79 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

I want them to open the country up to competition and not allow these bloated, uncompetitive behemoths to bleed us.

[VicHockeyFan]

I want them to open the country up to competition and not allow these bloated, uncompetitive behemoths to bleed us.

 

Me too.  Your post asked for some type of ruling on prices.

[Mike K.]

Yeah I should have been a little more direct, but the CRTC and the feds being protectionists are doing us no favors. Our big three telecoms are globally uncompetitive to the point of mockery on the international scene.

$35 for 500mb, Bell? Are you for real?

[VicHockeyFan]

Anyway, back to today's announcement.  The root of the problem of bundling the specialty channels, is that the cable companies OWN the specialty channels, so they want to collect money for them, even when nobody watches them.

 

http://www.theglobea...rticle11173648/

 

 

Easy money for doing nothing? Try running a specialty TV channel

 

 

I draw your attention to a report in this great newspaper the other day on the matter of the Bell Media-owned Book Television channel. The owners have approached the CRTC asking for permission to change the nature of Book Television’s programming, away from its mandated coverage of writing, books, authors and publishing, and toward “more attractive programming,” which would mean “…the scheduling of drama programming based upon the printed word.”

 

My first reaction was this: Hello? Excuse me? Does Book Television still exist? Apparently it does, loitering in the nether regions of digital cable and far as I can tell, occasionally airing a bunch of book-related programs made years ago in the middle of the night. That is, on those nights when it isn’t airing “Paid Programming,” also known as infomercials. In prime time on weeknights, it shows hours of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. On weekends it airs, over and over, a series called History of Science from 2005. One rare recent program about a writer – Margaret Atwood – was made in 2006.

 

This is known as doing nothing. And yet people pay money to subscribe to Book Television. Most subscribers probably have no idea they’re paying to get it, because it is bundled with other channels they want to see. This is known as getting money for doing nothing.

 

Does Book Television actually do what it received a licence to do? Nope. It does nothing. On its website there is a Frequently Asked Questions section. One question is this: “How will I know if my book or event will be covered on Book Television?” and the answer is: “If your book or event is suitable to our programming, we’ll contact you or your publicist.” In other words, don’t call us, we’ll call you. Since Book Television doesn’t actually cover books any more, the call isn’t coming, book people.

 

A salient fact here is this: The channel turned a $1.1-million pre-tax profit in 2011, according to the CRTC’s most recent data. A million bucks for doing nothing. And now the owners want to change the channel’s content and turn it into yet another purveyor of dramas and comedies in prime time, as long as they are based on books – a definition so elastic as to be ridiculous. Bring on the endless Sex and the City reruns.

 

So even after that 2013 article, Bell did not change the website FAQ's question and indeed Superman is still the prime-time headliner:

 

http://www.booktelevision.com/

 

Heck, they have not even updated the very lame website since 2013, according to the copyright on in.

[Mike K.]

It's the same with data plans. Why are we paying for a specific amount of data every month, only to have the data WE ALREADY PAID FOR (+ air time) but perhaps didn't fully use disappear when the next billing cycle comes around? This short of nonsense would never fly under ANY other circumstance, but the CRTC allows the telecoms to get away with it.

[jonny]

I want them to open the country up to competition and not allow these bloated, uncompetitive behemoths to bleed us.

 

Well, the Cons did try this with Verizon and they weren't interested.

 

Canada's a small market in a huge country. It's good that Wind is pushing the envelope a bit, but telecom is a mature market with huge barriers to entry. It's not a growth market, so who's going to make the investment and take the risk?

[Mike K.]

I don't understand why we even need to have a national carrier. 99% of us stick to a small regional area, virtually all of the time. When away we can roam on another carrier, and as seen with Wind that's a cheap enough option.

Where the real barrier to entry is, is when the feds make a mockery of the spectrum "bidding" process. Of course the big 3 will outbid the entrants, heck they'll outbid even of it means paying ridiculous amounts.

[VicHockeyFan]

It's the same with data plans. Why are we paying for a specific amount of data every month, only to have the data WE ALREADY PAID FOR (+ air time) but perhaps didn't fully use disappear when the next billing cycle comes around? This short of nonsense would never fly under ANY other circumstance, but the CRTC allows the telecoms to get away with it.

