dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6961
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: Live CRTC - pick and pay

said by MaynardKrebs:

Blais sounded like he was threatening Netflix with the removal of an exemption order for New Media - directed solely at Netflix.

What would the CRTC have done - banned Netflix for delivering content to Canadians? demanded that Netflix not deliver content in the US to VPN's legally operating in the US or other countries?,

Call me Chapter 11 of NAFTA if that ever happened. If I were Netflix in that instance, I'd be looking for a few billion in damages.

Question: Was Netflix
a) compelled by the CRTC to participate in these proceedings
b) invited by the CRTC to participate in these proceeding
c) voluntarily appeared of their own accord?

[facepalm] - Yes, Netflix was invited to participate. They agreed to do so which means they agree to the requirements of the proceedings. In their written and oral submissions Netflix made claims. The CRTC requested data/facts to back up those claims which it has the right to.

Had Netflix declined to participate the CRTC proceeded without their input. That being said, even if Netflix didn't participate and the CRTC wanted the information to make an informed decision they could have simply sent a written request/order for the information (as they have done in the past with other companies).
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

2 recommendations

resa1983 to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

said by MaynardKrebs:

You clearly didn't hear what Netflix was saying .... that they would provide the info if they were given assurance that the information was to truly be held in confidence.

I watched the entire thing and heard every word. What she kept asking for was a guarantee which the commission is not able to provide. The commission will hold it in confidence but they cannot override other laws just because Netflix wants a guarantee. That's the crux of it - if a court rules that the information should be released in the public's interest per an access to information request there's nothing the commission can do but comply.

At which point we should all be filing requests for Rogers, Bell, Shaw, and Telus as well.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Blais sounded like he was threatening Netflix with the removal of an exemption order for New Media - directed solely at Netflix.

What would the CRTC have done - banned Netflix for delivering content to Canadians? demanded that Netflix not deliver content in the US to VPN's legally operating in the US or other countries?,

Call me Chapter 11 of NAFTA if that ever happened. If I were Netflix in that instance, I'd be looking for a few billion in damages.

Question: Was Netflix
a) compelled by the CRTC to participate in these proceedings
b) invited by the CRTC to participate in these proceeding
c) voluntarily appeared of their own accord?

[facepalm] - Yes, Netflix was invited to participate. They agreed to do so which means they agree to the requirements of the proceedings. In their written and oral submissions Netflix made claims. The CRTC requested data/facts to back up those claims which it has the right to.

Had Netflix declined to participate the CRTC proceeded without their input. That being said, even if Netflix didn't participate and the CRTC wanted the information to make an informed decision they could have simply sent a written request/order for the information (as they have done in the past with other companies).

Nice of the CRTC to invite Netflix and then bitch slap them in public. I don't think that's the way decent people treat their guests, but then again I was raised properly.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'm pretty sure ROBELLUSTRON would have wanted clarification from FCC counsel on various matters pertaining to confidentiality had they been invited to testify about something in Washington before they would have coughed up anything other than a string of #####'s.

Prior to Blais jumping on Netflix, Pentefountas was saying some long-winded thing that took a long time to come out and it was unclear whether it was going to be an accusation or a question - sort of like the old "Did your mother cry when you told her that you were gay?" routine.

I think that the CRTC had it in for Netflix today.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

Netflix doesn't have any operations in Canada. They don't peer here, they don't have any circuits, network facilities, switching equipment, etc. They don't even charge or remit HST. I'm not sure what the CRTC could do to them even if they chose not to comply.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

It raises many questions that's for sure.

Here's a link to all the sessions: »www.cpac.ca/en/digital-archives/

today's Netflix appearance are the links labeled:

CRTC Hearing – 2013 September 19, 2014 (AM) Part 1
CRTC Hearing – 2013 September 19, 2014 (AM) Part 2

On a similar but separate note, I was up there on the 16th with Bram for TekSavvy (starting at timestamp 97:45) labeled:

CRTC Hearing – 2013 September 16, 2014 (AM)
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to HeadSpinning

Premium Member

to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

Netflix doesn't have any operations in Canada. They don't peer here, they don't have any circuits, network facilities, switching equipment, etc. They don't even charge or remit HST. I'm not sure what the CRTC could do to them even if they chose not to comply.

Blais would cancel his personal subscription?

