply to BoogaBooga
said by BoogaBooga:

said by Guspaz:

I do agree with them, though. There are no cost savings for consumers in unbundled programming. Having experienced it with Videotron, they price stuff so that you end up paying about the same.

This.

There is no way in hell that unbundling will lead to savings for the average consumer. You want 10-15 channels..? Each one will be $3-$5.

There is no way bell and rogers are going to take a hit on this. None.

would be nice if customers could pick like 30-40 stations for $50 or whatever the going rate is these days and avoid sending money to channels they don't want like maybe MSNBC or Al Jeezera or from the other perspective, Fox News.


uselessness

@videotron.ca
I don't want stations with 98% useless crap. I just want what I want to watch.

Let's face it, anything other than that is not what the people want.

Crull/Bell is now stating that there needs to be a stand on piracy against those who DL their TV shows. Is this realistic? Or is this oppressing people, repressing people, fining people, and criminalizing people to keep this dead business model in high profits?

Anything other than a "show" is a waste of time. An unbundled channel selection (which people should have had for decades now) is already too late. The times have already passed that type of TV offer by a long time ago. People want s specific show and frig the rest.

Anything the CRTC does now is just playing into the hands of Harper for votes. Nothing more. And the CRTC will play along with this so that they "appear" to be doing something for the people, when in fact they are not.

Bell will fight tooth and nail for anything and everything. The bottom line they are after is protection of their business model, and like Crull/Bell stated, they are after criminalizing people and new tougher laws to make you a criminal for wanting a show and not a package of dozens of channels.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by uselessness :

I don't want stations with 98% useless crap. I just want what I want to watch.

Let's face it, anything other than that is not what the people want.

Crull/Bell is now stating that there needs to be a stand on piracy against those who DL their TV shows. Is this realistic? Or is this oppressing people, repressing people, fining people, and criminalizing people to keep this dead business model in high profits?

Anything other than a "show" is a waste of time. An unbundled channel selection (which people should have had for decades now) is already too late. The times have already passed that type of TV offer by a long time ago. People want s specific show and frig the rest.

Anything the CRTC does now is just playing into the hands of Harper for votes. Nothing more. And the CRTC will play along with this so that they "appear" to be doing something for the people, when in fact they are not.

Bell will fight tooth and nail for anything and everything. The bottom line they are after is protection of their business model, and like Crull/Bell stated, they are after criminalizing people and new tougher laws to make you a criminal for wanting a show and not a package of dozens of channels.

There is nothing wrong with downloading a TV show, as long as you are paying someone access to a station that carries that show. It's no different than recording it in a pvr, at least IMHO.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to uselessness
said by uselessness :

Crull/Bell is now stating that there needs to be a stand on piracy against those who DL their TV shows. Is this realistic? Or is this oppressing people, repressing people, fining people, and criminalizing people to keep this dead business model in high profits?
.

Wait to see what TPP does, it's Hollywood's wet dream.
--
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.......


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
I wouldnt say its their wet dream since they wrote the whole thing


uselessness

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

There is nothing wrong with downloading a TV show, as long as you are paying someone access to a station that carries that show. It's no different than recording it in a pvr, at least IMHO.

heh and this brings us to how videotron offers users unlimited.
If you don't buy their TV package at 30-whatever dollars a month, Videotron refuses to give you unlimited for the extra 10$.

It protects their outdated TV offering.

As a minimum, the bare bones minimum, a person has to pay videotron 40$ a month as a, *TV protection payment* in order to be able to get unlimited..

Sounds like some sort of protection racket, eh? Well, it is. And the CRTC condones it and the Harper gov is in on the protection racket.

The CRTC's, "Lets Talk" campaign is smoke and mirrors for what truly is a criminal, and run by a cartel.

Bell's stance here is as what Rocky would call a "scorched earth" approach. Refuse and deny everything. And for good measure call everyone in Canada pirating criminals and then make a call for new laws so they can stick their hand further in your pocket, fine you to death, or revoke whatever little rights you have.

Every little thing the CRTC will take away from the "scorched earth" approach, Bell will then tie up in "regulatory red-tape" for 3 years. Then if they don't get their way they will run to the Gov in Counsel. If that fails, court. Bell has the capacity to red-tape everything for the next 6 years, as we saw with the throttle and UBB (and UBB still isn't finished yet), which was also there to prevent bleeding TV revenue losses.

Videotron (a subsidiary of Quebecor media, who has practically all of Quebec media forms by the balls, and a lot of english media as well) will come out swinging with Bell.

Channel unbundling? What a joke.

That's all made for TV smoke and mirrors for the vote, and for the CRTC to pretend they actually listen to people.

Both the Harper gov and the CRTC have failed the people fin favour of big money, and are themselves failures.

What kind of gov and CRTC allows a protection racket to continue for years? Anyone else would be arrested.

Channel unbundling? Seriously? Is Channel unbundling really what people want? Is that what it's all about?

