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
#65 ·
So yeah, I saw the report on The National about this tonight, and someone said that some channels might not be able to survive without being bundled, leading to job losses.

Yeah, right. It's a bunch of bologna. The channels that aren't going to survive are the digital networks owned by major conglomerates whose only purpose is to show one or two "exclusive" American imports and then dedicate the rest of their lineup to Cancon recycled from their other networks. And how many people does it take to run such a network? Maybe about 1 to 3, if not less, presumably.

What I want to see a la carte encourage is quality over quantity. But of course, I bet you that the networks are still going to insist on spreading their content across multiple channels just so they can force people to buy them all, one by one.
 
#67 · (Edited)
So yeah, I saw the report on The National about this tonight, and someone said that some channels might not be able to survive without being bundled, leading to job losses.

Yeah, right. It's a bunch of bologna. The channels that aren't going to survive are the digital networks owned by major conglomerates whose only purpose is to show one or two "exclusive" American imports and then dedicate the rest of their lineup to Cancon recycled from their other networks. And how many people does it take to run such a network? Maybe about 1 to 3, if not less, presumably.
That was pretty much what Jean-Pierre Blais said in the live broadcast. He explicitly rejected the invented numbers of 10,000+ job losses because there was no analysis backing it up, and just an assumed number of job losses and so set it to one side as irrelevant.
Edit: see around the 11 minute mark of the video and again at 14:45.
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/podium/episodes/37715568/

Broadcaster magazine quote.
Evidence placed before the Commission by Friends [of Canadian Broadcasting] at a public hearing in September last year predicted a worst case scenario that more than 17,000 jobs and more than $2 billion in revenue would be lost on an annual basis by 2020 as a result of moving to a pick and pay environment. While the CRTC has rejected that scenario, the Commission has offered no other analysis to support today’s decision and seems to have no idea of the economic impact of its decision.
http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/...-broadcasting-says-friends/1003532530/?&er=NA

What I think is funny is how the stooge union hack "Friends" having submitted fake numbers of 17,000 job losses out of a total industry size of 66,000 have the temerity to expect someone else should do real analysis of their fictitious scenario. Like "Friends" actually cared about real analysis? or even real broadcasting to real Canadian people who lost over 600 transmitters three years ago?

I think the 1-3 job losses per fake TV channel of recycled Cancon you suggest is about right.
 
#66 ·
My point is still that all TV networks are available free of charge in other countries, such as in the USA and Europe. What's wrong that Canadian networks don't want to do the same? Networks and channels here have the same business models. They also get subsidies from all Canadians but don't want to pay for delivery to the people who subsidize them. Either get rid of *all* the subsidies that everyone is forced to contribute or make sure everyone gets the content and service they help pay for. It's like making everyone pay taxes for waste pickup but having a recycling contractor who only wants to pick up garbage for areas that have profitable recycling.
 
#72 ·
My point is still that all TV networks are available free of charge in other countries, such as in the USA ...
How are you describing free? If you mean no direct payment from the viewer, yeas OTA meets that criterion. But it isn't really free. OTA delivery is, in the case of commercial television, paid for by the advertiser who in turn passes the cost on to the consumer. In the case of public television, delivery is paid directly by viewers or subsidized through taxation.

The rest of your post supports the idea of user pay rather than subsidies for no-charge service: only the person wanting and getting the waste pickup should have to pay for it. I fully agree with you on that and believe the same should be applied to television service and many other things that we are paying for communally.
 
#68 ·
The channels that aren't going to survive are the digital networks owned by major conglomerates whose only purpose is to show one or two "exclusive" American imports ...
The sad part is that they are the ones that will survive. Even the better channels typically only have a couple of series showing new episodes at any time. The rest of the week it's reruns and Cancon. US channels like AMC often only have one or two blockbuster series plus a couple of less popular series airing new shows at any one time. Considering their price, even premium channels like HBO are not much better on a cost per show basis. The big thing that saves these channels is the high quality and popularity of the few shows they air and the relatively low cost of operating a specialty station (compared to OTA networks.)

The channels we need to get rid of are the ones that almost never have new, high quality programming. One that comes to mind is BBC Canada. It's not in HD and rarely shows any new BBC programming. Public channels like often TVO have more. Popular new BBC shows usually end up on other channels like Space. It's a scam for BBC Canada to use the BBC name or even compare it to the BBC or BBC America. It's channels like this that only exist due to genre protection and bundling.
 
#69 ·
I've no desire to see any of the hundreds of channels I don't watch disappear. They are the TV equivalent of email spam. To me it is a matter of supreme indifference on two provisos: that I do not have to pay for them, and; that they go to the equivalent of a TV spam folder so that they don't pop-up obtrusively on me.

