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
#300 ·
So I asked the CRTC on twitter about the $7 channel/$5 theme pack issue. They defended it by saying that providers might offer a discount on bundles. Apparently in CRTC logic, it makes perfect sense that Food Network is worth $7 and the other five channels in theme pack are literally worth negative dollars.

Any hope I had for this went up in flames with that nonsense. It's clear the whole thing is a sham and they have no interest in putting teeth into it.
 
#306 ·
So I asked the CRTC on twitter about the $7 channel/$5 theme pack issue. They defended it by saying that providers might offer a discount on bundles. Apparently in CRTC logic, it makes perfect sense that Food Network is worth $7 and the other five channels in theme pack are literally worth negative dollars.
It actually does make perfect sense. Think about it. Food Network costs $7, but no one wants Cosmopolitan, so they have to pay you $2 to take this channel, otherwise it could shut down due to no viewership, and that would result in even less Canadian content, which would anger the Canadian Media Content Fund people.

I asked about any NBC sports channel - but they said NO, we don't offer that . So I said to Cogeco - It's probably good. Go get it. Why not. (? NBC Universal Sports channel ? not sure. )
Ditto: any ABC Sports channel ? any Fox Sports channel ? any Other Sports Channels? Int'l Sports channels?. [ Come On ... we need some sports diversity and variety. Go get it. ]
I think we need some diversity and competition in the sports channels here in Canada ... to get their lazy expensive sports pkg channel butts moving and competing.
NBCSN is actually a decent channel. They also air Sports Jeopardy and Poker After Dark. FS1 and FS2 are decent too. I already complained years ago about how Bell dropped CBS Sports, because they hate U.S. channels and want Canadian ones, or they want Canadian channels named after the U.S. ones but that specifically show Canadian content (see Shaw and Corus for prime examples of this abuse).
 
#301 ·
I ended up going Good 2 plus TMN/HBO 20 additional and time shifting and my bill goes down $30 month. That's fine but it should be at least 50 or 60 less. I managed to keep all watched channels.
 
#302 ·
Once my 6 month commitment for the super sports pack is up with Cogeco I will likely cancel my cable. Rarely watching it now except for sports anyways. Going to keep a log of everything i watch on it, too see how much it's actually being used.

Just too expensive now and thats with my old grandfathered Digital select 3 package, and an even bigger ripoff with the new garbage packages they offer now.

Already cancelled my phone and internet with them and went to start.

Unfortunately forcing everyone to get that garbage skinny basic will force other people off completely. I just want sports, only reason i've kept it this long.

Problem is I can't just order the sports channels I want, without getting this stupid skinny basic that I don't want and don't watch now.

With bills going up for everything, something needs to be cut, in this case it's TV.
 
#303 ·
Just looked at the Rogers site. We could potentially save $5 over the regular price for our current plan. Since we are on a 2 year promo, switching would cost more. That wouldn't give us all the channels we have now but would include the channels we watch. Due to the way the channels are packaged, it would also make us pay for up to 10 channels to get 2 or 3 we watch. Nothing much has changed in that regard.

I don't see any real pick and pay option like choosing 10 or 20 individual channels for $20 or $30. Individual channels are typically priced from $4 to $7 with sports channels costing up to $18. I find it interesting that the TSN and Sportsnet channels included in the large $50 package would cost about $240 if purchased as separate add-ons to the basic $25 package. They can also be purchased as theme packs for $36.

An interesting twist is that getting the channels we watch in our current package would be a lot more expensive under their new large packages. That would cost about $22 more to get the same channels.
 
#304 ·
Analysed it some more, thought about it some more, went in again and asked some more questions.

There are (important) cases where it is still not true pick & pay. Packaging behavior and pricing / picks usage problems.

I think my biggest disappointment is with the multi Sports Channels.

Within the pick and pay system:

[5 TSN 1-5] - must be taken together as a package - consuming 2 of your pnp choices and pay $3/mo extra money too.

and similarly:

[4 Sportsnets - E, Ont, W, Pac] - same thing. must take them all, and you consume 2 of your pnp choices, and pay $3/mo extra money too.

[ SN 360 consume pnp pick or $6 separately and SN one consume one pnp choice $6 + $1 = $7 separately ... hmmm ... not with the other SN's in the "forced" pkg. eeek. ]


Cogeco weasles out saying: Not our fault, creator of the sports channels dictates this to us. We must offer them that way. ! SAYS WHO ! Regulator/CRTC - pls step in and bust this.

