[Legend4Eva]

Why does the CRTC regulate ownership of territories but then not regulate content or price in a specific area. I live in Sault Ste Marie in which Shaw cable owns a monopoly and refuses to upgrade the area so that more channels can be added yet charges the same price as all the markets in which they do offer those channels.

Any Idea of who can be emailed in regards to this. Tony Clement maybe?

 

[hugh]

Industry Canada so likely Tony Clement and, of course, your local MP.

 

[Legend4Eva]

Thanks Hugh, I suppose anything is worth a try at least once

 

[hugh]

I would also send a note to the CRTC.

Sadly I don't think it will help your situation but at some point, if enough people complain, then it might.

 

[tvlurker]

The CRTC comes under the Heritage Ministry, not Industry Canada.

I don't think Shaw has a monopoly. Another BDU can come in and offer service, too. They jsut have to apply to the CRTC.

Not likely to happen in the Soo, though.

 

[Legend4Eva]

Sadly I dont think so either. I already emailed CRTC and they gave me the reply that the provider can charge what they want and offer what they want as content is not regulated. They ignored the regulation of ownership question which I kinda figured they would. If only Rogers had not been required to sell ownership in this region....Things might be a lot better.

 

[Legend4Eva]

From my understanding a provider like Rogers or Eastlink would not be allowed in to the area as Shaw owns the sole license for that region until 2014. Any application for a second license would surely be blocked by Shaw.

 

[GeorgeMx]

Shaw has no monopoly on cable service, they just have a BDU license. Other parties can apply for a license and would likely get one if they have financial and technical qualifications to build and operate a cable service. A new company's biggest challenge would likely be getting an agreement to attach their cable to telephone and hydro poles.

In the meantime, competitive TV service is available from Bell and ShawDirect by satellite. There is no distribution monopoly on TV service. If you don't like cable's service and pricing then go to one of the satellite companies.

 

[ScaryBob]

As mentioned, Shaw does not have a monopoly. Other cable companies could provide service in the area but choose not to. As mentioned, Shaw Direct satellite and Bell TV satellite are options. IPTV may also be available in the future.

Rogers was not "required to sell ownership" to Shaw. Rogers and Shaw made an agreement to swap ownership of cable systems in order to consolidate their operations. Basically, Rogers gave all their systems in western Canada to Shaw and Shaw gave all their systems in eastern Canada to Rogers. This was probably a cost cutting move more than anything else. The CRTC had nothing to do with it other than granting approval.

 

[HD_Junkie]

I know in one complaint I made to the CRTC that they also said there was competition from video rental stores and services like zip.ca.

 

[stampeder]

From my understanding a provider like Rogers or Eastlink would not be allowed in to the area as Shaw owns the sole license for that region

BDUs are allowed to "overbuild" into another BDU's territory provided that they receive CRTC approval first. This has happened in many parts of Canada, including in my own neighbourhood in which Delta Cable (Eastlink) is overbuilt by Shaw. At present I think I can opt between either one.

Overbuilding sure makes power poles look ridiculously cluttered. Delta Cable, as the incumbent, has had their stuff up for decades in the typical height on each pole, but now Shaw is in between them and Telus (nee BCTel) with BC Hydro at the top.

 

[northerner]

I've been thinking along the same lines of contacting our local MP to complain about the situation.

I too have contacted the CRTC and been told that it's not their issue as long as certain content requirements are met.

It's not right what Shaw is doing here. Someone has to look out for consumers. If they can't provide all the channels that other areas get then they should not be allowed to charge us as much since we are getting less for our money.

If they are getting less revenue then it will provide them with the incentive to do the required upgrades.

 

[tvlurker]

So call them up and see what they offer you as a retention bonus if you threaten to cancel.

 

[Legend4Eva]

So call them up and see what they offer you as a retention bonus if you threaten to cancel.

Unfortunately its not simply about saving money its about paying the money but getting the content we want to receive. Canada is an extremely restrictive country in terms of channels it has but having shaw in ssm is like getting half of that. Unfortunately in a lot of cases Bell is not an option so people here are being held hostage by the cable company that has no desire to upgrade its services due to us paying the same prices. They also can afford to lose customers in this area as it seems like SSM is not a big priority to them.

 

[tvlurker]

I was just responding to your comment:

If they can't provide all the channels that other areas get then they should not be allowed to charge us as much since we are getting less for our money.

If you think it is not worth what they are charging, then tell them so. Also remind them that ATSC OTA from Michigan is available in SSM.

 

[Legend4Eva]

I was just responding to your comment:


If you think it is not worth what they are charging, then tell them so. Also remind them that ATSC OTA from Michigan is available in SSM.

consider this, 36.95 for basic tv which is 30 channels. The next step up is 62.95 for digital....nothing in between. 16 dollars a month for HD for 26 HD channels. 2.95 for each individual channel. 25 dollars a month to rent a PVR which is robbery


I know people in Toronto with 2 houses that pay cheaper for cable with full hd in both locations. Shaw is gouging their customers and I still cant get the channels i want

 

[tvlurker]

I'm not saying they're not charging too much. I'm just saying if you don't think it is worth it, don't pay it (by cancelling).

There is life without 30 (or 500 ) channels.

If enough people cancel, they'll get the message. I don't think you can expect the CRTC to determine fair value for cable TV service.

 

[GeorgeMx]

...Unfortunately in a lot of cases Bell is not an option so people here are being held hostage by the cable company that has no desire to upgrade its services due to us paying the same prices...

Why is it not an option "in a lot of cases" to use Bell? And if Bell doesn't work why not try Shaw Direct? There is no monopoly if you can get the service from 3 providers.

 

[ScaryBob]

Why is it not an option "in a lot of cases" to use Bell?

Many condo boards and landlords do not allow dishes. There are ways around that but they aren't always easy.

 

[Stan Dev]

Or line-of-sight to the satellites blocked by trees, terrain, other buildings, whatever.