You are probably right that the low cost specialty channels are the ones that will survive. That just reaffirms how spurious the claimed job losses are - because these are the channels that will be impacted by the loss of compulsory bundling.

Real broadcasting job losses will continue to come from the closedown of local TV channels, but their funding is I believe completely unaffected by this CRTC decision.
 
#70 ·
So I pay 40+ for cable. Now I will pay 25+ for skinny basic and US networks not a requirement so I will pay 5+5+5+5 for the networks. Such a wonderful change and then I can add TSN1 etc.
So much for improving my lot. :)
Careful what we wish for.
Now I know why Shaw is OK with this. A la carte is usually more expensive than your family restaurant.
 
#71 ·
I think some of you guys are dreaming. First of all the Basic is the bread and butter for the BDU. This is where the profit is. Everything else is just gravy. The CRTC understands this. It's incredibly expensive to build and maintain a Telecom Network. The higher margins in the basic service pay for this. As far as programming goes, as much as I hate seeing people lose jobs, let the market dictate which channels survive. For the most part I like the ruling, although I doubt we will really see any savings. They'll just figure out another way to get the $$$ they want from you.
 
#73 ·
ExDilbert In the US don't cable companies pay transmission fees for local signals. In Canada we use simsubs to increase the broadcasters possible ad rates in the US Cable companies pay their affiliates a transmission fee. Hence the occasional withdrawal of signal when there is a fee dispute.

BBC Canada is a victim of two things. Canadian content requirements and being owned by one of the big three. Holmes on Homes and others endlessly on BBC Canada are a direct result of Can Con rules and Shaw/Corus recycling content from their other stations to meet those requirements. For a offering like BBC Canada Can Con never made sense but that is what we end up with in a highly regulated industry.
 
#76 ·
With the possible exception of local news and some Canadian sports (curling) we watch zero Canadian content. Unfortunately living in Edmonton limits my OTA access to American channels to zero.

In my situation the internet appears to offer the most viable / cost effective solution. Nothing the CRTC is doing will increase my desire for Can Con.
 
#77 ·
I think some of you guys are dreaming. First of all the Basic is the bread and butter for the BDU. This is where the profit is. Everything else is just gravy. The CRTC understands this. It's incredibly expensive to build and maintain a Telecom Network.
+1

After what I saw in the last broadband decision, I am inclined to think the CRTC does not want to cripple the incumbents either. They are trying to foster comeptition and better pricing for consumers. But not take drastic steps.
 
#79 ·
But I already pay for the telecom network with telephone and internet subscriptions and so do most other Canadians. Now they want to charge an extra $25 for a bunch of channels that people in the GTA and other, comparable countries get for free. Oh wait, most of the channels that will be offered are free for Canadian BDUs as well. The percentage profit in that is off the chart. The CRTC is just padding the gravy train.
 
#89 ·
But I already pay for the telecom network with telephone and internet subscriptions and so do most other Canadians.
You pay for PART of the telecom network with telephone and internet subscriptions, as you should. If you subscribe to TV, you should also pay for that part of the telecom network. There's a lot more to running a business than just having the raw infrastructure.

I don't have a landline (like many people), but I don't expect telephone subscribers to pay 100% of the cost so I can have free cable TV.
 
#81 ·
Billion dollar profits will hardly take a hit with the new regulations from the CRTC. The cord cutting will continue.......not so much cutting the cord but not having the cord to begin with as most young people are not attached to the cable/sat world. A figure heard somewhere yesterday now puts the unattached at almost 30 percent which still leaves a lot of people with the cord but that number keeps going down as we leave one way or another. Its not likely that the companies will jam subscribers with increased fees as this will further the cord cutting. Sorry but one gets tired of those who continual point out how many OTA stations they get if you live near the border.....quit making us jealous!
 
#82 ·
As much as I am a big believer in the pick-n-pay system, I think if you like obscure specialty channels you will be unhappy with this decision. Some small channels will die because of this, and the pricing of others will have to go up to stay afloat (if they can even get enough subscribers). The more popular channels like TSN, etc, should be pretty cheap, though.
 
#83 ·
TSN is one of the most expensive channels by far, if not the most expensive non-premium channel. (Last I heard it was well over $1/mo wholesale.) It is able to do this due to the popularity of sports. Personally, I dislike TSN due to the way it degrades the programming it carries by inserting too many commercials and rarely watch it. I also resent that it is put into very large or basic bundles by many BDUs and that it inflates the cost of the service. In my books, TSN should be the first channel to be 100% optional. It won't stop most people from subscribing but it will allow the people who don't watch it to stop subsidizing them.
 
