[Shaw Champ]

Saw this story on Carrt: http://www.cartt.ca/news/PrinterFriendly.cfm?NewsNo=11647

Shaw Communications has asked the CRTC to drop the requirement that Shaw Cable and Shaw Direct be kept structurally separate.

In an application filed with the Commission, Shaw calls the 14-year old regulations “unnecessary in view of Canada’s competitive market for broadcasting distribution.”

“It is unfair that Shaw is denied the right to realize the full range of administrative, corporate and operational efficiencies enjoyed by other BDUs and related corporate entities”, writes Shaw’s SVP of regulatory affairs, Jean Brazeau, in the application. “Indeed, no other BDU has any such structural separation conditions placed upon it.”

Do you think that Shaw should be able to have one structure inclusive of Shaw Cable and Shaw Direct Satellite?

Edit: I work on the cable side of the business and we have really nothing to do with Shaw Direct.

 

[hugh]

The question in my mind is why where they required to be separate in the first place and what has changed to make the restriction moot?

 

[DTVGuy]

Well, that would be one way to slash costs. How does keeping the two services at arms length (literally, arms length at Shaw Barlow) help the consumer?

Operationally, a lot of the specialty channels are fed from Shaw Direct to Shaw Cable.

 

[MCIBUS]

I don't know if its a good idea or not, but if approved, then the same treatment should be given to Bell if they decide to merge BTV & Bells IPTV serices.

 

[Shaw Champ]

Can Bell Fibe IPTV service be bundled up on one account with Bells Internet and Home Phone service?

Currently a Shaw Direct customer can not have other Shaw services on 1 bill or vice versa on the Cable side of the business. Shaw Direct can not offer Shaw Phone or Internet to their Satellite customers.

Currently Telus can offer "Telus Satellite" along with Telus Home Phone and Internet to a customer too. I think they get around this as Telus Satellite is a re-sell of Bell Satellite.

 

[DTVGuy]

I wonder if those rurally, Shaw Direct's largest base, really cares if they bundle their services with Shaw Home Phone and Shaw Internet. Oh wait, they can't.

 

[MCIBUS]

Really? I was always under the impression that if you had Shaw Duirect that you could bundle your services with other Shaw services? Interesting?

 

[Shaw Champ]

@DTVGuy Wouldn't it be better for the consumer if they had a choice though? One could see that as motivation to expand out. Depends which rural locations inside of Shaw's service area to. BC & AB are nearly covered, but Satellite covers whole of country so you are right there.

@MCIBUS if I was at Shaw Cable and a customer had Shaw Internet and Phone and wanted to get Shaw Direct Satellite they would have to have separate bills. A CSR couldn't offer it and vice versa. If I was at Shaw Direct I couldn't set up anything other than Satellite services. It's annoying as the customer is having to do a lot of the leg work and the customer could possibly loose out on bundling options.

The question in my mind is why where they required to be separate in the first place and what has changed to make the restriction moot?

Maybe this is some relation: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/DB99-169.htm scroll down a little under "Structural Separation" and also further down "Conditions of licence for the DTH licence of SC Television" ?

 

[gzink]

BC and Alberta nearly covered? You mean cable-wise?? Not even close!

 

[dlegouffe]

Bundle Services

I am a Shaw Direct customer and I also have Shaw phone and internet.
I get a discount of $20 per month (I think, I don't have my bill with me).

 

[ScaryBob]

The current regulation does increase costs for both Shaw and consumers, especially Shaw Direct customers. Considering the integration of services from Bell, in particular, I don't see why this stipulation is necessary. It might have made sense when Shaw originally purchased Star Choice but does not now.

 

[stecle]

Shaw recently cut 500+ jobs. Imagine how many they could eliminate if they merged Shaw Cable and Shawdirect.

 

[ScaryBob]

At least they are keeping the remaining jobs in Canada. Try calling Bell support some time. Most of the time it's an off shore call center.

 

[admin]

Off topic posts removed. Stay on topic please.

 

[hugh]

If the only reason is for bundling then my answer would be absolutely not.

I considered bundling to be "tying" by another name which is considered illegal in many parts of North America and should be in Canada.

 

[ScaryBob]

I agree. Services should each compete on their own merit, not on some tied in price. OTOH, why should Bell and Rogers be allowed to compete that way and not Shaw? Bell is free to bundle satellite or land line TV, internet and telephone, so why not Shaw? Considering the changes in the BDU market since the original ruling, any concerns that caused it should be revisited and applied to all companies equally.

 

[57]

I really don't see this any differently than a volume discount. If I purchase several items from an establishment, then I expect (or can often negotiate) a larger discount. If one establishment doesn't carry a specific item that I need for my overall enjoyment/system, that's not my problem. If another establishment carries more of what I want and provides an incentive to go with them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

OTOH, if I had to go to a specific establishment and had to purchase something I didn't want to get something I did want, that would be a different story, but that isn't happening here. I can purchase any one item and if I purchase 2 or more, I can negotiate a volume discount.

 

[isb035]

I would agree with the merging if the money saved from combining the IT, HR, Marketing, and ADM type functions would reduce the cost of the service instead of increasing the profits to the shareholders.

 

[ScaryBob]

I really don't see this any differently than a volume discount.

It can also be looked upon as an anti-competitive subsidy. For example, if one business is overpriced due to lack of competition, bundling can be used to subsidize another that is not. When bundled, the profitable business could even be used to undercut competitors' prices in another business in order to drive them out of business. While it is true that combining services can lead to lower operating costs, such as savings in management and service costs, I don't believe that bundling reflects that as much as it reflects vertically integrated businesses' desire to capture higher revenues. With this request Shaw just wants the playing field leveled in the way it is allowed to operate.