SPORTS CONTENT ... NOT SO GREAT ANYWAY.
Bigger disappointment: Sports Content.
I do know ... the content is usually all the same, at the same time on these TSN / RSN grouped sports channels. Showing same thing simultaneously. - a lot.
And, a lot of sports commentary, "puck heads" shows, on loops, all night and day, rather than actual live sports coverage.
( I don't wanna hear people talking and arguing about sports and the politics of sports ... darn it ... I wanna watch live sport itself ... daaa 0
And - Blackouts seen. Content Blocked. BS.

So: Forced to consume more of your pnp picks, pay extra, and questionable content, same content over those channels usually, or just commentary, or blocked content / black outs.

And how is it that the SPORTS channel creators can "Dictate" you must take them all, like a package, disregarding the new Pick and Pay system ?
[ this should be the subject of multiple complaints to the CRTC, and to the creators of these channels. What's so special about you ? Sports heads? Offer your channels individually, like everyone
else ... but daa .. no ... they are "special".

POSSIBLE SPORTS STRATEGY:
Given the "Canadian" sports "Content" realities/problem, my strategy would be, to take One TSN, One RSN, then ..for diversity of sports content,
maybe consider taking the RDS and TVA Sports (French / Quebec Sports channels), there's a CBS Sports ch shown as well on the Cogeco flyer - that might give some different stuff.

I asked about any NBC sports channel - but they said NO, we don't offer that . So I said to Cogeco - It's probably good. Go get it. Why not. (? NBC Universal Sports channel ? not sure. )
Ditto: any ABC Sports channel ? any Fox Sports channel ? any Other Sports Channels? Int'l Sports channels?. [ Come On ... we need some sports diversity and variety. Go get it. ]
I think we need some diversity and competition in the sports channels here in Canada ... to get their lazy expensive sports pkg channel butts moving and competing.

And in my opinion, we could probably all benefit from a few CBC Sports channels too. Non existant now ... but Another thread I started elsewhere.
But CBC Sports is out getting good stuff from all over the world and with excellent professional commentary. "THE ROAD TO THE OLYMPIC GAMES"
You know ... covering all the Olympic type sports: Figu Skating, Skiing, snow board, sleds - whatever else like that - that CBC does so well.


As others have mentioned - The BASIC package you *MUST* take, for $25 bucks, is mandatory, and no pnp there, for any price reductions / or flexibility.
[ But Cogeco does offer a lot in there for $25 bucks. Apparently 2 PBS's for me WPBS watertown & Detroit. and the Stingray Music Channels are thrown in as well.
CHCH, the two OMNI's, some French Quebec Networks TV5 TVA TFO ... etc. ]

As others have mentioned - the Pricing on some of the individual channels in PnP is - prohibitive / kind of expensive relatively - compared to a mini package they are offered in.
[ so it's priced in a way to discourage you choosing the individual channel, discouraging the pnp system then, encouraging still - "packaging" for a little extra money. ]
Perhaps the CRTC/regulator should look into the really obvious over EXPENSIVE ones - and ask for a justification. Or is it just predatory / to discourage selection of that channel on it's own.


Funny:
The Time Shifting Channels are not offered in the PnP choices. And they're put in the "PREMIUM Package" section - must get em all for $10. no Pnp.

Funny:
Two Religious channels in a "Heart & Soul Pack" EWTN & StL for FREE. [ well ... just stick em in the Basic section then ... ]

Lots to analyse and comment.

Gotta go.
 
#308 ·
@mrvanwinkles I've seen CRTC documents that refer to TSN and Sportsnet as multi-feed channels, which means that they are each treated as one channel. They are expensive because professional sports salaries are expensive. SN360 is a separate channel.

The CRTC clearly outlines what must be and what cannot be in the low-cost Basic. Cogeco isn't allowed to add any extra channels even if they are free.
 
#310 ·
@cslusarc3 the CRTC says that the small packages can be up to 10 channels either preassembled by the TV provider or chosen by the subscriber. Bell chose the latter - pick 10 channels for $20. They are listed under "a la carte."
TV programming packages - Satellite TV | Bell Canada

They also have packages of less than 10 sports channels, etc.

@Coasterdon posted a few days ago that the system would only let him choose 1 ten-pack. This seems to contravene the CRTC regulations. Nowhere does the CRTC say that the TV provider can limit the small packages to only 1.

Here are some CRTC references:
1. Archived - Additional information on the roadmap to maximize choice and affordability
See the "Small Packages" graphic in Section 2

2. Broadcasting Distribution Regulations section 23(3)
 
#311 ·
So I decided to test drive the new Dec 1 version of the pick(my pocket)-and-pay(more money) system with the four providers in this area - Bell Satellite, Shaw Direct, Eastlink Cable, and Bell Aliant. I confined my research to TV service only, as the satellite providers don't serve my area with bundles. Up until this past June, I had a mid-range Bell Satellite legacy package that cost $75.50 for what their website claimed was 674 channels of programming. I made a list of the 30 or so channels I wanted - a mere pittance, one would think.

