Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC Policy: maximize choice for TV viewers (pick and pay)

68K views 327 replies 79 participants last post by  Blintok 
#1 · (Edited)
EDIT: See post 21 for the CRTC news release.

Please use this thread to discuss the announcement and try to keep your conversation related to the actual policy.

Off-topic posts will be deleted.

Media Advisory - CRTC Media Lock-Up - Let's Talk TV: A World of Choice - A roadmap to maximize choice for TV viewers and to foster a healthy, dynamic TV market

The CRTC will post the Let's Talk TV decision on measures to maximize choice for Canadian television viewers on the CRTC website www.crtc.gc.ca at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2015.

The Chairman of the CRTC will deliver a statement and answer questions shortly after 4:15 p.m.

Other useful threads:

CRTC Policy on Canadian content (released March 12) : http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=233402

CRTC: Let's Talk TV: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=185681&page=40

The Official I Hate The CRTC Thread
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The title of the announcement is encouraging! If they'd called it "Preserving Our Heritage" or "Ensuring the Viability of the Canadian Broadcast Ecosystem" I'd be a lot more worried that it would be same-old, same-old.

I'm hoping for a mandated "skinny basic" package in the $20-30/month range plus pick-and-pay for all channels. Hopefully there will be limitations to prevent BDUs from flaunting the spirit of the regulations, i.e., TSN channels are $8 each but the Sports bundle containing all 5 of them is $12.

Very little of what the CRTC has had to rule on lately would be necessary if our telecommunications and media industry wasn't so vertically integrated. Competition and fair dealing would have already solved many of these issues.
 
#9 · (Edited by Moderator)
I'm hoping for a mandated "skinny basic" package in the $20-30/month range plus pick-and-pay for all channels. Hopefully there will be limitations to prevent BDUs from flaunting the spirit of the regulations, i.e., TSN channels are $8 each but the Sports bundle containing all 5 of them is $12.
TSN would be a weird example given that it's often so hard to predict just where something will be shown. It'd be really hard to pick one TSN and get everything you want.

I'm just hoping they put some protection in place to stop any kind of nonsense where a bundle is $5, and any one channel in the bundle is also $5. Also, they'll have to address channel contracts that mandate channels be in bundles only or forced on all subscribers.

If it were up to me, it'd look like this:
- Skinny basic is Canadian locals and the mandatory channels only.
- Everything else is available a-la-carte.
- If the BDUs want to create bundles, the bundle cannot be priced below 50% of what the individual channels in the bundle would cost.

So if each TSN is $2, than all five TSN's would be at least $5.
 
#3 ·
I'm hoping the pick 'n pay goes through - I pay now for a package that has 262 channels because the channels I want are bundled - my family only watches about 20 of them.

I am willing to sacrifice 90% of the channels I get, even for a small discount - even if I save a few dollars a month to only get what I want, I'm willing to pay more for less, for a total bill that is less.

I'm tired of my money going to support channels I do not want!
 
#7 ·
I'm tired of my money going to support channels I do not want!
You mean you don't watch the Home Shopping Network or even Vision TV? ;)
I agree with you. I also hate paying for channels that shouldn't exist or that I don't watch.
 
#6 ·
If the skinny basic is just local channels then I doubt it would be too expensive, likely $20 per month or less, and everything above that is pick n pay on a per channel basis, but the BDU's will also be allowed to offer packages of channels as well, for those that want it. This is just my guess as to what the ruling will be. I also am hoping we'll be able to buy individual U.S. channels without having to buy a Canadian channel with it.
 
#13 ·
Several off-topic posts discussing OTA were deleted. Please limit your posts to the CRTC policy on the packaging of basic, pick-and-pay and whatever else is included in their announcement.

Although OTA is an option for those people that only watch the broadcast networks, not everyone can get reliable reception of all the Canadian networks or they also want to watch specialty channels via cable or satellite.

Although $25/month may seem like a lot for mainly "free" channels, there is a significant cost to building and operating a TV distribution system.
 
