Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
30 years ago I paid less than $100 a year for cable. When the movie channel launched (for $16/mo) it tripled my bill, but that was not a full time subscription. These days, it seems like I still watch the same networks but the price has gone way up to pay for all the "must carry" additions. TMN has way more channels and extras but has only gone up $5 and is a mere blip on the bill, even when compared to basic satellite or cable. I'll miss TCM and maybe HBO but not much else when it's canceled. This time of year, most of the TV I watch are HD network shows and rented movies. Maybe that's why broadcasters are dragging their feet with the digital transition. They know people will start disconnecting once they get OTA HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
looks good on em
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
So what. Assuming the "Internet TV" sources are legitimate services, cable comopanies have noright to complain, or stifle their use. They can only compete with them as businesses.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
More than ever, the BDUs will look at their business models and see the "need" to be the ISP of all those missing subscribers (if they aren't already), so I would expect a buying spree of small ISPs by the likes of Bell, Shaw, Rogers, et al. Heck they might even petition the authorities to bring some sort of parity between the definitions of BDU and ISP regarding TV programming... :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
I have had a burning desire to cut all my cables. I just got my wife a very good 3 year plan on a new iphone 4 and finally have her convinced that we can live without a land line.

Next up is the TV package. That will be a harder pitch but I'm up to the challenge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
This article explains in simple terms why ISPs and BDUs should not be owned by the same company. Bell and Rogers are taking steps to protect their BDU revenue streams by penalizing ISP customers who use internet streaming. It's like they feel entitled to $60/mo from anyone who watches TV, whether ISP customers use their BDU TV services or some other source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
I agree with ScaryBob that atsc OTA is a much greater threat since they can't control that. Dittio for DVD/BR.

We never had TCM on my provider but I do miss the TMN suite and agree they have treated the customer much more fairly. Sure the price has gone up but there's inflation and they've added more value added services to the suite.

If I was Astral I would have petitioned the CRTC for TMN to be an ala cart package years ago. I know if I could just sub to their channels I would be but since I can't I'll stick with OTA and Showtime/HBO content on DVD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
I've switched off cable TV.
OTA DVR & an ATV are pretty much everything we need.

Cables only saving grace is sports and certain cable only speciality channels that aren't available on ATV (Food network comes to mind).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,869 Posts
If OTA is such a threat then why are the National broadcaster demanding fee for service carriage from the cable and satellite companies. In cities close to the U.S. border, OTA is an option. For the rest of us, there may be 3 OTA stations just like in the 60's. Internet tv could become a threat, but it won't be a killer unless there is a serious price differential. I'd expect the cable companies to combat that with reduced pricing to be offset with higher pricing and bandwidth controls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
I'm doing research to find out if there's such a thing as a low power ATSC-transmitter-in-a-box so that I can set up small digital broadcast sites for my television channel all across Canada. While my channel will be viewed mainly via cable, I'm fully aware of the alternatives out there and the massive audience shifts that are occurring, and I'm prepared to exploit these new technologies as long as they're economically viable.

Yes, I know there are a few regulatory hurdles to overcome to set up OTA broadcast sites. But to be honest, it's easier and quicker to deal with the government than it is to deal with the cable companies. With the government, the rules and decision time frames are fully established. Not so with private industry.

And with the Internet, my channel has been on the air for over a year. No regulations to follow, no permissions needed. It was launched as soon as the broadcast server was ready.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
If you are looking for available markets, there are 5 post transition channels available in London. ;) It just points out how under-served London is for OTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
^ Great, so we can look forward to extorsion tactics as well as poking a stick in the eye of net neutrality. Hopefully, the FCC intervenes to stop this nonsense before it spreads to our shores.

I'd love to cut the cord on cable but OTA isn't really viable for me. However, since I'm paying for cable and NFL overruns and CRTC-sanctioned simulcast prevents me from reliably receiving CBS 60 Minutes, I've resorted to the internet. Same goes for the BBC's Top Gear, in all it's unfettered, commercial-free, HD glory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
If OTA is such a threat then why are the National broadcaster demanding fee for service carriage from the cable and satellite companies. In cities close to the U.S. border, OTA is an option. For the rest of us, there may be 3 OTA stations just like in the 60's.
1) They're demanding money because they think they can get it. It's foolish to think a business wouldn't do that.

2) I included DVD/BR in combo with OTA - did you miss that? Haven't those shiny discs made it to remote areas?

3) 75% of Cdn's live within 90mins of the border. OTA would certainly be a threat if it's an option to a large % of the population.

4) Although I've modded it since then my first OTA setup could only pull in 3 stations. With DVD and an OTA pvr pulling in all I'd want to watch that was enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
The who cable TV industry has gotten ugly. As tv channels get less revenue from advertising (while partly due to the internet, I think its a bigger after affect of so many channels.. it just means less views on each channel).

Anyways with less ad revenue, channels are trying to get money through broadcasting fees. When cable can offer 200+ channels, that can really ad up. If you combine that with your usual corporate greed for the cableco's, you get what we have now.. high prices.

The way I see the future, is all the stations broadcasting over the internet. While they might lose those broadcasting fees, the bigger stations should be able generate alot more ad revenue from a larger view base (as there would be no cable bills... it'd be like OTA).

The sad state of affairs, is even though the tv channels are trying to move to fee based programming, were still stuck with the commericials. The only thing that gets more then large cable bills, are pay that bill to watch commercials. Charging people to watch content that is 1/3 commercials is destined to fail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
Why does there need to be stations? They seem even less relevant to me. The content creators could simply put their content out there directly to the consumer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Why does there need to be stations? ...
I agree. In the past the broadcasters were needed as the distribution method.

With the Internet the content producers can now sell their programming directly to viewers or give it to viewers on an advertising supported basis (or product placement revenue -- check out last night's Colbert report for some glaring examples!).
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top