The two satellite companies have really shown their uniqueness. Bell does not allow you to buy a second dish for cottage or trailer but SC will give you the dish and promotes the program.

The two satellite companies have really shown their uniqueness. Bell does not allow you to buy a second dish for cottage or trailer but SC will give you the dish and promotes the program.

Starchioce is taking alot of heat right now for this:

edited: Please do not cut an paste copyright material into a thread. Please use links. One paragraph is okay. DHC article on Account stacking (http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/content/view/1251/51/) for background.

This thread was split out of a BEV forum thread into its own because the issue of Account Stacking affects all carriers and the CRTC.

Great reading!

Here is a background information preamble from the CRTC page about the Account Stacking issue:In a complaint dated 2 December 2005, Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) alleged that Star Choice Communications Inc. (SCI) had violated section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations) by giving itself an undue preference and subjecting Videotron to an undue disadvantage by allowing the sale of several decoders and antennas to a single individual who may then install them in two separate residences while paying for only one subscription. In the view of Videotron, this practice by SCI is anti-competitive and deprives Videotron of subscribers, thereby subjecting Videotron to an undue disadvantage. Videotron further alleged that this practice deprives programming undertakings, particularly specialty programming services and pay television services, of revenue that they would otherwise collect if SCI complied with the Regulations.
Here's how you might have input with the CRTC on the Account Stacking issue:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2006/pb2006-41.htm

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2006/pb2006-41-1.htm

I know this much, if we had have actually gotten around to setting up at our cottage (with *C), I would most definitely NOT have switched to Rogers.

Beyond, this, the complaind is pure bovine excriment!!!!

I can say with great confidence that there is no way a cable customer can get cable when on the road with their RV. I can further say that it is unlikely that there are many cottages that are near the same cable providor as the cottage owner.

And lastly, if Videotron et al can't deal with a little competition, then too bad. Is *C allowed to turn around and counter sue/complain that because they can't provide On Demand services that the cable companies should not be allowed to offer such a service?!?!?!?!

Yeah, the complaint is complete horse manure. Is Videotron seriously saying that they provide cable service to the cottage locations they seem to have issue with? Most cable companies and telcos wont run lines out to locations with less than several hundred permanent residents. And that's if it doesn't cost them too much.

It's just sour grapes on Videotrons part and an advantage of Satellite systems. Bell would provide the same service if it wasn't for the fact they are so paranoid (and rightly so) about the security of their system.

They compliant mentions how easy is it to abuse the system and obviously there will be abusers, but why should the tens of thousands of people who use the system correctly be penalised for this? It's also very easy to figure out who the abusers are too and they do get their 'hosts' accounts suspended when it's discovered!!

c'mon guys, read what VIdeotron's issues are. The point is that VIdeotron is asking that the CRTC make each address a separate account.

The fact is that *C and BEV have been turning a blind eye to account splitting and its costing honest people money because we're paying for it.

I know of quite a few people who are splitting their satellite accounts so please tell me how Videotron or any cable company can "compete" with people getting their signals for free.

What if the subscriber has one receiver, but dishes at different locations? Why shouldn't they be allowed to pack up their box and toodle out to the lake for the summer withough having to have two accounts? Don't this boxes have some sort of IP identifier or something? Couldn't the Satellite provider prove that there was simultaneous transmission to two locations?

Hugh, I can tell you for a fact that Starchoice does not turn a blind eye to account splitting in any shape, form or fashion. As a matter of fact the rules they began to impliment last year for cottage service (proof of ownership and professional installation) were to clamp down even more on potential account splitters. No proof of ownership, no 2nd dish, as simple as that. Of course you're never going to be able to stop the folks who buy a 2nd hand dish anyway, but neither are you going to be able to stop the people who run a cable feed to their neighbours house and share their service.

If you get caught splitting an account at Starchoice, your service will be off within 24 hours and the burden will be on the customer to prove they are not in breach of the terms of service before service is resumed. I don't see how that can be considered 'turning a blind eye'.

Don't this boxes have some sort of IP identifier or something? Couldn't the Satellite provider prove that there was simultaneous transmission to two locations?

They could do this by insisting that all receivers must be connected to a phone line or they won't be activated. Then they could sent hits to the receivers requesting they place a call back to HQ periodically. If the outgoing telephone number doesn't match the account information, the receiver could be de-activated. The issue with this though is people don't always have a land line anymore or maybe don't have and jack near the receiver. Wireless jacks could sort the 2nd issue, but there's no real way around the first.

Also the cost of having 1 million+ receivers (in the case of Starchoice) call back every week or month would be extremely expensive.

