dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
18
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues

Re: Bell will fight unbundling of channels

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
Scarborough, ON

markf

Member

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.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to bklass

Member

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 Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

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.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

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.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

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

How many BASIC packages don't include one of TSN or Sportsnet?

How many of those are outside of Quebec?

And it's usually only one of them, and you're paying for a bunch of extra "minor" sports channels that you might not care about just to get the other major sports network.

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

elwoodblues

Premium Member

I don't know I don't have a subscription to any service, I cut the cord 5yrs ago.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

So then you don't know if it's a good example or not.