Eastlink doesn't let you build a package on-line, or I couldn't figure out how, so that was a dead end. Bell Satellite and Bell Aliant sites were hard to navigate - not surprising since they probably run the same platform. I felt like I was being pushed to choose one of their conventional packages. Bell Satellite has contradictory info on whether or not Skinny Basic includes the US Networks. If you browse the channel lineups, SB includes the US nets. If you "order" SB, then look at the lineup, the US Nets are missing. I think the latter is incorrect as I couldn't see anywhere to add them.

I chose Skinny Basic, a 10-pack of channels, and all TSNs/Sportsnets. You can't pick and choose among the latter because you never know where they'll stick the sporting event(s) you want to watch. I'm sure that's not by accident. I didn't see where you could add another 10-pack. I guess the presumption is that you're at the point where you're better off with a conventional package? Aside from differences in Skinny Basic, I was able to duplicate the channel lineups across providers.

Skinny Basic ranged from 23 to 37 channels, with a couple of providers counting the SD/HD versions of the same channel as two channels. I found that, on average, about two-thirds of Skinny Basic channels weren't interesting to me, so that kind of kills the idea of real pick-and-pay right off the bat. I guess it doesn't really matter whether that's the fault of the CRTC or the provider.

I ended up with a total of 30 channels of interest to me plus the varying remainders of Skinny Basic, an average of 47 channels of programming.

The results:

Bell Satellite - $70
Shaw Direct - $65
Eastlink - ?
Aliant - $87

None of those prices include equipment, installation, or other fees so I think they accurately represent the outcome of the CRTC's mandate to give us "choices". I don't see where I get ahead by eliminating 93% of the 674 channels I was buying under the old system.

So, there you go, CRTC - I shopped around like you told me. What did it get me? Not a heck of a lot!

Regardless of what the legalese says, this was sold to the public as an attempt by the CRTC to "save" us from the evil BDU's that were forcing us to pay for channels we didn't want. Of course the implication was that we would pay less for the lesser number of channels we actually wanted - if not, the whole exercise would be pointless. Well, we're halfway there - we no longer have to pay for channels we don't want. Paying less? Not so much.

How many millions of dollars did it cost to create a solution that appears to work for 1.57% (CRTC statistic) of TV subscribers?

Colour me unimpressed.

Kevin
 
#313 ·
I checked the Rogers site again to see if there was any real savings to be had with pick and pay. Taking skinny basic and adding individual channels with them is a real horror story. It would increase our TV bill by over $100. Many channels cost almost as much as the theme pack that includes them. Skinny basic with the theme packs required to provide the channels we watch would result in an increase of over $20, as would getting one of the current, comparable packages. This CRTC policy has done nothing to ensure that Canadians have affordable TV service. It may have helped some viewers in some regions but has resulted in a worse situation in others. Price gouging for TV services is still alive and well in Canada.
 
#314 ·
Well, i think thats part of it.

Overall, pick and pay, wasnt necessarily designed to SAVE people money.
It would all depend on what they were watching/how many channels.

Any one with a larger amount of channels they want? Yeah, no savings to be had, and would cost more.

Someone who just wants BASIC (local, news, etc) and say just 1-2 other channels? Yeah could be a savings.
 
#315 ·
I know some people who subscribe to skinny basic with Rogers that added News channels for $5 and are very happy with the savings.
Pick and pay can save money if person does not require a lot of channels and gives an option to add must have channels.
Rogers and Shaw have way better selection of pick and pay than Bell.
 
#316 ·
The larger picture is that broadcasters have spread popular programming over a large number of channels, regardless of the original licensing genre. In addition, most high quality programming is now being produced for specialty channels. The CRTC is partly to blame for that by licensing too many specialty channels for the Canadian market.

Programming on traditional broadcast TV has suffered a significant reduction in quality and variety. Local TV, such as provided in skinny basic, has also lost its usefulness as a good source of local news. Again, the CTRC is partly to blame by not implementing policies that protect local OTA broadcasters and other independent broadcasters.

The end result is that too many channels are required to obtain a variety of good quality programming. The only reason skinny basic is necessary is because broadcasters have abandoned their commitment to traditional broadcasting and OTA. Pick and pay needs to be combined with policies that ensure affordable prices for quality programming, not just a few selected channels that should also be available free with OTA.
 
