If the CRTC threatens to pull BEV's license then you will have a solution.

Attach the damn STB to the phone jack and problem is solved.

I think Bell should be familiar with telephone technology.

And how do you propose to handle those that have no 'land' line? Some people really don't have land lines and making them mandatory is about as intelligent as ______ . (fill in the blank!)

they should then pay for seperate services at each location.
i'm not sure about *C (perhaps someone more familiar with them could comment), but i know that BEV offers a seasonal service option that allows you to 'turn off' your recievers for a length of time.
you could turn off your cottage during the winter months and turn it back on again in the summer and vice-versa for the home. if you find yourself in the situation you described starchoice, then you just pay for a few months of tv at the cottage during the summer and put it on seasonal service at the end of the summer/ cottage season.


nem, who thinks competative fairplay only seems to benefit those that are not an incumbant...

And Bev increased that fee effective sometime back in Sept!!!

Sure it does. In order to prevent being put out of business BEV will have to sacrifice a few customers without phones.

Sounds like you work for Bell tele...LOL

I would love to see the class action & human rights complaints filed ON THAT!!

And how do you propose to handle those that have no 'land' line?

They can no longer be customers.

In order to protect the industry, BEV has to lose these customers or provide them with a solution.

Honestly, that is ludicrous.

They can no longer be customers.

In order to protect the industry, BEV has to lose these customers or provide them with a solution.I guess it depends how many customers will say good-bye. Because of the high fixed cost of operating the satellite nework every new customer is 99% profit and every lost customer is 99% loss.

Account sharing is a big issue for scammers, but I think crtc should have Bell stop there market share piracy tactics before they stop both companys for account sharing.

First off, a lot of people don't have Internet at the home or trailer but a phone call would work as well.
A decently designed webpage should be accessable from dialup modems.


The problem with this model is that you may have the husband at the cottage doing some work and wife stays home - only one can watch TV?

Possible scenario number 2 - kids don't want to go camping and stay home. Who watches TV?
If you want two simultaneous connections, then you should pay for them.

Here's a novel thought..charge per receiver...not an extra receiver fee, but change per receiver outright. This would be similar to the cell phone market where (generally) you pay per phone and have your subscription per phone...which competes against land lines where you can have multiple phones. Each serve different needs.

In the end, the overall package price could be reduced, but people with two receivers would pay double. I think you would see alot of people with multiple receivers move to cable, and alot of people with only one TV on a cable line move to satellite with the lower cost.

Each receiver could have it's own package of channels with it's own cost (your HDTV could have the extra HD channels, and that TV in the bathroom could subscribe for only the basic). If you have a cottage, subscribe another receiver or move one you have, up to you...

What do you think?

Just a thought?

Frankly, it was the ability to access TV at both my home and cottage that prompted me to switch from cable to satellite in the first place - if BEV and *C implement measures to prevent this or charge me double, they can kiss my account (and certain other things) goodbye.

Since the CRTC decision seems to be based on this notion that anything that gives one type of service provider an advantage not available to another service provider is to be prohibited, where will it end? Will cable providers now be required to figure out a way to prevent people from splitting analog cable and sending it to more than one TV, something you can't do with sat feeds? Will Telus be penalized because their virtual monopoly on land lines in western Canada gives them a competitive advantage in selling their TV service over Shaw/BEV/*C? Will highspeed cable internet subscribers now have to pay extra if they install a wireless network that allows anyone with a laptop and wi-fi card to park in front of their house and surf away?

And what about things like "Slingbox" - I don't know much about that technology, but it seems to me, depending on your perspective, it either evens the playing field for the cablecos or results in the same kind of potential for "abuse" as the CRTC wants to slap around BEV and *C for. Perhaps instead of b*tching and moaning about the advantages the sat providers have, the cablecos should be putting their resources into developing technology that reduces or eliminates the advantages their competitors enjoy.

They can no longer be customers.

In order to protect the industry, BEV has to lose these customers or provide them with a solution.

Glad you don't work at the CRTC...

