Rogers to drop distant (timeshift) channels?

[LONSat]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/Business/

At the end of article

...In an unexpected revelation, Rogers also told the hearings it is in negotiations with the major networks to do away with what are called “distant signal” packages. Those channels are duplicate network feeds from other time zones, which allow cable subscribers in Vancouver, for example, to watch the CTV or Global feed from Toronto. The broadcasters have long argued this is harmful to their ad revenue, since it scatters audiences to other channels, and they have sought more compensation from the distributors who sell the packages.

Rogers expects to drop the distant signals feature in favour of moving more network shows to its digital on-demand service – pending deals with the broadcasters – which it feels offers viewers more flexibility on when they watch shows. Rogers said it does not know when it will make that move.

What are peoples feelings on this?

[Larry]

I find the time-shifting channels essential. Sometimes due to the limitation of recording only two programs at the same time, makes the time-shifting ability very valuable. Also, there have been times due to different circumstances when the program did not record and I was able to catch it on timeshift.

Overall if they remove the time shifting channels I'll be royally POed.

I hate the Rogers on demand - not in HD and not all the programs are there. And besides, it causes my PVR to reboot most of the time.

[emcee]

Would be a very foolish move for Rogers. Consumers really utilize and like the flexability and that's something Rogers has advertised as a benefit for years now. R.O.D is not for everyone, and I view the services as being distinctly different. Bell and Shaw would begin grabing customers overnight if Rogers was in fact this foolish, I'd likely be one of them.

[hugh]

This makes a fair bit of sense. With fee for carriage, who wants to spend an extra $2 (estimated) a month for the timeshifted channels?

I suspect given a consumer backlash on Fee-for-carriage, all of the cable and satellite company's may follow suit. The satellite company's may hang on and eat the $2 a month because they don't have VOD

With a PVR and VOD, the benefits of time shifted channels are not what they used to be.

[Tezster]

One good thing I've found with timeshift channels is that certain programming (i.e. taped/episodic tv shows) typically aren't simsubbed by local broadcasters.

[DonR]

Originally Posted by Tezster

One good thing I've found with timeshift channels is that certain programming (i.e. taped/episodic tv shows) typically aren't simsubbed by local broadcasters.

No simsubbing on the west coast feeds and the fact we had some many problems with Buffalo feeds over the last few years (I am talking about HD programming), are the main reasons why I still pay some extra money to be able to get these timeshift (west coast) channels. Even though there's some additional compression on these channels, they are still better than the butchered up simsubs of the Buffalo feeds.

If Rogers decide not to carry them anymore, one more reason for me to knock a few dollars off of my bill. OTA looks better and better every day, too.

[whitbyterry]

I think this is one change that would send me off to satellite TV. Unless the ROD was VASTLY improved, it would not be good.

Time shifting is something a lot of people do and unless the PVR can be improved to allow recording or more shows at the same time or ROD includes pretty much everything, it won't go over well with people.

I'd rather pay extra to have it than lose it.

[hugh]

I'd rather pay extra to have it than lose it.

And that might be the option that cable companies settle on rather than get rid of them altogether.

[cheapohubby]

I've not looked at the VOD stuff... am I correct in assuming it's all SD?

Dropping the time shift would be a royal annoyance! The wife already complains about when I'm PVRing two shows, so she can't watch a live channel; this will just make it worse.

It seems pretty stupid to me; they're reducing the convenience, which will push more people to download their content. Downloads have absolutely zero advertising revenue.

[cheapohubby]

Originally Posted by hugh

And that might be the option that cable companies settle on rather than get rid of them altogether.

Oh yeah; yet another money grab!!!

[thenewdc]

This move will not apply to the dropping of the West Coast U.S. Network feeds, only Canadian Distants.

[57]

Originally Posted by cheapohubby

I've not looked at the VOD stuff... am I correct in assuming it's all SD?

No, see:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=76073

100 - ROD - Some HD programming available
308 - TMN/HBO On Demand - Some HD Programming available.
309 - MPix On Demand - Some HD Programming available.

[TVGuy68]

I think this is just a cash grab by Rogers because it will force more people into getting the US time shifting package and/or a PVR. Sure the Canadian distant channels are SD but so is much of what's offered on ROD under free TV. Bottom line I will be paying the same and getting less .

[Larry]

I don't get the advertisement tie in - if you watch the shows on demand, there are no commercials at all so no ad revenue either. Makes no sense.

[Jase88]

Originally Posted by DonR

No simsubbing on the west coast feeds and the fact we had some many problems with Buffalo feeds over the last few years (I am talking about HD programming), are the main reasons why I still pay some extra money to be able to get these timeshift (west coast) channels. .

Rogers picks up the Buffalo HD stations Over the Air. Add in their compression, and you can get some pretty aggravating drop outs.