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Kind of found it to be a bit of a distraction though (albeit important questions too). Many other interesting and contrasting questions about a BDU type of a model vs. pure OTT model - how in each instance Canadian content/Canadian interests are fostered - might have otherwise gotten a bit more attention.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by TSI Marc:

Kind of found it to be a bit of a distraction though (albeit important questions too). Many other interesting and contrasting questions about a BDU type of a model vs. pure OTT model - how in each instance Canadian content/Canadian interests are fostered - might have otherwise gotten a bit more attention.

I'd really like to know why you think content isn't content - regardless of the delivery platform? I was really shocked by your response at the hearing.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Hum. Not sure I follow. Don't think, we intended to say that... Can you explain a bit more what you mean?
TSI Marc

TSI Marc

Premium Member

I see your comment above now.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
If I recall correctly, I think I meant to say that within the BDU platform, where things are linear... You want to make the delivery method as flexible as possible to allow for end users to enjoy whatever content in whatever manner they choose to. You can have great content but if you can't watch it on your iPad and that's where you really want to watch it on for whatever reason... You may end up choosing a different service or an OTT option. Which is fine of course, you want choices... But the point is that under BDU (that's what the proceeding was about), you want to make it as attractive as possible knowing that OTT is also competing.. You want strong BDUs (not just the big ones but players like us possibly too) for all sorts of Canadian interest reasons...

Make the BDU rules and laws in a way that allows for the best possible BDUs to exist... And compete/provide options that are either similar to OTT as far as delivery methods or offer different kinds of content..

Does that make more sense?
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

I see your comment above now.

I'll be more specific though. In the »www.cpac.ca/en/digital-a ··· teksavvy at ~1:12:00 Stephen Simpson asked you if your customers made a distinction between video and broadcast. Your eventual response was that each have their place as separate services.

This floored me because, as I see it anyway, the reason we have to have a BDU vs internet video vs DVD/Bluray is because of this mess of regulations, technological restrictions, and corporate greed. My ideal world is one where I license content once and watch it on any service I choose or subscribe to a service where I get it in bulk via a software interface (not a BDU).

Edit: As an example: If I bought a CD (yes, I'm getting old ), I can import it into any music program I choose. Thanks to the removal of DRM, if I buy music from iTunes I can move it over to another music service/program if I get sick of iTunes interface/polices/etc. The content I buy is mine. Content I "rent" is dirt cheap but I don't get to keep it like streaming services and ad supported services are free (like streaming my local radio station online).

Take that same scenario in TV/movies/etc and it's a mess. If I buy a DVD/Bluray I have to buy a "digital copy" version (if it's available) if I want to be able to move it around my devices and even then it's restricted/poor quality/not compatible. In reality all I need is a program to rip it (aka import) but the government made that illegal. News/sports are an impossible mess to get reliably in a non-BDU form and this trend of having to have a BDU sub to access the content online... ugh. Then if I get a BDU, not only is my content covered in watermarks/ads, I'm subject to advertising and high costs instead of lower costs/free like with music or YouTube.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

1 edit

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Oh I see.

Well I guess I do see it a bit differently but maybe I'm wrong...

I don't think content is different per say but I do think the specific platform is more conducive for some content than for other content.

We spoke about Multicast when we were up there... Well if we had a BDU service and wanted to stream all the video to each customer via each their own stream (like Netflix for example), the costs there are very high. So when say the Game 7 hockey game is on.. Everybody will be tuned in at the same time watching the exact same thing. That's when you really want Multicast. Netflix.. Not so much in that instance. You may want to watch a replay later but you'd almost certainly just record the game than go back and find it on an old rerun real.. You don't see much of that on Netflix...

there are good reasons to have multiple different delivery methods IMHO. The greed and regulations you speak of do create problems... And the CRTC appears committed to reeling some of that in with their proposed changes. If they do make those changes, I think you will find that BDUs can actually bring something unique and different than OTT/pure pick what you want to watch all the time... Of course though, you totally want the pure OTT/Netflix type too and I totally love that part. I just don't think they are mutually exclusive or replacements for one another. I think we need and should have them both and potentially with some overlap. Best of all worlds kind of thing.

There are big time consequences with these decisions though, many people, the content industry, the creators of content, the artists, they depend on the BDUs to provide some stability in financing. You saw how Netflix literally has no footprint in Canada. They care about Canada but ultimately, there is little control there. So, I can see how it's a tough situation. We want to make sure we protect Canadian interests ya know? Not saying anything bad one way or another but if I were in the CRTCs shoes.. There are some tough decisions they are faced with... And, of course, I haven't been at this forever either so I'm also happy to hear more feedback as we continue to explore all of this.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I do see your points and they make sense from an industry perspective. From the customer perspective we don't want to care about multicast vs CDN or any other type of technology. I don't want to have to worry about recording or having a separate (expensive) device to record games. I think that's what bothered me - the question was about what your customers see not what's best for companies.

