dslreports logo
 story category
Bell Offers A La Carte TV
But only where it's seeing competition...

Earlier this month we told you how Bell Canada was now offering a VDSL-based "Fibe" broadband service, which is bundled with IPTV service like AT&T U-Verse here in the States. According to the CBC, Bell is now embracing "a la carte" pricing, where users can pay only for the channels they like. According to Bell, users can choose 15 channels for $15, 20 for $19 or 30 for $22 -- or individual channels for $2 each. This is only being offered in areas with heavier competition (primarily from Videotron), but Bell apparently can't say this out loud:

quote:
Click for full size
According to its website, Bell is not offering a la carte channels in Ontario, its other main television territory. Bell spokesperson Julie Smithers could not say why that was. Rogers, Bell's chief TV rival in Ontario, does offer individual channels on top of basic service at a typical cost of $2.79 each. Basic television services in Ontario from both Bell and Rogers start at around $35 and $30, respectively
Here in the States, we've spent a good part of the decade covering the debate over a la carte TV pricing. If you recall, the FCC first issued a report saying that the idea would result in higher prices for consumers, only to turn around a year later to issue a report that supported the idea. The idea has been championed and subsequently forgotten by politicians, much to the joy of cable operators, broadcasters and smaller TV channels -- who all know that consumers would happily pay less money for only a handful of channels. Those consumers are still waiting.

As an aside, users in our Bell forum are signing up for Bell's new Fibe service and are offering their impressions in this thread for those interested.

view:
topics flat nest 

travisc
join:2001-11-09
Uxbridge, ON

travisc

Member

Get facts straight please

Bell is not facing heavy competition from Rogers in Quebec, since Rogers does not operate in Quebec. Cogeco, Videotron and other independents do.

MelCool
@mountaincable.net

MelCool

Anon

Re: Get facts straight please

Where in this article does it say Bell's competition in Quebec is Rogers? I'm not seeing it.
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

1 recommendation

travelguy

Member

The basic flaw...

to ala carte pricing is a misunderstanding of how the cable/sat tv business works. Much of the costs are fixed (trucks, customer support, wires, satellites, receivers, etc). Pricing is set by what people (as in on the whole) are willing to pay for video entertainment, not what an individual channel or group of channels cost.

This drives business to use a revenue per subscriber model known as ARPU. If these companies make it too easy for subscribers to lower their monthly bill - i.e. going from that $79+ a month to $29/month, they aren't going to be able to generate enough revenue to support the fixed costs...
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN

1 recommendation

ualdayan

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by travelguy:

to ala carte pricing is a misunderstanding of how the cable/sat tv business works. Much of the costs are fixed (trucks, customer support, wires, satellites, receivers, etc). Pricing is set by what people (as in on the whole) are willing to pay for video entertainment, not what an individual channel or group of channels cost.

This drives business to use a revenue per subscriber model known as ARPU. If these companies make it too easy for subscribers to lower their monthly bill - i.e. going from that $79+ a month to $29/month, they aren't going to be able to generate enough revenue to support the fixed costs...
If that's true then how can they continually, over and over, raise prices and claim it's not really them doing it but rather 'content providers' are at fault?

To hear many cable companies tell it the content providers are the ones 99% responsible for rising monthly fees.
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

1 edit

travelguy

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by ualdayan:

If that's true then how can they continually, over and over, raise prices and claim it's not really them doing it but rather 'content providers' are at fault?

To hear many cable companies tell it the content providers are the ones 99% responsible for rising monthly fees.
Of course they do! But you don't actually believe them, do you? Classic strategy of "It's not our fault, it's those evil content providers..."

The reality is that it's both groups. You and I may not like what we spend of video entertainment each month, but the fact is that the cable companies know exactly what price points generates the most revenue. That pool of money is fixed over the short term. Over the long term it changes based on inflation and the amount of discretionary entertainment money people are willing to spend.

The content providers want the largest possible share of that pie, so they negotiate for as much as they can get. The cable companies want to keep as much as they can and not pass it through to the content suppliers.