Quebec has had some unbundling (aside from certain Bell movie channels), the only ones to wake up to the fact that they didn't have it was the cartel repressed Ontario population (half of Canada) and that was only due to the IPTV players there, specifically the fight Vmedia brought to the CRTC.

Channel unbundling my ass. Smoke and mirrors.


uselessness

@videotron.ca
Further evidence of the Harper gov and CRTC bullshit that allows criminal protection rackets is right here posted by Resa.
»ITMP undue preference complaint filed against Bell


rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to elwoodblues
Cancel TV. Watch Netflix and Youtube.

Unotelly FTW.

vincom

join:2009-03-06
Bolton, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Anveo
·TekSavvy Cable
said by rodjames:

Cancel TV. Watch Netflix and Youtube.

Unotelly FTW.

funny how bell does not bring up Netflix and such as to why people have cut the cord

bklass
Premium
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:2
reply to elwoodblues
I was at this conference. Crull actually displayed a graph which purported to show that, as of now, Canadians are paying less for Cable TV viewing than they are for netflix viewing.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Maybe with Bell's overage rates this is true!

If you include the internet connection you could also manipulate this to be true, however most people would have broadband Netflix or no Netflix.


AppleGuy
Premium
join:2013-09-08
Canada
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·voip.ms
reply to rodjames
Or something like that. UnblockUS and HuluPlus and then you can get PBS if you want too. Who needs MM or MTV when you can watch actual music videos on Vevo...when was the last time anyone watched More Than a Feeling by Boston on MuchMusic? You can on Vevo though.

What Bell and Rogers have to understand is that we pay way more, as a percentage of disposable income, to their services than we did 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Full cable and phone service was $27 back in the early 80's. Maybe $70 in the mid 90's and now about $120+ without discount. Now they also have extra money coming in for cellular and internet too, which really didn't exist 20 years ago. People are simply at the breaking point, it's no longer affordable to have all those services. Rogers and Bell need to understand that. Their expensive services are a drag on the economy because people have less money to spend/save on more important things.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by AppleGuy:

Their expensive services are a drag on the economy because people have less money to spend/save on more important things.

Apparently those services *are* more important to those who pay for them. Cable TV *IS* part of the economy. Just sayin...
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


SHY
0x27
Premium
join:2010-06-21
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
reply to elwoodblues
I cut the cord two months ago and I don't miss it at all. I have no services with either Videotron nor Bell. My TV now consists of an OTA antenna on my roof and subscriptions to Netflix and HuluPlus. My bill has dropped to $23 a month for television when before it was $80 with Videotron. I'm happy


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by SHY:

I cut the cord two months ago and I don't miss it at all. I have no services with either Videotron nor Bell. My TV now consisits of an OTA antenna on my roof and subscriptions to Netflix and HuluPlus. My bill has dropped to $23 a month for television when before it was $80 with Videotron. I'm happy

I didn't completely cut the cord though I'm not with any incumbent for any service. Zazeen for TV and Acanac for internet and phone. Saved myself almost $90/month.....


AppleGuy
Premium
join:2013-09-08
Canada
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·voip.ms
reply to HeadSpinning
Correct on both. The .gov is attempting to change that though.

I'm not going to complain with how much I pay, I pay around $150 with tax for unlimited cellular service which includes unlimited data and caller ID, home phone via the VoIP route, VIP cable and Extreme Plus internet. Without research, a little work on my side, and bargaining though, what I have would easily cost $350 or so, with tax.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to elwoodblues
The Crull & Cope duet:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Ottawa, we shall fight in the print media and radio, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our god-given revenue streams, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the streets like soccer hooligans, we shall fight whine and snivel, we shall spread fear and disinformation, we shall fight like a bunch of oligarchs #inadrunkenstupor; we shall never surrender.

--with apologies to Winston Churchill

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to bklass
said by bklass:

I was at this conference. Crull actually displayed a graph which purported to show that, as of now, Canadians are paying less for Cable TV viewing than they are for netflix viewing.

How did they pull that off? Did they assume everyone on netflix needs an internet connection, therefore the cost of netflix is netflix+internet? lol. Everyone needs (wants) internet so most people have it already (even if they have cable). It probably shouldn't be double counted.

In regards to the OP's comments about Bell jacking up the rates if a la carte is introduced. That's been the major concern of going a la carte. It's going to create few viewers for certain channels. Right now sports is lumped in a lot of packages (some even on basic). It means a big chunk of the population pays for sports channels whether they watch them or not. Sports still get pretty good ratings because people want to watch it live in HD (which is something cable still does better than the internet). Sportsnet/TSN pay through the nose for those rights. If all of a sudden sports goes a la carte, and a bunch of people stop paying for it, everyone else who does want it will end up paying more (because the stations will need to generate the same revenue to cover their expenses).

I think that applies to a lot of other channels too. Instead of receiving smaller carriage fees from a wider audience, they'll need to receive larger carriage fees from a smaller audience. That basically sums up the downside of a la carte.