#317 ·
Why aren't the movie channels or the sports channels available separately, as pick and pay, and only in bundles? Could I have only HBO if I wanted, without TMN? Are there any special provisions for these type of channels or was it left to the broadcasters' choice (or lack thereof)?
 
#318 ·
Bundles like TMN are known as multiplex channels. They count as one channel. Some channels like, HBO, were licensed with TMN as a prerequisite. It might be possible to get TMN without HBO but not the other way around. TMN or HBO alone would likely cost about the same as the bundle so it's not even worth considering.
 
#319 ·
@ExDilbert is correct that TMN/HBO is a multiplex channel as is the TSN regionals and the Sportsnet regionals. They are each treated as one channel as far as pick and pay are concerned. The CRTC has said they do not plan to license any new multiplex channels and they do not plan to allow the existing multiplexes to expand the number of channels.

When HBO Canada was created as a separate channel on TMN and Movie Central, it was actually a renaming of existing channels on the TMN and MC licences, so TMN and HBO Canada are one multiplex channel on the same licence. The CRTC will now allow Bell Media to package TMN and HBO Canada separately, but Bell Media is not interested.

If you dig deep enough you should be able to find the TSNs as a separate pick and pay channel and the Sportsnets as a separate pick and pay channel, although I've seen some providers charge as much for them individually as they do for a sports package that includes both.
 
#320 ·
I'm still seeing Bell Aliant pulling the "one channel is $4, but the theme pack with it and five other channels is $5" nonsense, so the savings are pretty marginal there.

That said, I also found most of the channels are total garbage anyway. We dumped a couple and tried some other ones. I went through three channels in three days before just ditching the addon entirely because the schedule on all of them amounted to less than ten shows on repeat seven days a week. All that for $4?

It's an unbelievably bad deal compared to what online streaming gets you.
 
#321 ·
Well, on Bell Fibe you can chose 10 channels for $20, that seems to be the best option with skinny basic and it would work for me.
Unfortunately all the channels that I would have picked are not available on streaming, so being it a better deal does not help me, otherwise I would have kept Netflix and maybe Crave TV.
At the moment I am a cord cutter and really miss some of the stuff that is available on traditional TV.
Hopefully in the fall I will be able to get a good deal with one of the providers. All I will need is Skinny basic with some pick and pay channels and most importantly my favorite AMC
 
#323 ·
so far disappointed with the current pick and pay. As Tridus said, "one channel is $4, but the theme pack with it and five other channels is $5" pretty much is the same old rules of forced channels. I hate that H2 and H are in two separate theme packs.

I was really hoping that pick and pay would allow one to build their own bundles. Example, both Shaw and Telus let you pick 6 theme packs for xxx$. Each theme pack has an average of 4-6 channels.

I would like all theme packs to disappear and instead of current 6 theme packs x 6 channels = 36. Be able to pick any 36 channels out of the current list of theme pack channels. So if it cost you say $75 for 6 theme packs. It will cost you $75 for pick any 36 channels.

they could probably even cut it to pick any 25 as out of the current 6 theme packs many of them only have 1 or 2 channels you really want. Let the current channels that only exist because of bundles die already.
 
#324 ·
Some BDUs let you pick 10 channels for $20 or 20 channels for $40. Rogers once had something like 5 for $10, 15 for $20 or 20 for $30 on a subset of channels but there is nothing even close to that now. Most channels are $4 to $7 each or $1+ more bundled in theme packs. The dozen or so channels we watch are split up between about 6 theme packs that cost between $5 and $10 each so it would cost as much or more than the legacy plan that includes 100 channels we never watch. The price doesn't bother me as much as knowing that some broadcasters are making $millions a year from zombie channels that have almost no staff and spend almost no money on programming. Consumers need a way to send a message to those broadcasters buy cutting them off so that real broadcasters get the money for providing better services.
 
#325 ·
still waiting for pick and pay to start. Telus does not have anything. Shaw has something close to it. (pick 10). Would love to have a build your own themes option. They can keep the same themes for whoever would want it. To take Telus as an example with pick 6 themes.

you get the essentials plus you have a pick of ALL channels in current themes. Instead of having to pick 6 themes with average 5channels per theme. So you have to take 30 channels to get the 10 you really want. Make it a pick 10 / 20 / 30. Would not even have to be cheaper than current themes. Hate having to support zombie channels. Mostly i only watch about 10 channels anyway so would get by with that. I have Netflix and CraveTV to fill in the gaps.

once my current Shaw term ends (June 2019) i will probably go back to regular cable (from Bluesky) and get the pick 10. Also considering Telus again, mainly because Shaw still does not have all channels in HD. Also i guess it depends what Shaw offers at the end of my term.

Very disappointed that nothing has really changed.
 
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