I believe in the War Games strategy: The only way to win is not to play...
the cerberus
join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON

1 edit

the cerberus

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

At $2 a channel, clearly you are wrong.
There is no package in my area for $15 that offers every channel I want. You work for the cable company dont you? What's the matter? Too lazy to deploy SDV?

burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA

burgerwars

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by the cerberus:

At $2 a channel, clearly you are wrong.
There is no package in my area for $15 that offers every channel I want. You work for the cable company dont you? What's the matter? Too lazy to deploy SDV?
Perfect A La Carta pricing would be to call them up and say you only want one channel and nothing else. If I lived in Canada, I would say I want CNN for $2, and the rest would be what I could get with an antenna.
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by burgerwars:

Perfect A La Carta pricing would be to call them up and say you only want one channel and nothing else. If I lived in Canada, I would say I want CNN for $2, and the rest would be what I could get with an antenna.
True - but that's the problem. The content providers have no interest in their channels being offered ala carte, so they won't let the cable companies sell that way. And even if they were forced to offer channels separately, the cable companies can't afford to support subscribers who only generate $2/month in revenue.

And for those who want IP delivery of a channel, the guys who own the channels have no interest in bypassing the cable and sat companies and threatening the massive revenue they get from that source.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by travelguy:

And even if they were forced to offer channels separately, the cable companies can't afford to support subscribers who only generate $2/month in revenue.
Then they adapt and change their model. It can be done. I can never see a cable bill going for $2 for one channel, but I can see a 3-5 channel selection for $15 being offered. People would love to just have the channels they want.

Cable can survive in an a la carte environment. It's the annoying channels that cannot.

ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada

ReformCRTC to ualdayan

Member

to ualdayan
You're right on about the almighty ARPU. I've been saying that for months here. It's virtually worshipped as God by these companies.

I disagree that they won't cover their fixed costs, though, by going ala carte. That is hog-snot and they know it. The lower ARPU will be spread out by a much wider customer base, if they don't piss them off too much first.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n to travelguy

Member

to travelguy
said by travelguy:

to ala carte pricing is a misunderstanding of how the cable/sat tv business works. Much of the costs are fixed (trucks, customer support, wires, satellites, receivers, etc). Pricing is set by what people (as in on the whole) are willing to pay for video entertainment, not what an individual channel or group of channels cost.

This drives business to use a revenue per subscriber model known as ARPU. If these companies make it too easy for subscribers to lower their monthly bill - i.e. going from that $79+ a month to $29/month, they aren't going to be able to generate enough revenue to support the fixed costs...
To simply say that if cable companies went to pay per channel pricing that they wouldn't make enough money is a fallacy.
Lets say that if a customer wanted the scifi channel, and they pay lets say $5/month. Fine, the cable company wouldn't be able to make a profit on that because the cost of sending out a tech to hook it up with the fear that he may disconnect at any moment.
HOWEVER, you are missing the bigger picture. What if he was forced to sign, say a 2 year contract, or pay annually for it, that would be a win-win for both sides as now you have the customer and when a customer currently has the service they are more likely to add MORE channels which means MORE profit for the cable company. This is especially in part due to the 2 year contract, the customer would have to make the best of a bad situation by ordering more channels.
I think everyone is missing the fact that people are disconnecting not in part that they can't afford it, that its wayyyy too expensive for what they want to offer you. Currently in the US if you want to watch scifi on Comcast you have to purchase a specific tier of channels; most you probably would never watch. And cable channels seem to have never ending commercials...sorry Comcast I don't want to pay monthly to watch commercials.

And this is a win for consumers as well, as now the content providers can't push the cable companies because if no one is purchasing a channel, then the law of supply/demand comes into play where they would be forced to lower the channel until people are watching it or include it in like a "buy one channel - get one free". However, you have to be careful with that as we might fall into the same package trap we are in now - for example "to get the scifi channel you need to purchase A&E and you get scifi for free" without a way to just pay for scifi.

But hey, Comcast et all, keep digging yourself your grave and not listen to your customers. Your stupidity will be the death of you yet. I could care less, as they just don't "get it". You need to make the content cheap and easy to get. Why do you think bittorrents became the pirates #1 choice? The "pirated content" is easy to get and DRM free. DUH!
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

To simply say that if cable companies went to pay per channel pricing that they wouldn't make enough money is a fallacy.
Lets say that if a customer wanted the scifi channel, and they pay lets say $5/month. Fine, the cable company wouldn't be able to make a profit on that because the cost of sending out a tech to hook it up with the fear that he may disconnect at any moment.
HOWEVER, you are missing the bigger picture.
Shall we step back to reality for a moment? I just went over to the Comcast investor relations web sit and pulled the following details out of their 2009 annual report:Total Analog & Digital Video Subscribers was just shy of 42M, which is a 1M increase over the 2008 number. Their revenue went up almost 4% as well, so subscribers are not trading down to cheaper packages.