In your LALA world you probably would have the person listed as the owner of the sub have a micro chip installed in their arm that must be within 40 or so feet of the IRD or it will shut down and notify Bev!!!

And what about things like "Slingbox" - I don't know much about that technology, but it seems to me, depending on your perspective, it either evens the playing field for the cablecos or results in the same kind of potential for "abuse" as the CRTC wants to slap around BEV and *C for. Perhaps instead of b*tching and moaning about the advantages the sat providers have, the cablecos should be putting their resources into developing technology that reduces or eliminates the advantages their competitors enjoy.

No, Slingbox wouldn't break the rules: there remains only one feed, one set top box, using the cable/satellite account at one time. The Slingbox actually takes over the set top box and "extends" the signal to your PC. Provided you are narrowcasting to yourself in another location -- and not broadcasting to your friends -- this ought to be viewed as perfectly legal.

I donèt see why you guys are getting so worked up. *C offered a cottage package that it knew was against the CRTC rules, and has now been told so. Bell doesnèt allow for this and is out there trying to stop account splitting too.

It would appear that the CRTC has just driven a stake into the hearts of people like me who bought *C to use at their home and cottage. This recent decision also affects BEv customers.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/1614/98/

So, what now? Will I have to pay a complete second fee in order to watch satellite at my cottage? (The CRTC has said that the companies cannot discount the second service cost, if I interpret the decision correctly.) Good thing I hadn't upgraded all my cottage gear to HD yet!

Alternatively, what will *c do in order to at least let me watch the satellite feed at whichever of the 2 addresses I'm at (in effect cancelling the ability to receive signal at the other address).

I'm not sure how soon this will come into effect or whether the companies will appeal (to the Federal Cabinet, I believe?)

Damn!

:mad:

Too many people do not even have a land line phone anymore, just use cellular etc.

what will *c do in order to at least let me watch the satellite feed at whichever of the 2 addresses I'm at (in effect cancelling the ability to receive signal at the other address).



They can't do anything. You can still get feed at two addresses just like BEV subscribers do. The only difference is that SC won't be advertising it and they won't give you a free dish for your cotage or trailer.

I'm sure the cablecos will welcome these customers with open arms.

No phone no satellite. Simple rule.

They can't do anything. You can still get feed at two addresses just like BEV subscribers do. The only difference is that SC won't be advertising it and they won't give you a free dish for your cotage or trailer.

Well the one thing Starchoice can, and probably will have to do, is print out a report of all the accounts that have a 2nd residence memo on them (all accounts for about the last 18-20 months that took part of the home-away-from-home promotion or accounts noted when the customer called to activate a cottage receiver). They'll have to contact each affected customer, explain the situation and inform them that to continue using the cottage equipment they'll have to set up a new account. They will probably suggest that they should simply suspend their home account and only activate their cottage system whilst they are there (therefore not having to pay twice). Unfortunately this would not work for customers transporting receivers between the two locations.

As to what happens after this call and what practical measures the company will have towards policing the matter, now that's the real question. Probably nothing, really. Except for maybe requiring the call centre staff to report any cottage 'spitters' they come across to the same people employed to deal with true account splitters. Essentially treating the majority of people who used the system exactly as intended as criminals.

It'll certainly do nothing to hinder the real account splitters (landlords sharing their account with all their tenants, people sticking receivers for their family and friends on their account) who usually only get caught by accident or their own stupidity anyways.

No one has really mentioned the possibility that Shaw will simply ignore the ruling and continue doing things exactly as they are now.

Ultimately it is just a legal matter between the channels and Star Choice/Shaw. All the broadcasters can do is threaten to pull their channels unless Star Choice starts paying them double. Shaw may just say " go ahead, but you're off Shaw then too", or it may turn into a big legal battle, or something like that.

I don't think the CRTC can really do that much to "enforce" the ruling.

I don't think the CRTC can really do that much to "enforce" the ruling.

then you have never delt with the CRTC.

*C will have to start to actively stop the practice, and from what I have heard they already have.