#15 ·
As I've said before, skinny basic should be free. Canada is unique in not making its national TV service free to all it's citizens and in not providing national networks free to most of its citizens. The CRTC is wrong by letting network owning BDUs profit further from delivering their own, traditionally delivered for free, services.
 
#20 ·
As I've said before, skinny basic should be free. ...
Nothing is free, and if skinny basic was available at no monthly fee from the user, someone would be paying for it. It would either come from your tax dollars, or people who got more than skinny basic would be subsidizing others.

No-charge service is not the answer. This is not an essential service and people should be able to decide what they want to pay for and not be required to subsidize others.
 
#17 ·
I know that Telus' basic rate, which includes a few lower cost channels as well as the networks, but not high cost channels like the sports channels, costs $29. They're a large company that is not vertically integrated. They're probably a reasonable example to use.
 
#18 ·
The CRTC already knows what rate would give the BDU's some profit. The skinny basic could likely include some specialty channels in that price of $25, like TSN, Sportsnet and some others. Everything above that basic would likely be pick n pay. The other issue would be with U.S. specialty channels that already have contracts in place that won't allow pick n pay so getting U.S. specialty channels a la carte is unlikely. Some U.S. channels will pull out of Canada if they are forced to be offered in an a la carte format.
 
#21 ·
#22 · (Edited)
Quick Facts
  • By March 2016, Canadians will be able to subscribe to an entry-level television service that cost no more than $25 as an alternative to the basic services currently being offered by cable and satellite companies.
  • The entry-level television service will include:
    • all local and regional television stations,
    • public interest channels such as the Cable Public Affairs Channel and Aboriginal Peoples Television Network,
    • education channels,
    • and, if offered, community channels and the services operated by provincial legislatures.
  • Canadians will be able to supplement their entry-level service by subscribing to pay and specialty channels on a pick-and-pay basis or in small packages.
  • By December 2016, viewers will be able to subscribe to channels on a pick-and-pay basis as well as in small packages.
  • Cable and satellite companies can continue to offer their existing packages of channels in order to provide alternative options to television viewers.
EDIT: Equipment rental costs are not included in the $25 "skinny basic."
 
#34 ·
With respect to the timelines given, it will be interesting to see how soon providers turn to the courts in an attempt to derail today's CRTC decisions.
Wouldn't be surprising if they did. The BDUs seem to enjoy going to court over every other decision the CRTC has made so far in this "Let's Talk TV" campaign.

I had a feeling they'd implement the Pick and Pay concept, since if they didn't, there would probably be mass outrage by the public as to why all of these hearings and discussions began in the first place. I think it's definitely a good decision as far as choice goes, but December 2016... sheesh... That's almost 2 years from now.

It'll be interesting to see how this affects the U.S. networks and U.S. specialty channels. I doubt they'd pull out of Canada entirely. Also would be interesting to see how this affects U.S. providers as well, since they're still going to be bundling their channels as opposed to our new Pick and Pay system.
 
#25 ·
No-charge service is not the answer. This is not an essential service and people should be able to decide what they want to pay for and not be required to subsidize others.
I disagree. No-charge TV service is what Canadians have received since TV was introduced in Canada and it's the same in most other countries. Just because some greedy oligopoly that controls most of the broadcasting industry wants to make everyone pay for TV delivery, that's no reason to make it so. I can see why technology is creating a demand for alternate delivery methods. Those that profit from the changing landscape can afford to pay for maintaining free TV delivery. I rarely watch the CBC or many other Canadian TV channels and would rather see them shut down. I also watch very little Canadian programming that Canadians are forced to subsidize and would rather see that stopped. I don't think making Canadians pay even more money to see programming they already subsidize is the answer either. That the companies who will profit from skinny basic are the same ones that are trying to shut down existing free delivery methods and also receive subsidies for the programming they produce and carry is just plain wrong.
 
#28 ·
As I understand it, it applies to all channels. For every non-Canadian channel sold, a BDU must sell at least one Canadian channel. For example, a subscriber cannot subscribe to a package that consists of just 10 US channels. They must also subscribe to 10 Canadian channels.