So this idea that Comcast and the other cable companies are bleeding subscribers is not supported by reality.

I didn't take the time to compute the actual ARPU numbers, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it takes more than 16 $5/month subscribers to replace one $80/month subscriber. Given that pretty much everyone who wants cable has cable, there isn't a huge pool of starving students sitting around waiting for $5 pricing.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n

Member

Re: The basic flaw...

said by travelguy:

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

To simply say that if cable companies went to pay per channel pricing that they wouldn't make enough money is a fallacy.
Lets say that if a customer wanted the scifi channel, and they pay lets say $5/month. Fine, the cable company wouldn't be able to make a profit on that because the cost of sending out a tech to hook it up with the fear that he may disconnect at any moment.
HOWEVER, you are missing the bigger picture.
Shall we step back to reality for a moment? I just went over to the Comcast investor relations web sit and pulled the following details out of their 2009 annual report:Total Analog & Digital Video Subscribers was just shy of 42M, which is a 1M increase over the 2008 number. Their revenue went up almost 4% as well, so subscribers are not trading down to cheaper packages.

So this idea that Comcast and the other cable companies are bleeding subscribers is not supported by reality.

I didn't take the time to compute the actual ARPU numbers, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it takes more than 16 $5/month subscribers to replace one $80/month subscriber. Given that pretty much everyone who wants cable has cable, there isn't a huge pool of starving students sitting around waiting for $5 pricing.
Are you saying this story is false then?
»Cable TV Losing 1 Million Customers A Year [55] comments

And in reality, you can spin the number of customers however you want, what you should be interested in is the number of PAYING customers. I know someone who rented a room at a house, subscribed to Comcast, moved out without letting Comcast know, and Comcast never shut off the service. Not saying it was right to not let Comcast know, but still, I'm sure if it happened once I am sure it has happened many times which the numbers the company puts out may not be as reliable as an independent firm (as the independent firm is not biased). Do you really think Comcast would put that they are losing customers on their public website?

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue to travelguy

Premium Member

to travelguy
said by travelguy:

Shall we step back to reality for a moment? I just went over to the Comcast investor relations web sit and pulled the following details out of their 2009 annual report:Total Analog & Digital Video Subscribers was just shy of 42M, which is a 1M increase over the 2008 number. Their revenue went up almost 4% as well, so subscribers are not trading down to cheaper packages.
The problem is, there is *no* cheaper plan.

Analog TV, before Comcast forced the switch to SDV (with box rental fees) was $70/month + taxes!

Before, it used to be $35 a month (probably 10 years ago).

Then we switched to U-Verse.
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium Member
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO

Corydon to travelguy

Premium Member

to travelguy
And thus the need (IMNSHO) to separate out the cost of maintaining the last-mile network (which ought to be run and regulated as a public utility) and the cost of delivering services over that network.

Set up a municipal fiber network, but let Comcast, Qwest, AT&T, Cox, whoever sell TV channels, On Demand, Internet connectivity, phone service, whatever, over that network. Ideally you make it so you can buy services from several different parties...maybe cut out the middlemen altogether.

It's basically like unbundled local loops updated for the fiber age.
Stojko
Premium Member
join:2007-10-20
St John's NL

Stojko

Premium Member

"But not in Ontario"

Or the other 8 provinces of Canada...
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

Re: "But not in Ontario"

Bell does not have an IPTV presence in any of the other 8 provinces, just Quebec and Ontario. They aren't offering this over their satellite service at all, so Ontario is the only other market that this could actually apply to.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter

Premium Member

Re: "But not in Ontario"

...and seeing how Rogers and Bell are not really interested in competing in the TV market there is little chance of seeing a la Carte in Ontario.
Stojko
Premium Member
join:2007-10-20
St John's NL

Stojko to bt

Premium Member

to bt
said by bt:

