Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC's Conversation on "Television"

123K views 593 replies 109 participants last post by  Dan_Lee 
#1 ·
Peter Menzies, Vice-chairman of Telecommunications at the CRTC, had, what I thought were some interesting comments in his speech yesterday to the CCSA.

Could it be that the CRTC is realizing that resistance is futile?

One of the old assumptions was that the CRTC could act effectively as a gatekeeper. Those who wanted to broadcast to Canadians had to do so under our rules, and Canadians — Martha and Henry — had little access to broadcasting that hadn't been channelled through those rules.

But now the Internet and all the devices that can reach it directly have created a borderless world. We can no longer define ourselves as gatekeepers in a world in which there may be no gates. We can't tell Canadians what to watch, nor should we. They are free to enjoy a much wider range of information and entertainment than ever before. And they are.

How can we act as an enabler of Canadian expression, rather than as a protector?
 
#87 ·
I support this provided CRTC makes three things happen first:

1. CRTC gets rid of must carry rules so users aren't forced to subscribe to channels they don't want.
2. CRTC bans broadcasters from owning broadcast distributors for obvious reasons.
3. CRTC requires broadcasters to allow distribution of channels over the internet on a channel by channel basis in order to ensure competition among distributors.

Then it would make sense.
 
#89 ·
I don't support it simply because the marketing of this is based on a lie. Since when do Canadians pay less for television? They are clearly misleading the public here. I have subscribed to both DISH and DirecTV in the last decade and I can tell you that both are cheaper than the Canadian equivalents and you get way more value for your money.
 
#91 · (Edited)
It's worse than that. Under Bell's plan they get all the advantages of the CRTC's value for signal plan and none of the disadvantages.

Under the CRTC's Value for Signal plan, the broadcaster could choose to either keep things as they are, with no fee and mandatory carriage as part of basic. Or the broadcaster could choose to negotiate a value for the signal, with the option to force the provider to drop the channel and blackout all the U.S. programs the broadcaster licenses if they couldn't come to an agreement.

Under Bell's plan they get mandatory carriage as part of basic and can charge whatever they want.
 
#92 ·
If Bell wants "To ensure Canadians get the TV channels they want to watch", then they should get out of the business. I find the more Bell takes over, the worse the selection. I also pretty much stopped listening to CKOC because of the changes since they took over and 99.9 "Virgin Radio" is clearly the worst station in the Toronto area. 99.9 used to be a decent station, but now it's just so much garbage. The all too frequent reruns on Bell Media TV stations, that move from one BM channel to another is another waste of bandwidth. Broadcast media is one area where Bell clearly doesn't belong.
 
#93 ·
^^ It's funny with the 'plague' that Bell brings to the radio stations they bought, eh? Yet, according to the constant cross-promotional ads they run on their TV assets, they're #1 in everything -- LOL! I like how they intentionally avoid mentioning that they own "KOOL-FM" stations when selectively interviewing radio hosts on their corresponding local TV stations; ditto when, say, Canada AM interviews Discovery Channel personalities.

Anytime Bell makes an official comment on policy, I can't help but shake my head at the corporate greed undertone, and how they assume that the government and general public are so gullible to their capitalistic tactics. Why don't they stop the PR-speak and just come out and say it: "Bell wants to own everything and be able to charge for everything; to hell with OTA broadcasting, Cancon, local news, and all forms of regulation!!"

Not surprisingly, this "Let's Talk TV" CRTC conversation has just turned out to be yet another open opportunity for Bell to whine about their "broken business model" (gee, Bell, maybe you shouldn't have bought CTV) and to cry for more money, again. Bell Media constantly rakes in millions in profit, yet apparently they have to layoff hundreds of employees (probably so they can give sky-high bonuses to management) and they can't seem to explain how independent stations like CHCH can operate in the black. Bell's motivations are strictly profit, profit, profit, and they're blind to understanding what Canadians actually want.