The counterargument is how high they can price a channel before people say they don't want it. Maybe people have a threshold of only a few dollars/channel (or maybe bit more for sports). If they do start charging crazy carriage fees they might have too few views and need to address the problem. Maybe it would cause a ripple effect, and (using my example) if sports channels can no longer earn the same revenue, then they can't pay as high licensing fees.... then they don't keep trying to outbid each other nearly as bad... and everyone wins except the owners/players who salaries/profits depends on licensing fees.

I tend to lean more to the worse case scenario than the best case scenario.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
Your points are very vaild but sports is a bad example, you either take a sports package or you don't.

I'll give you an example. I worked fora company that had a Short Movie channel , and the content was OK, but it was a very niche genre, and would never stand on it's own. But they were bundled with a movie pack, so it was "profitable".

And this is where the issue lies, Crull is right in the sense that it will increase costs, but i'd rather pay 3 bucks to see the XYZ channel then pay 10 bucks and get XYZ and a host of unrelated channels.

Also Crull is taking it from the perspective that most of those channels are ones they own, so they're effectively double dipping and that will affect revenue from a corporate perspective.
--
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.......

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to elwoodblues
I guess the bundling with my cableco is different. They include TSN/Sportsnet/Sportsnet 1 in their basic package. They also offer a package called best of hd for $35 a month which includes the majority of HD channels they offer (and is much cheaper than buying the small bundles). So a lot of people with Shaw pay for them whether they want them or not.

I do agree that on paper it should be cheaper to buy 1 good channel, than 1 good channel attached in package with 5 crap (or niche) channels. However I don't expect the cableco's or TV channel operators to take a hit on a la cart.

The way I see a la carte operating is that the CRTC will continue to mandate a basic bundle (channels with mandatory carriage requirements). A la cart would be on top. Everyone tastes are different so even on the popular channels the viewership will be down. So to compensate for the loss in viewers they'll raise carriage fees.

I'd like to be optimistic about it, but I can't see the cableco's/channel owners taking a financial hit willingly.

So you might not have to pay for the "filler" channels anymore but you'll pay more for the channels you do want. Possibly making it so your paying the same amount for fewer channels (which i guess is a wash if you weren't watching the filler channels anyways).

In my household we could easily pickout 20 channels (The 5 US networks, east coast fees of those 5 networks, TSN, TSN2, SN, SN1, HGTV, FOOD, TLC, Animal Planet, AMC, and Space. That's all we need. I just don't see them offering that to me at a cheaper rate and making less money than the 80 channels I currently get.


hmm

@videotron.ca
reply to elwoodblues
said by zod5000:

In regards to the OP's comments about Bell jacking up the rates if a la carte is introduced.

That's been the major concern of going a la carte. It's going to create few viewers for certain channels. Right now sports is lumped in a lot of packages (some even on basic). It means a big chunk of the population pays for sports channels whether they watch them or not. Sports still get pretty good ratings because people want to watch it live in HD (which is something cable still does better than the internet). Sportsnet/TSN pay through the nose for those rights. If all of a sudden sports goes a la carte, and a bunch of people stop paying for it, everyone else who does want it will end up paying more (because the stations will need to generate the same revenue to cover their expenses).

said by elwoodblues:

Your points are very vaild but sports is a bad example, you either take a sports package or you don't.

I'll give you an example. I worked fora company that had a Short Movie channel , and the content was OK, but it was a very niche genre, and would never stand on it's own. But they were bundled with a movie pack, so it was "profitable".

And this is where the issue lies, Crull is right in the sense that it will increase costs, but i'd rather pay 3 bucks to see the XYZ channel then pay 10 bucks and get XYZ and a host of unrelated channels.

Also Crull is taking it from the perspective that most of those channels are ones they own, so they're effectively double dipping and that will affect revenue from a corporate perspective.

I think you are both off here.

In Quebec this is already a-la-carte, and has been for a number of years.

Price, roughly under 2$ for both TSN and TSN-2 (they have to be taken a bundle and not separate for the ~2$). On it's own (if we split TSN and TSN-2), each channel should be equal to or under 1$. Say 1$ for TSN and 60-cents for TSN-2 (instead of 1.60$ for the two).

Keep in mind, elwoodblues, Bell et al already offer this in Quebec. But this seems to be a problem with the rest of Canada.

Also, I don't know who owns the Movie Channels or TSN (In Quebec some of these channels come as a pair *at most* for that ~2$). So in the Quebec market, when I pay 2$ and get TSN and TSN-2 it seems to me that whoever owns TSN is balking at splitting that duo-channel combo up for 1$ or less each. Nowhere near the 3$ per channel example you gave. Nor can they justify jacking up prices like that when the price in Quebec already shows it's less than 2$ for having those two channels.

But this is all about protecting TV revenue. It will be interesting to see how they gouge us and jack prices up.