For me, when I want to watch something I go and watch it. I don't have the desire to figure out when it's going to be airing or whether or not I need yet another piece of hardware. I download or stream and watch. My only problem is that because of licensing restrictions, regulations, and inane laws, I have to do so illegally 9 times out of 10. Meanwhile my family have completely given up on video content because the costs are so high, commercials are annoying, and bandwidth is so expensive (they can't get TSI).

Regarding the industry points though:

Multicast, this sounds like a technological issue to be solved to allow some sort of multicast protocol over TCP/IP or simply use a CDN. Granted there is the bandwidth issue but that's something else the CRTC needs to fix regardless.

Stability, if anything I think this hurts the industry. Movies find funding from all sorts of sources and have budgets from zero to hundreds of millions. TV on the other hand a select few network executives decide what will succeed/fail and how much funding they'll get instead of what customers are willing to pay for. Content is truly king and content producers should be the ones calling the shots, not TV executives. Firefly is a perfect case study for this point. Even dismissing that argument why should the industry be granted stability by the government? It's entertainment not food production.

Protecting Canadian interests, this is a valuable goal but doing this does not require propping up a dying BDU system. It would be much better served by other means.

I really think BDUs are as viable as the dodo. They're inflexible, awkward in their presentation, expensive to bring back from the dead, and really don't have much value to society.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

JM, you say that when you want to watch something, you go watch it. How is that possible for an NHL game? You have to watch it when it's on.. Live... When Orange is Black is released, you have to wait until they release it. When a new movie comes out.. You have to wait until it's released... If it were possible to server all this stuff up from a tuna can costing $1... I would gladly do so that but it does take some decent hardware to do all this stuff.. Either it's in your Xbox, your Smart TV.. Your settop box...

The multicast stuff is not a customer facing thing, but neither are penetration rate cards...but in the end, it is very much a customer impacting thing... It all matters I guess is all I'm saying. If everybody were to start watching Netflix and only netflix... Your internet costs are going to go up... All that streaming is not cheap... There are actually real costs for these things. Greed aside.. Still there are real costs..

I'll circle back a bit later. I have to go for now.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc

Member

I'm still waiting for the final digital archive and transcript of the 19th to be posted. I want to see how well I did in front of the camera, and I want to check out the references that were made to my video later on. I was in the foyer doing some post-presentation work and couldn't follow the rest of the proceedings. On a few occasions, people congratulated me for my presentation.

Because of the style of the presentation (a stick figure cartoon), I wasn't sure if the Commission would take me seriously. It turns out they took me VERY seriously, and were extremely pleased with the informative nature of my film!

Overall, it was an extremely satisfying experience. I was waiting for the right kind of proceeding to express my opinions on Canadian television, and I hit the jackpot!
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
There are definitely costs and I am not suggesting those costs don't have to be paid by the customer at some point.

NHL game: »www.wiziwig.tv/competiti ··· cehockey

Orange is the new Black - not sure what your point is here since Orange is released in bulk as soon as they're all ready. Obviously we have to wait for content to be produced. Netflix type services that don't have limited content is something I'd pay for in a heartbeat but I'm not going to pay the same rate as the US to get a fraction of the content.

As to the hardware - my computer can do it all. I can capture if I want, stream to anywhere in my home, if I had a static IP I could stream to my devices, with Intel's WiDi I could send it to any TV without it having to be a SmartTV (as is I just move my laptop around and use HDMI since wireless signals suck here). I buy one piece of hardware, one internet connection, and software takes care of the rest. My only problem is storage and that's why I'd be willing to pay for a service.

As to bandwidth costs, as I (and you ) say that's a CRTC issue. Bandwidth is a lot cheaper than what TSI has to pay for but even at current rates it's cheaper than a BDU.