#88 ·
The "entry-level" basic will include local and regional Canadian OTA and mandatory public interest channels. Local AM/FM radio are optional and the CRTC "expects" the 4+1 U.S. networks will be included at that price, but they are not mandatory. (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS). Other U.S. networks are not allowed; TSN and Sportsnet are not allowed.

However, there's nothing stopping Bell from having a "standard basic" package at the same price that includes TSN, but they couldn't force people to take it.
 
#87 ·
I'm also hoping that U.S. sub channels that are available OTA will be included in the skinny basic as well, it makes sense.
Just getting any carriage would be an important first step. I'm not sure the CRTC has even ruled on this, they would have to approve carriage, but it would be a nice addition. Somehow, I don't think most BDUs want to include US subchannels. Bell certainly doesn't. It would be a definite advantage with PBS since some have moved much of their programming onto subchannels and turned their main channels into pledge drive machines aimed at Canadian BDU subscribers.
 
#90 ·
If you have a landline or internet subscription you are paying your part for the infrastructure and it would cost the BDU nothing to supply you with all of the non-subscription channels via clear QAM. The only fees you should be paying above your phone and internet fees are for specialty channels and STB rental if you need one and don't want to buy one outright. If you have no phone or internet subscription, or your phone or internet provider uses different infrastructure than the BDU you want to use for TV, then the $25 fee for basic is more reasonable, though still a bit steep.
 
#97 ·
If you have a landline or internet subscription you are paying your part for the infrastructure and it would cost the BDU nothing to supply you with all of the non-subscription channels via clear QAM.
If you have a landline or internet, you are only paying the part of the infrastructure and operating cost that relates to that service.

If basic TV was "free", the BDU would have to recover that portion of the costs by increasing the prices of the other services. The end result is the total bill would be the same, but you end up shifting the cost to someone else.
 
#91 ·
The one thing I've noticed is no one has mentioned how much are you willing to pay per channel. True you can have all the choice you want and perhaps all the US channels you can think off , but at what price? It seems know one has said what their willing to pay? Are you prepared to pay $10 per channel?

True presently channels cost about $2-$3 for regular specialty channels, while ethnic and certain sports channels are about $15+,

The BDU's aren't going to loose money on if individuals get pick & pay.There going to jack up the price of individual channels.

And don't think that they won''t. There all the same and I wouldn't be surprised if all the BDU's where in collusion with each other to fix individual channel prices, I'd sooner trust a snake on the ground then trusting these BDU's.


So are members here willing to pay $10/channel?be it TSN, RSN or any specialty channel?
 
#92 ·
If you have a landline or internet subscription you are paying your part for the infrastructure and it would cost the BDU nothing to supply you with all of the non-subscription channels via clear QAM.
I agree. They won't even pay for most of the channels in skinny basic packages. Just because BDUs make their networks unnecessarily complex should not mean that customers should be forced to pay for that complexity. The onus should be on the network owners to lower costs wherever possible. Providing a basic clear QAM package to all customers with a cable hookup would cost very little and save money in equipment costs. Installation and service fees would apply. The same goes for satellite. If Shaw can provide LTSS, including equipment, for free then why not do the same for customers who provide their own equipment?

A lot of other businesses use free basic subscriptions or products to build a customer base or brand loyalty. It could help reduce the cost of acquiring new customers by replacing the current practice of offering free equipment and steep discounts to attract new customers.

:sarcasm: That reminds me, it's almost time to switch BDUs to get a big promotion and some more free receivers. It's so nice of all those long term customers to subsidize my new equipment. :/sarcasm:
 
#98 ·
Do you have access to the internal costings of a cableco or is this based upon a publicly available document submitted to the CRTC? Or are you just assuming the big BDU's are fair and honest and transparent and would not knowingly overcharge if they could get away with it?

$129.99 for 3 cricket matches next week by the way, far and away the most expensive prices anywhere in the world.
 
#103 ·
$129.99 for 3 cricket matches next week by the way, far and away the most expensive prices anywhere in the world.
Given that you have no inherent right to watch cricket, the free market sets the price. If it is worth $129.99 to you, buy it. If not, don't.

Although not important in reality, some may want a rationale for that price. You could suggest that there is a limited market for cricket in Canada and therefore the cost of providing the service with a reasonable profit margin needs to be spread across a limited number of people. Why is it higher than anywhere else? Possibly because countries like India may have a larger number of people interested in cricket and therefore a larger number of people to spread the cost over.

But ultimately, none of that matters. The supplier will charge what it can get from the customer. And that is the way it should be.
 
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