2015-86 Let's Talk TV
The way forward – Creating compelling and diverse Canadian programming
Broadcasting notice of consultation:
2015-87 Call for comments on proposed amendments to the exemption order for video-on-demand undertakings and to the standard conditions of licence for video-on-demand undertakings
Broadcasting order:
2015-88 Exemption order respecting discretionary television programming undertakings serving fewer than 200,000 subscribe
So Shomi and Crave TV will have to be offered to all over the internet. I wonder how that will effect their business models and/or pricing? Will we eventually see Cromi as they try to make this work.
No, they will only have to be offered all over the internet if they wish to offer exclusive programs, otherwise they can stay as is, at least from what I can tell.
So, seeing as Bell has exclusive content from Showtime and HBO on Crave TV either they will have to renegotiate the exclusivity or open it up Crave to all on the internet. Not sure what Rogers and Shaw have locked up, but I am pretty sure some off there content is exclusive to the Shomi service.
(From the CBC article previously linked to)
Does this mean we could see music videos on TSN, sports on the Food Network and cooking shows on Sportsnet?
How do they define this 50% cancon on prime time rule for local stations? If a media company owns two stations in a broadcast area (say CTV/CTV2 or City/Omni), are those stations counted together in the 50% rule? If not, I don't see how they are fulfilling their requirements now. 1 Hour of news + 1/2 of entertainment magazine (et canada/etalk) does not equal 50% of 5 hours.
Interesting points I found in the ruling:
* Removal of specialty channel categories (Category A, B, etc.). As far as I can tell, this includes the removal of must-carry status for most of these channels. National news services are among those to keep that status, but it will be prescribed on case by case, it seems. I'm not clear on whether existing category A channels immediately lose their must-carry.
* Removal of genre protection, including of prescribing what sorts of genres specialties can air. They can now change formats entirely if they'd like. The only exceptions here must-carry channels. This is effective immediately.
* Changes to the approval of new national news services: They must demonstrate that they have a proven track record in news, that there is demand in the market for it, and that the service would bring improved diversity
* Internet-based VOD services that provide exclusives must be available to all Canadians. This effectively means they can't be tied to a BDU. I imagine this also means services like individual channel websites. There is, however, nothing here about pricing. I imagine they can do what they want with that.
* No licenses required for any specialties with fewer than 200K subs, with some minor rules to consider. Sounds like specialties over that would effectively be rubbed stamped.
* Changes to CanCon rules: There's a lot here, and I'm having trouble deciphering it, so I'll let others figure this out.
* Creation of an industry working group to work out the details on using cable set-top boxes for audience measurement.
Some good stuff there. I especially like the ruling that internet services with exclusive content must be made available to all. I don't know of a paid streaming service that doesn't have exclusives so it effectively means all of them. It looks like Bell is going to try and keep CraveTV tied to a BDU subscription though. That effectively means that many Canadians will be relying on their BDU to sign an agreement with Bell. We'll see how that works out.
Some of it, like genre protection, pretty much just retroactively allows a lot of current practices. Some channels have been effectively ignoring their license conditions regarding genres for some time now. If genre protections are removed, how does that affect the rules regarding genre competition from US specialty channels?
Will we eventually see Cromi as they try to make this work.
Spokesman Mark Langton said CraveTV is already a licensed video-on-demand service and complies with rules around Canadian content and funding. He said the service does not offer exclusive programming because Bell has negotiated distribution deals with other television providers such as Telus Corp. and Eastlink and is open to negotiating with any provider that wants to sell its customers CraveTV.
Yes, but those are TV channels. A video on demand to STB service can do that. Something that's classified in the online streaming category can't.
That's where the problem is. Bell is trying to offer an online streaming service that only works with a TV subscription, which also offers exclusives. They can't do that. In order to be allowed to offer exclusives under these rules, an online streaming service has to be available to everyone, including people without a TV subscription.
Bell, can not afford to make Crave TV available to non subscribers because it will have opposite impact and it will contribute to cord cutting.
If CRTC will push too much then Bell and possibly Rogers may abandon these services leaving canadians at the mercy of american streaming services again.
If Bell can't make streaming work while others can, too bad for them. There's no particular justification to allow them to use their oligopoly to unfairly stifle competition. Hell, Bell has flat out admitted that they never expect CraveTV to make money, the only reason the service exists is to screw over people that don't want to pay absurd fees for TV channels they don't want.
^^ Bell needs to think outside the box. For every cord cutter that stops paying Bell for traditional TV, there will be several more that stop paying the competition. Charging cord-cutters a still-competitive $10/month instead of $4 for CraveTV will make up that lost revenue.
We have a new age of opportunity for Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Telus/Cogeco/Videotron etc etc. The market will demonstrate this by continuing to support their share prices.
There is no crisis at the cartels today.
I looked at the ruling again, and I think they're actually right. There's nothing in there that says they can't have it tied to a BDU subscription as that's a pricing thing, as long as it's available to all Canadians, and nearly all Canadians have the ability to have a BDU. That some BDUs choose not to offer it is irrelevant, as it's the same as some BDUs opting not to carry some specialties. They are not must-carry, and it becomes a free market issue. However, Shomi's strategy, which is not available to all BDUs at the moment, might pose a problem.
Edit: I do note that the CRTC is seeking comments on exact wording for the regulation though, so until that comes down, it's still slightly in the air.
Agreed. Price discrimination is also not disallowed as I see it. For example Crave TV could be offered as a $4 add on to a BDU package, at a discount compared to say a $15 a month standalone web package.
Rogers already do this with Sportsnet World Now online package, it is free to Rogers own Sportsnet World TV subscribers but also available to all Canadians online without restriction for $25 a month (which is of course an additional $25 on top of any subscription to the Sportsnet World TV channel through any other BDU).
The CRTC need to make their intent much clearer, and draft wording accordingly. Frankly, today is a cop out. We already had a consultation process, now we have another one.
Universal availability to all Canadians for online services would be a step in the right direction regardless. It would be a recognition of the new content driven era that this consultation process was supposed to have recognised. Price discrimination, promotions, incentives and bundling I think we will always have. Lots of opportunity here for the BDU's to thrive and flourish in a free and fair society.
Keeping today's CRTC Policies in mind, it would make for interesting discussion in the Pick & Pay threads what direction that is headed in, in relation to today's CRTC postings...
I believe Shomi is available to any internet subscriber, or will be soon, for $8.99/mo. Bell's approach is to tie it to a BDU subscription. Bell may say it is willing to license CraveTV to Rogers or Shaw but they could easily make the licensing terms too onerous for them to license it from Bell. That, of course, will set off another round of hearings that will take years to resolve while many Canadians will not see CraveTV on their TVs. Either way, Canadians are getting screwed by Bell because CraveTV is not a low cost OTT option like Netflix. It's still a high cost, highly regulated part of the Canadian broadcasting infrastructure and carries all the baggage associated with it. That includes the ability to engage in anti-competitive practices that are allowed by the protectionist legislation that created and supports the CRTC and the large corporations it oversees. Bell may be offering CraveTV for $4/mo now but it's highly unlikely that will continue. Bell has a long history of offering new services at cut rate prices but gouging customers later on once market dominance is achieved.
It's quite obvious that these new regulations were written by Canadian broadcasters to benefit themselves and the CRTC is just delivering the message. Despite all the rhetoric about listening to feedback from Canadians and helping Canadians to create content, the bottom line is that the big corporations like Bell, Rogers and Shaw are getting what they want and Canadian consumers are not.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
1.7M posts
114.9K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to Canadian TV, computing and home theatre owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, displays, troubleshooting, styles, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!