At the end of the day though, Starchoice at least could get around the complaint with a little bit of pain on their part. Make the customer set-up an account for both locations and when the customer calls in to activate the cottage location, the home location is placed on a seasonal disconnect. An administrative pain-in-the-butt for Starchoice, but it does kill the CAB's complaint right away and the only customers it will effect are the ones who actually are expecting services to be still available at home (kids who didn't go with them to the cottage etc.)

Won't do anything to stop true account splitters though, but then again, nothing will.

I get a call from Bell Expressvu once a year to confirm #'s on the system info screen.

One year I had a third receiver that was in it's box because I just upgraded and they asked for the #'s and I said I didn't know. They shut the receiver off right away.

At least four years in a row now from Bell.

I have never received a call from Star Choice in the seven years I have been with them.

Hugh, I can tell you for a fact that Starchoice does not turn a blind eye to account splitting in any shape, form or fashion.

Yeah okay and I have some swamp land in Florida to sell.

I'm not slagging Star Choice but as you yourself said and I've said a hundred times, Bell and Star Choice could stop satellite piracy and account splitting tomorrow by simply shutting down receivers that aren't plugged into a phone jack.

I know, I know, a few people are going to say "but I don't have a landline" or "it's too far from the phone jack" etc. The fact is people knew this when they bought their receivers.

Sorry cellarboy, until the DTH satellite companies enforce their own rules, I say their not taking things seriously and everything is just window dressing.

What if the subscriber has one receiver, but dishes at different locations? Why shouldn't they be allowed to pack up their box and toodle out to the lake for the summer withough having to have two accounts?

Because the rules say you can't. This is why the CRTC has been asked to rule on the whole situation.

I'm not arguing that the CRTC rules are rationale but they are the rules and there should be a level playing field.

If *C is allowed to do this, it puts the cable companies at a competitive disadvantage.

The cable companies are saying The CRTC needs to either:

ban the practice OR
allow cable companies to charge less for multi-resident customers to level the playing.


Why not a 50% discount on your cable bill for each residence if you can prove you are paying a cable bill elsewhere?

The problem with this is the broadcasters (TSN, Discovery etc) are fighting this idea tooth and nail because they feel they would see their revenues fall.

Why not a 50% discount on your cable bill for each residence if you can prove you are paying a cable bill elsewhere?

Do the cable co's really need the CRTC to *allow* them to offer this? My impression was they need to have permission from the crtc to raise prices, not lower/discount them.... seems to me the real reason is they don't do this cause it would cut into their fat profits.

The problem with this is the broadcasters (TSN, Discovery etc) are fighting this idea tooth and nail because they feel they would see their revenues fall.

Then why aren't TSN/Discovery etc. fighting SC's 'second address' program, refusing to provide their service to SC/Bell etc.

I could see it being the other way around; because I have to pay full price for cable at both of my houses, I'm going to live with having only Basic cable. Then the premium channel providers get nothing.

Couldn't Starchoice complain to the CRTC that cable companys being able to offer VOD is undue preference and subjecting Starchoice to an undue disadvantage?

Do the cable co's really need the CRTC to *allow* them to offer this?

Yep because it would mean they would have to cut by 50% the amount they pay to TSN et al. If they just cut the price but not the residuals they would lose money.

Then why aren't TSN/Discovery etc. fighting SC's 'second address' program, refusing to provide their service to SC/Bell etc.

Ahh, they're owned by Bell.

Couldn't Starchoice complain to the CRTC that cable companys being able to offer VOD is undue preference and subjecting Starchoice to an undue disadvantage?

Lain this topic is about account splitting.

Hugh,

It was not started about account sharing, nor is the information in the thread about account splitting. It was (and is) about moving your IRD from your main residence to your summer cottage (only in operation at one location at a time). Legal with Star Choice but not legal with Bev.

It does not refer to two people living in different primary residences paying for one account.

Vis

the thread was split and yes this is about account splitting/ stacking / sharing which is defined as when you use your satellite equipment in multiple residences

Legal with Star Choice but not legal with Bev.

Bev has stopped offering it but it's not illegal. If it was illegal, Star Choice couldn't do it. Bell stopped because they were getting so much heat from the CRTC to stop rampant piracy and account splitting.

Ahh, they're owned by Bell.

uh huh, and Bell has what exactly to do with SC?

Fine, instead of TSN/Discovery, take a premium channel that is not owned by Bell, or any of the Cable Co's (sorry, I don't know which off the top of my head). The example still applies - their revenue is affected by SC's policy, no?

The example still applies - their revenue is affected by SC's policy, no?

And that is the whole point of the original article and discussion. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (ie. all the stations) want the CRTC to stop the practice of account splitting because they are losing money when people account share / split / stack!