Independent channels are those not owned by the BDU. For every channel owned by the BDU or it's parent, at least one channel not owned by the BDU or it's parent must also be sold. For example, Bell cannot sell a bundle that consists of just 10 CTV and other Bell owned and operated channels, like TMN. They must also include 10 channels owned by other companies.

This is nothing new. These rules have been in existence, in some form, since specialty channels were launched some 30 years ago. Sometimes the rules were more specific. For example, US superstations were tied to the premium movie networks and Family channel. Any theme pack that contained US or BDU owned channels had to include the required number of Canadian and non-owned channels. With pick-n-pay, it makes sense to generalize the rules.
 
#29 ·
So, $25 for skinny basic.

The CRTC expects that at that price level the US 4+1 networks are included. But since it's not required that will be another $5 - $10 per month.

Of course, analogue is on the way out, and clear QAM has not been mandated, so that will be another $5 - $15 a month for a STB because we can't expect BDU's to subsidize the "technology".

Of course, HD has not been mandated even though it is the new standard for the way of the future, so that will be another $15 - $25 a month.

And low income working families that have multiple tastes will need to pay another $7 a month for each outlet, plus additional $5 - $25 for each additional set top box.

Sure, the BDU's will be quaking in their boots wondering how they will ever get basic invoices back up to $70 a month plus taxes.
 
#30 ·
Gilles
Can always use your $10 antenna then. Providing cable isn't free.
Are you're assuming I'm an OTAer because of my post?

During the Let's Talk TV campaign I read one of Dr. Dave's links where the CRTC was suggesting a skinny basic at $20 or basic with couple of specialty channels for $30 and then toy can add channels a la carte.

jaxon
Nothing is free, and if skinny basic was available at no monthly fee from the user, someone would be paying for it
I don't expect it for free but was expecting it to be $20 and not $25

Obed
The CRTC expects that at that price level the US 4+1 networks are included. But since it's not required that will be another $5 - $10 per month.
Exactly. That is what Videotron already does in Quebec already. It's $10 for those 5 channels and you have a small group of channels to choose from. :mad: I can't chose ABC, FOX and TSN and RDS and Space. The group of channels from which I can choose 5 channels is very small so I have to get a la carte 20 in order to be able to choose any channel I want.

I was hoping this decision would be good for a company like Ebox to enter the IPTV game but this decision is not good.
 
#37 ·
During the Let's Talk TV campaign I read one of Dr. Dave's links where the CRTC was suggesting a skinny basic at $20 or basic with couple of specialty channels for $30 and then toy can add channels a la carte.

I don't expect it for free but was expecting it to be $20 and not $25.
Since you mentioned my name, I thought I should clarify things. Here's the quote from the working document (Small Basic, Option B) :
The retail price of basic would be capped at one of the following prices:
$20
$25
$30.
I took that to mean that the CRTC would set a maximum price and they picked the middle one. I didn't follow the hearings that closely, but I presume there was discussion of exactly what price would allow the providers to recover their costs plus a small profit, at the same time having the customers that actually benefit from that service pay for it.
 
#31 ·
That's exactly how I expect it will work out. LTSS did not include HD channels and I expect that oversight will not be lost on other BDUs. The CRTC dropped the ball by not doing several things the FCC did. That includes mandated CableCARD (a bad technology but a good idea) but I would rather see clear QAM mandated for basic OTA and must carry specialty channels. Another is banning the use of recording flags by BDUs on OTA channels. Those measures would allow the use of TVs with QAM tuners and low cost retail PVRs with skinny basic. When they exist, HD channels should be mandated for basic channels. In addition, the addition of extra fees, like so called "network" fees, should have been prohibited.
 
#35 · (Edited)
LTSS did not include HD channels and I expect that oversight will not be lost on other BDUs. The CRTC dropped the ball by not doing several things the FCC did.
What makes you think today's multiple omissions are CRTC oversights? These people are not illiterate nor stupid and spent many months and millions of dollars on a consultation process.

It is in my opinion another populist stunt by the CRTC. This time, carefully designed to have minimal real impact on the BDU's and very little real benefit to 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