Just wait until Bell Media gets on the CBC bandwagon and decides that TV broadcasting ought to be replaced with online content -- maybe they should just try and see how profitable that'll be!! (peoples' expectations are that online = 'free')
 
#94 · (Edited by Moderator)
2. CRTC bans broadcasters from owning broadcast distributors for obvious reasons.
Won't work? Why
Shaw
Videotron
Bell
Rogers
and other providers

Would have to either sell all their channels or sell their cable,sat,IPTV section of their company.

I agree what Bell said as long as they still have packages like they do now.

But you know they'll simple charge more per channel Instead of $2.99 it'll be $7.99 per channel.

So if as an example you get the Best you'll end up paying less for more channels, then paying more and getting less channels.

As for online services they'll simply boost your price for your internet services, and they'll charge "indy" providers more for using their phone lines or cable which in turn will cost you more because they'll jack up their prices.
 
#95 · (Edited by Moderator)
Agreed. There is no way pick and pay will ever be available for all channels and if they come up with a close proximity, the cost of the channels individually will be prohibitive.

The problem is the same as it's always been: built in protections that don't allow for competition, which is the only thing that keeps prices reasonable. Bell, Rogers and Shaw pretty much have a monopoly on the areas they provide for. If they'd let US companies or even International ones compete, you'd see a much different landscape.
 
#96 ·
We have other closely associated but separately regulated industries. Like TD bank has TD waterhouse. They have a common corporate share structure but they are separately governed.

Bell should spin off Bell Media. Rogers should spin off its sports and content assets.

Unfortunately, it will take our federal government to force this regulation. Its unfortunate that Rogers/Bell boards are too chicken to copy recent changes to our grocery industry.

They separated the lease/real estate parts of their businesses from the operations part as a REIT. This encouraged shareholder involvement and created value to their bottom line.

Bell/Rogers should convert to media/asset owned (the money makers) + distribution arm (infrastructure + spectrum). That way we can choose our distribution method (the people with the best price/value **im looking at you internet delivery) + the content we choose (space channel, TSN, sports etc).

Everyone should win because the consumer gets the choice of content, choice of distribution and the shareholder can choose the media owner for share value or the distribution outlet with the best dividend yield.

easy peasy
EC
 
#97 ·
I firmly believe that Bell, Rogers et al should be given a choice. Be infrastructure companies or be content companies. Separate, really separate, no interlocking boards, no holding companies...not even a director of, for example Bell infrastructure being allowed to also serve on Rogers content if you see what I mean. Of course it will never happen, far too brutal for the Canadian way of doing business. I suspect that the enabling legislation would have to be very carefully written to stop Bell and Co finding ways around it...and the fines for that would have to be in the millions.

But if it did then I would support ALL the Canadian content rules going away and the infrastructure companies being deemed to be common carriers and to retransmit anything from any country that they could get a contract for and customers for. I fully accept that under this regime some channels would be very expensive...I imagine that the BBC could easily cost $1000 per year, but some would have to be very cheap as otherwise they'd have no audience.
 
#99 ·
I would rather pay $7.99/channel to be able to get only the 3 channels I want, than the current and proposed system of paying $50 for a whole bunch of channels I do not watch, before I can even get to buy the 3 channels I want!
Honestly, I'd pay $50 a month for the three channels I wanted if that meant a true pick and pay system.

My guess is that they would never charge $50 for 3 channels because consumers would balk at paying and broadcast distributors would be forced to lower their prices in the same way any retailer lowers its prices when product is not selling.

Currently, its the sports stations who are getting the benefit (because they charge the highest rate and everyone has to subscribe) hence why Rogers and Bell love Sportsnet and TSN.

In a true pick and pay system, the sports stations would probably skyrocket in price (I'm guessing $10 to $15 a month each), broadcast networks (such as ABC and NBC) and the good digital stations (AMC, A&E, Discovery etc) would be moderately priced and everything else would plummet.

the only ones I want are AMC, CBC, the 5 U.S. Networks and Sportsnet. Total of 8. (In fall/winter, I would substitute TSN for Sportsnet for Football) Currently I get six over the air hence why I don't have cable or sat.
 
