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
#162 ·
Oh the doom and the gloom! Nothing has been announced by anybody and already you're complaining about non-existent problems. Speculation is an internet disease. With absolutely no evidence one way or another, you're all jumping to conclusions and getting into a lather over nothing. Let's wait until the BDUs start announcing their a/la carte pricing. That probably won't be until next year. Until then you can all relax. If you want to complain, beef about the current pricing policy that forces us to take a ton of channels we never watch. That's the current reality (except in Quebec and maybe a few other small places). It's never been fair.
 
#163 ·
That's the current reality (except in Quebec and maybe a few other small places).
Are you calling Quebec a small place? I'd be leery of traveling there in future. ;)

But really, considering the way Canadian BDUs and broadcasters have been treating customers the last few years, shouldn't we expect the worst possible outcome? These companies have been acting like the church in the middle ages. They either want their 10% tithe or the right to burn Canadians at the stake. :rolleyes:
 
#165 ·
Let's face it. Sports has become very expensive and the sports teams are to blame. Sports fans will pay and they will pay big money for access. I, for one, am tired of subsidizing channels like TSN that make huge profits by being included in huge bundles with a lot of non-sports channels. It's not that I am against sports, I just don't like the way TSN airs them.
 
#171 ·
I just checked. That's terrible! They actually dropped NHL Network from that new 14 dollar sports package. What were the theme packs before, 9 dollars a piece? Raise the sports by 5 and lower the rest by 2? I wonder if they will start raising the sports package price for the customers on a grandfathered rate.
 
#168 ·
There is nothing that says a la carte channels will all be available in a flat rate package at the same price. I am opposed to such schemes. It has the effect of subsidizing more costly channels, such as TSN at the expense of consumers. Why should some consumers pay $1 for TSN in an a la carte bundle when it costs the BDU $1.25 while other consumers pay $1 for channels that have a wholesale cost of $0.50? The only reason that makes sense is that BDUs are trying to increase their subscriber base by subsidizing popular channels. Hopefully, a la carte do do away with that.

The move by Telus is good for the industry and good for most consumers. Unfortunately, it might cause an exodus of subscribers to other services that subsidize those channels. Subsidies, in general, are bad for everyone involved. They drive up costs and prices by increasing customer churn and drive away customers that don't benefit from subsidies. I learned that I could get a better deal by switching BDUs every few years. Once the subsidies expire, I start shopping for a new BDU with a better deal.
 
#170 ·
The thing is to have the "True" cost of a channel (in this case)the cost would be high and mostly wouldn't buy it, hence regardless of the channel its subsidized in some way.

Just like other services or products/ As an example I work for the City of Ottawa RPAM(Public Works) I can't commit on other cities but what the city charges users to rent a pool or Ice time on a rink is no where near the actual cost. If you actually had to pay the real costs(for city too just break even no profit)there's no way these kids hockey teams could afford it. They would need to charge each kid at least $10,000 to $15,000/kid/year. I worked in the Pools/Ice rinks for 10 years(now in a different area community center/Libraries operations), but trust me the true cost will probably never happen as subs won't pay that much for one channel.
 
#178 ·
The difference between what a city does and what a private for profit company does is in how subsidies are financed. Governments often use tax revenues to make up the difference. Companies must increase prices on other products to finance subsidies. Neither is particularly fair to people who don't use the subsidized services. Pick and pay has the potential to make the broadcasting system a little more fair for most people. It depends on how it is implemented by BDUs.
 
#179 ·
I don't question that, but with Pick & Pay the BDU's are going to have to charge more per channel to pick up lost revenue from those that didn't want the channel in the first place but was placed in the same package.

So someone wanting TSN will have to pay more because he or she didn't want Sports Net but was forced to take it because it was packaged with TSN.
 
#180 ·
In case you folks aren't aware, Bell has been running a pick 'n pay option in Quebec only for years. There's a basic charge for the usual suspects, CBC, CTV, Global etc., and then an option to take your choice of either 15 or 25 cable channels such as Discovery, History, HGTV, OLN, Food, Slice, DIY to name just a few. If I had the option of taking their Quebec offerings tonight I would be saving at least $25.00 a month over what I'm paying right now in PEI to Bell TV. For that lower amount I would be getting every channel I currently watch or would want to watch and none that I don't care for. I realize that this may not be exactly what Bell will offer to the rest of Canada but it does give you an idea of what might be available. For me it would be anything but the doom and gloom I keep reading here.
 
#181 ·
I agree with reidw. Until we see what is offered there is no point getting our knickers in a knot.

What I don't understand is all the concerns that, while one may only watch 10 channels out of 25 they pay $50 for, there seems to be concern about having to pay $50 for just the 10 one watches. In the end, it doesn't seem to me that you have lost anything. (The numbers here are just hypothetical.)

Do you really gain anything by having an extra 15 channels that you don't watch for the same price as 10?

In the end, I think most will end up gaining with the 10. some channels will die off and the content on them will be added to the remaining and that may actually add value.
 
#182 ·
I'd also add that Cogeco has already made Pick Packages available, but you are required to choose either 25 or 35 channels.

One drawback I can already see is that there is no way to choose AMC, FX or FXX as a pick channel. This 'may' very well be an oversight on the website, as I have not called them to verify that they aren't available.