Lets compare:
Robbers BDU
- $116/m for all channels
- purchase or rental of hardware
- Electricity costs for a device that consumes way more energy than it should
- limited selection, especially with international content
- limited time only (I have to watch what they have available when I have the time)
- limited to 1 geographic location (ie: I want the service at my cottage as well as my home I have to pay twice)
- hardware for recording is limited in space, recording quality is poor, not transferable to other devices, and requires me to setup the recording
- 37% of the time I have available to watch is filled with commercials
- Content is covered by watermarks/pop over ads ruining the experience
- Much of the content is duplicated/time shifted between channels
- Much of the content is old reruns
- I have no control over what episode I get to watch

Internet
- $44.99 (25/10 - more than enough for HD) I've never paid a bandwidth overage fee and the majority of my usage is video).
- purchase of hardware (computer) which I'd purchase anyway
- lower electrical costs comparatively (except on my gaming rig )
- virtually unlimited selection from around the world
- ISP geographically limited but can be substituted with wireless which results in watch any time, anywhere
- hardware is only limited to my willingness to expand it
- No commercials or it's a service which is free in exchange for watching commercials (like YouTube)
- No popover ads or watermarks (unless the torrent was capped from a BDU and not a rip)
- I have complete control over what I watch, when I watch it, etc

The two just don't compare in any way. The only value I see in BDU is the lack of decision making or limited decision making. You turn on the TV to a channel and watch whatever is on. Nothing that can't be accomplished by a 3rd party playlist or something like »www.youtuberandomvideo.com/

If internet costs have to go up, that'd be ok if it made legitimate content more easily accessible/widely available. There's a lot of room between $44.95 and $160+. I don't think they need to necessarily, but it's definitely an option I'd prefer over the current mess.

Personally, I'd think the best thing the government/CRTC could do would be to (limited to streaming not purchasing of content):
- Mandate that all content, after 6 months from initial release, must be licensable to everyone at a fixed rate (not a government set rate but a rate at which the producer sets)
- Those licensing fees cannot exceed a certain threshold (ie: make it too expensive for someone to license)... maybe based on a formula of (budget/length) or some such.
- Any content that is not available for license for longer than 6 months is put into the public domain permanently.

That way content producers can figure out the best model/price for them, they can make 6 month exclusivity agreements to allow differentiation between 3rd party services without having crap like the "disney vault".

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to milnoc

Premium Member

to milnoc
Nice milnoc. I'd like to see it too when it's out.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
Those BDU costs you mention, in the TalkTV a proceeding, that's what the CRTC is trying to fix... It shouldn't be that high, you should be able to get the chans you want and not be bundled in with all sorts of stuff you don't want but are forced to pay for... That's what the pick and pay thing is all about.

I think we will have to wait and see what they end up doing and how it ends up playing out. It could mean positive things for everybody... Difficult to say at this point.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
Things, as they are now... Are broken. We all agree on that I think..
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by TSI Marc:

Things, as they are now... Are broken. We all agree on that I think..

Yup. Mostly due to propping up the BDU system. I just wanted to understand your response because it's counter-intuitive to your other positions. Pick & Pay is dead on arrival - the internet has already made it outmoded. It's pick content and pay because channels are just another form of bundling.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

The majority of the content on a BDU is owned by Rogers, Bell, Shaw.. I.e. The vertically integrated companies.. Who impose high rates on competitors and in essence have forced prices way up... Lax regulation on forcing their hand has allowed them to keep doing this for a long time now... This was repeated many times by many parties over the course of the two weeks.

Fair prices to competitors would do quit a bit to improve that situation...

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
Second video on page 2 of this thread.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Oops I have my page views set to show more than default. Let me see if I can find it.
AsherN
Premium Member
join:2010-08-23
Thornhill, ON

AsherN to milnoc

Premium Member

to milnoc
Watched the video. There are flaws in your logic. One is that enough high quality Canadian programming can be produced. Second is that Canadian broadcasters would lose a fortune if SimSub is eliminated. Right now, if I want o watch CSI, it does not matter what channel I tune to, I get the Canadian feed with the Canadian commercial. Canadian networks use those numbers to set ad rates. If you eliminate SimSub, the number of viewers to the Canadian feed will drop. Some because they want to US commercials, some by sheer inertia. They were watching the US feed and did not bother to watch. Even if that's only 25% of the audience, that's huge in terms of revenues.

Quebec is different. There is a significant portion of the audience that cannot consume the US shows, unless dubbed. Which opens another stream for the talent.

MacGyver

join:2001-10-14
Vancouver, BC
·TELUS
Actiontec T3200M
Arcadyan WE410443-TS
Sipura SPA-2102

MacGyver

said by AsherN:

One is that enough high quality Canadian programming can be produced. Second is that Canadian broadcasters would lose a fortune if SimSub is eliminated.