Bell does not have an IPTV presence in any of the other 8 provinces, just Quebec and Ontario. They aren't offering this over their satellite service at all, so Ontario is the only other market that this could actually apply to.
Bell Aliant has IPTV in the atlantic provinces.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

On the other hand, they'd love a la carte pricing if...

it were for internet service =) $10 for 15 websites, $100 for 1000, or $1 each ;p
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

Re: On the other hand, they'd love a la carte pricing if...

said by axus:

it were for internet service =) $10 for 15 websites, $100 for 1000, or $1 each ;p
replace web sites with data like $15 base cost + $0.005 per gig.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

and

you can get defrauded
cheated and over billed a la carte too
SIGN UP NOW
perfect for any time of your life when you have extra cash you really don't need , OR wish to lose your other services like 9/11 so just when you wish to call for help THAT too can be removed a la carte

BCE
BULLSHIT CAN EVADEYOU
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

YOU can also BUY THE BOX with them as well!

YOU CAN ALSO BUY THE BOX WITH THEM AS WELL! so you are not forced to rent them at $15 /m each like how it is in the usa.

at least direct tv has that part right any box is just $5/m rent or mirroring.
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN

ualdayan

Member

Re: YOU can also BUY THE BOX with them as well!

said by Joe12345678:

YOU CAN ALSO BUY THE BOX WITH THEM AS WELL! so you are not forced to rent them at $15 /m each like how it is in the usa.

at least direct tv has that part right any box is just $5/m rent or mirroring.
DirecTV has it right? Say you want a HD DVR with DirecTV you have to buy the receiver ($299 normally, promos have it lower from time to time), then you have to pay monthly for having it (almost like a rental fee even though you already bought the box and it's costing them nothing for you to have extra receivers in your home), and then to boot if you cancel they tell you that you never really owned it and take it back! They definitely don't have it 'right'.

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4 to Joe12345678

Premium Member

to Joe12345678
said by Joe12345678:

YOU CAN ALSO BUY THE BOX WITH THEM AS WELL! so you are not forced to rent them at $15 /m each like how it is in the usa.

at least direct tv has that part right any box is just $5/m rent or mirroring.
That sucks..I already own 1 box and plan on buying another. Why pay the $4.50/month? I am also buy a cable modem box, and another $3/month savings...

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

I'm Jealous!

Granted they have a lot of issues in Canada with broadband capping, three year cell phone contracts and other problems related to limited competition. But dang, I would go for that $15/15 channel plan AND buy my own box. That is about as many channels as I ever watch.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: I'm Jealous!

No kidding. I would actually buy a 30-channel TV pack for $22 per month, though low caps on internet aren't my cup of tea and I'm not sure how long I could endure the ad load of typical TV.

heat84
DSLR Influencer
join:2004-03-11
Delray Beach, FL

heat84

Member

TV mini bar style

What about if they did it like a hotel mini bar. All channels are unlocked and you pay for what you watch at the end of the month.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: TV mini bar style

said by heat84:

What about if they did it like a hotel mini bar. All channels are unlocked and you pay for what you watch at the end of the month.
noooooooooo. people think their cable bill is high now, that'd send it through the roof. theres a reason the hotel minibars aren't usually touched.

Mark
I stand with my feet
join:2009-07-11
Canada

Mark

Member

Basic programming required...

So $15 on top of $25, then add the mystery fees, any rentals and taxes and it puts me about where I am today after retentions cut my bill by 25% to keep me from leaving.

2 year contract up in April, then I'll give Beller the 'ol:

F-U
Bobcat79
Premium Member
join:2001-02-04

Bobcat79

Premium Member

Sounds good to me!

Cablevision was charging me $54 for 45 channels. That was f-ing ridiculous, so I disconnected.

I'd go for the $15 plan if I could get it.

Which is better for Cablevision: Getting $0 from me now, or getting $15 from me for this plan?

rv65
Premium Member
join:2008-08-02
USA!!!!

rv65

Premium Member

Re: Sounds good to me!

Actually you still have to purchase limited basic which bell charges about $25 a month. Then you can purchase the al a carte plan.

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4

Premium Member

I'd go for it..

If it was in my area. I only watch CNN, History, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, CTV, Global (notice the I didn't mention CBC) and maybe toss in A&E, MuchMusic and TSN, SportsNet and The Weather Network. I'd still have room for two more channels.

Nice.