It is currently $62 for 25 picks (72 for 35), which also includes a group called "Digital Starter Pack" channels.

As an overall, I think for the total number of channels available, it would be slightly more expensive than my current Select 1 package. However, I would prefer it as I would have a preferable group of channels. This is assuming AMC, FX and FXX are indeed available.
 
#183 ·
In case you folks aren't aware, Bell has been running a pick 'n pay option in Quebec only for years. There's a basic charge for the usual suspects, CBC, CTV, Global etc., and then an option to take your choice of either 15 or 25 cable channels such as Discovery, History, HGTV, OLN, Food, Slice, DIY to name just a few.
But Bell would not price the pick and pay the same as they do in Quebec. Do you really think they would do that? And we don't have a skinny basic. Our basic costs about $40 plus you get to choose between 15,20 and 30 for $19, $22 and $25.

They also had a package which I don't know if it still exists. I picked it up when they came out with it. Costs $5

CNN+CNN HD, A&E+A&E HD, TLC+TLC HD,Much+MUCH HD, Teletoon Retro, Golf Network+ HD,Spike,CMT,CNBC,CTS,HLN+HD,BET,Militery HD,BBC World NewsMTV 2,Bite.Fox News,Miracle and WGN+HD

So for $5 I say what the hell.

But I think that some people will save with a pick and play in Ontario, others will find it more expensive. Depends really on what one needs.
 
#184 ·
The only reason Bell offers pick and pay in Quebec is to compete with Cogeco. In Ontario, Bell's major competitor is Rogers, which is to say there is no real competition. Both companies gouge consumers on price unless they cite a better, competing offer and get concessions.

I really don't see much difference between having to take a bundle of 25 channels for $62 or having to take 5 theme packs that have 25 channels for the same price. Either way, most consumers will end up paying for more channels than they want and will end up subsidizing consumers that take more costly channels and broadcasters that don't offer good value. At one time, Rogers offered packages of 5, 10, 15 or 20 category 3 channels. I had difficulty finding even 5 channels that I wanted. I would probably want about 10 or 15 channels on top of the networks. If the only options are 25 or 35 channels, pick and pay will be no improvement over the current situation.
 
#190 ·
The only reason Bell offers pick and pay in Quebec is to compete with Cogeco.
I think you meant: The only reason Bell offers pick and pay in Quebec is to compete with Videotron. They pioneered the concept of "pick a pack" or a la carte customizable packages of channels.

That concept is a little different from what the CRTC eventually mandated - individual channel pick and pay.
 
#185 ·
Most likely pick and pay will benefit people who want to have only small selection of channels so they will stay with TV service instead of cutting the cord and save some money.

For customers who want to have whole bunch of different channels, pick and pay may be more expensive unless providers will also offer some kind of bundles as they promised.

Good example is Vmedia TV service as they offer pick and pay. On their site if you select
only some channels then the saving is substantial, but once I started selecting the same channels as I have in my TV package the cost had gone well above what I pay for my subscription with Bell.
 
#186 ·
I think the biggest issue here will be sports fans and the channels they want to watch. They could potentially be the ones having higher cable bills because the channels might (but probably should) cost more than other channels.
 
#189 ·
Some people would be happy with just OTA, a couple of OTT services like Netflix and direct subscriptions to a couple of specialty channels like HBO, USA, FX or Showtime. That's what what Canadian BDUs are afraid of. Now that Bell purchased Astral, we will likely never be able to do that in Canada.

The FCC would never allow the types of cross ownership and vertical integration we have in Canada. The FCC is currently investigating Comcast over to misconduct due to it's ownership stake in Hulu. Yet the CRTC seems to be OK with the likes of Bell, Rogers and Shaw having complete control over every service providing similar consumer products in Canada. Pick and pay is an important step but much more is required. It's like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. It's not going to fix the systemic problems in the Canadian broadcasting industry.
 
#191 ·
Vertical integration isn't necessarily a problem, but it needs appropriate regulation. Those regulations must force a complete separation of marketing for each service. Absolutely no linkage of the price or availability of one service to subscription to another should be permitted. Running a pay channel? You must make it available to every Canadian cable subscriber for the same price. Want to offer a streaming video service? It must be available to everyone with an internet connection for the same price. Want to offer online features to your channel subscribers? You must also offer them to non-subscribers at a price that does not exceed your channel's subscription fee.
 
#192 ·
That helps but it's still not enough. Bell, for example, will not stream most CTV content to anyone without a BDU subscription. That typically costs about $50/mo. Skinny basic will reduce that to $25 but it's still too much. Anyone in the US can subscribe directly to CBS for $6/mo or obtain several other networks using Hulu for $10/mo. Concentration of ownership and vertical integration in the broadcasting industry is hurting Canadian consumers. I have no doubt that companies like Bell, Rogers and Shaw will attempt to distort pick and pay regulations to limit choice and drive up costs for consumers. They have a long history of doing so and band aid solutions like pick and pay won't stop it.
 
#193 ·
CTV is a non-subscription channel, so my suggested regulation would require that any online content be available to anyone in Canada for free. I would be OK with paid premium online services associated with non-subscription channels (like paying to eliminate inserted ads), but the fee would need to be the same for everyone, BDU subscription or 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.
Top