Well if the CRTC wants to encourage Canadian content, stopping so-called Canadian stations from doing nothing but rebroadcasting American content would be a good start. But then the CRTC allowed that to begin with, too.

Honestly I think the last two weeks were a complete waste of time. Nothing is going to change unless consumers vote with their wallets.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

1 recommendation

milnoc

Member

Here's how the CRTC normally works.

The CRTC asks the public for opinions on proposed policy changes on a regular basis, and the public gives the CRTC their opinions. The CRTC then uses the information submitted by individuals and corporations to reach a decision on how these policies should be changed.

If only corporations show up at the CRTC hearings, almost all of the opinions the CRTC will receive will be greatly biased and one-sided. The CRTC's decisions, no matter how bad they might be, will be based on these opinions.

When I decided to make my video, my goal was to give the CRTC a working alternative to the status quo that they were likely to hear during the two weeks of hearings. Judging by the reaction in the room along with the positive comments from the chair, I believe that I've accomplished exactly that.

Only time will tell if my video was influential enough to implement real policy change. But at least I've had my say in the matter, and that's what was most important for me.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

1 recommendation

TSI Marc to milnoc

Premium Member

to milnoc
Just watched the video milnoc. Good work. Makes good sense to me.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to milnoc

Member

to milnoc
I watched the video as well and I can't agree with Marc. There are some logic gaps.

1) SimSub should be eliminated, however, you also need to address American stations not carrying Canadian content. If a station wants to operate in Canada it should have to meet CanCon requirements just like other stations.

2) SimSub is only part of the equation. You've dealt with the ad revenue issue but ignored the production issue. Buying a license for an American show is far easier/cheaper and holds less risk than producing Canadian content. This is especially true when the license is purchased a year after airing in the US.

3) Eliminating SimSub does not create equal value of productions. American productions can have 8-10 times the budget minimum simply due to economies of scale. Add in the fact that American shows are licensed around the world while the majority of Canadian shows will never make it outside of Canada. This creates a huge imbalance in value between productions.

4) Availability of content between English and French. You make note of the dichotomy between the markets in the different languages but do not consider the true impact of that. Even without SimSub you've only got these countries: »jefferson.cr.k12.ia.us/A ··· fmap.gif which are likely to produce content for French language. In reality there are only 2-3 areas that will produce content for French, with Quebec being one of the top sources. In English »www.slmc.uottawa.ca/cont ··· 1001.jpg the number of sources is much higher and Canada is near the bottom of 6 countries that are major sources of English language productions. This is even further compounded by the fact that so few English Canadian productions have appeal outside of Canada without Americanizing them.

5) You make the assumption that allowing certain BDUs to die will result in concentration of the market. If I'm a sci-fi fan I may pick Space but if not enough other people do it will die. Who will make/air sci-fi content? Edit: or worse yet, what stops all these channels from becoming generic and none catering to any specific niche.

6) The entire point of pick and pay is to unbundle to allow people to pick the channels they want. Your idea simply reduces the amount of content, the choices of channels and bundles them into a single channel. This is the antithesis of what is desired from pick and pay. (also one of the many reasons I think it's dead on arrival)

7) 50% requirement - If we're forced to pick based on ownership it kills the purpose. The point is to make it about what the customer wants not about being forced into something you don't want.

8) 50% requirement would also encourage identical time shifted Canadian channels. Since we'd be forced to include 50% there may not be Canadian channels we actually want, so instead of choosing other networks for variety, they choose a duplicate of one of the Canadian channels they want just time shifted. This will lead to further concentration of the market instead of expansion.

9) Marc talked about stability in the BDU market, there's not much that addresses the issue. Specifically, how easily/frequently can you switch pick and pay? Customer centric perspective would say once a month, industry centric would be once a year (or at least once a quarter) for stability. What's to prevent termination/change fees from appearing?

10) You mention OTT but do not address the competitiveness of BDUs in relation to OTT or how to address cord cutters who would rather do as I do and get everything OTT.

In all there are a lot of leaps, omissions, and assumptions. I like the core sentiment behind it, I just don't see how viable it would be without making a mountain of regulation to address various gaps.
Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON

Walter Dnes to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

I'd really like to know why you think content isn't content - regardless of the delivery platform?

So if I rent DVDs and/or Bluerays from Redbox kiosks, should I be required to watch X% Canadian movies?