#101 · (Edited)
I have no OTA availability, pick and pay would MAYBE keep cable service in my future. 4 mainstream channels and 2-3 specialty would be all I want. Pick and pay has been discussed for too long with nothing changing - couple RaspPi and XMBC will be tested next week and likely a cancel soon after. Really too bad that the Shaw, Bell, Rogers could not get into the modern age and sell/market their product differently.

Another good reason to separate distribution from production - I believe if Shaw/Bell, etc did not own the content and the distribution, they would be moving to a different model much sooner.
 
#104 ·
Shaw's Comments to CRTC

Here is the gist of Shaw's press release about their submission on the subject.

Shaw proposes comprehensive guidelines to maximize choice for consumers
Among other outcomes, Shaw's proposed guidelines would require that:
  • cable and satellite providers offer a majority of programming services on a standalone basis and that licensed programming services must allow their services to be offered on a standalone basis; and
  • consumers not be forced to purchase certain high-cost services (like sports) as part of their basic package — instead, consumers would be given the option to receive these services on an enhanced basic, through a discretionary package or on a pick-and-pay basis.
 
#105 ·
Rogers Comments to CRTC

Rogers shares the CRTC's goal of more choice. TV providers should offer their customers new flexible packaging options that are based on what their customers actually want to watch.

<snip>

"Delivering more choice for customers depends on the CRTC banning unreasonable contracts that prevent TV providers from offering channels on a pick and pay basis," added Engelhart. "The CRTC is taking a look at this barrier to choice and we're confident they'll do the right thing for consumers."
Full Press Release.
 
#106 ·
Bell, really sneaky of you to make this public at the end of the consultation on the eve of a long weekend, so no one has a chance to post interventions!

CTV, Global, and City locals can be mandatory carriage channels, but consumers must have the right to decide whether or not to subscribe to them. The only thing I watch on CTV is the Canadian version of the Amazing Race. Global and CBC I can get OTA. City is fringe reception at best, so I would subscribe for hockey games.

But no way should Bell (or Shaw or Rogers for that matter) be allowed to hold all the US programs hostage by forcing blackouts while negotiating carriage fees. As far as "value for service", all you BDU/broadcasters owe Canadians big money for years of simsubs and depriving us of the proper SuperBowl. If a CTV uses the “nuclear option” of blacking out US programming, then it is time to boycott any product or service advertised on CTV or any of its many specialty channels until they atone for their evil ways. The only other option is for everyone to cancel cable (no point subscribing without US network programming).
 
#107 ·
The Only way that the Canadian TV Czar is going to allow full time pick and pay is a Minimum requirements of add OTA Local from major cities. Take Vancouver for Pick n' Pay, The Channels Requirements are CBC, CHEK, Global BC, CityTV, CTV2, iCi, CTV, OmniTV & JoyTV. Remember that KVOS does not count. and for Halifax is Global, CTV, CTV2 & CBC.
 
#109 ·
No matter what happens, BDUs will require a minimum fee to cover the cost of maintaining infrastructure. That's what the basic service is and it will always have a cost. Providing or not providing a set of low or no cost channels on the basic service doesn't change that. Pick and pay on top of the basic service is desirable but only if it's cost effective when compared to packages. I prefer to have both. Some packages are very comprehensive and provide good value. Pick and pay can be used to fill in a few missing channels. Then there is the cost and complexity of maintaining pick and pay selection for hundreds of thousands of customers. Some BDUs can barely maintain their current web sites so I don't thing they are up to the task of automating pick and pay.

The biggest problems with Canadian TV services are high cost and lack of competition. It needs to be opened up, in a manner similar to internet, so that third parties can provide competing options easily and economically. The trend of increasing concentration of ownership needs to be reversed as well. The recent purchase of Astral by Bell was a very bad indicator for Canadian consumers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top