 

I'm trying to think of other examples of this type of billing.  If I do not even turn my cable box and TV on for a whole month, I still get a bill.  If I buy a monthly bus pass and only use it once, I don't get to carry over unused rides.  Golf club annual membership etc.

[VicHockeyFan]

Today's announcement is at 1pm BTW.

[Mike K.]

I'm trying to think of other examples of this type of billing.  If I do not even turn my cable box and TV on for a whole month, I still get a bill.  If I buy a monthly bus pass and only use it once, I don't get to carry over unused rides.  Golf club annual membership etc.

 

That's different, you're paying for an "unlimited" service with a cable subscription and a bus pass. I'd gladly pay $35/month for unlimited data, but paying through the nose for a measly 500 mb that that I may not use up (but for which I paid for but can't use the next billing cycle) is theft. There's no justification for this, none whatsoever. At the very least you should be able to roll over minutes/data from the previous month, but I suppose that would be just too sensible and convenient for the consumer.

[jonny]

I don't understand why we even need to have a national carrier. 99% of us stick to a small regional area, virtually all of the time. When away we can roam on another carrier, and as seen with Wind that's a cheap enough option.

Where the real barrier to entry is, is when the feds make a mockery of the spectrum "bidding" process. Of course the big 3 will outbid the entrants, heck they'll outbid even of it means paying ridiculous amounts.

 

Good point. WestJet and Porter Airlines didn't start out covering the entire country.

 

Wind maybe should have stuck to Southern Ontario and then moved to Ottawa and Montreal. Nail those markets down, and then expand. One problem with that approach is, I have a hard time seeing the big three giving Wind favourable roaming rates when their customers are outside of Wind's coverage area.

[VicHockeyFan]

That's different, you're paying for an "unlimited" service with a cable subscription and a bus pass. I'd gladly pay $35/month for unlimited data, but paying through the nose for a measly 500 mb that that I may not use up (but for which I paid for but can't use the next billing cycle) is theft. There's no justification for this, none whatsoever. At the very least you should be able to roll over minutes/data from the previous month, but I suppose that would be just too sensible and convenient for the consumer.

 

Well, I pay for 3GB every month, then if I go over I pay per GB.  I think maybe I go over once every 3 or 4 months. The plan works for me.  $80/mo. and I have unlimited talk local, standard LD Canada and US, unlimited text.

[sebberry]

I put up with a lousy talk plan so I can keep my 6GB data plan.  Then again if I scrapped my plan for an unlimited talk/text and a crappy data plan I'd be spending the same. 

 

I got a letter from Bell yesterday trying to sell me a new phone.  The letter tore a strip off the CRTC for the 2 year contracts leading to higher prices, etc... I think the CRTC really dropped the ball on that one.  Then again, the crappy service and prices from RoBellUs made customers call for an end to the 3 year contracts, so they really just brought it onto themselves. 

[sebberry]

It's the same with data plans. Why are we paying for a specific amount of data every month, only to have the data WE ALREADY PAID FOR (+ air time) but perhaps didn't fully use disappear when the next billing cycle comes around? This short of nonsense would never fly under ANY other circumstance, but the CRTC allows the telecoms to get away with it.

 

This applies to land based ISPs too.  If I pay per MB/GB the minute I go a GB over my cap, where's my refund for the unused data from the month before?  It's stupid. 

[Mike K.]

Exactly, same nonsense. Luckily with internet connections we're given enough capacity to actually use the service without a constant fear of accidentally running a three minute video when not connected to a wireless signal.

 

This whole nickel and dime business by the telecoms is so ...petty.

[VicHockeyFan]

 

The CRTC is expected to announce today that cable subscribers will soon be able to purchase a basic $25 a month package and have pick-and-pay options.

 

Sources have told CBC News the regulator will tell cable and satellite companies that they must offer the so-called "skinny basic" option, to consumers.

The cable package is expected to be around $25 a month and would consist of local stations and mandatory channels, such as the Weather Network, APTN, educational channels and accessibility channels, plus all news channels in English and French.

By comparison, the cheapest online advertised television package for Rogers customers in Ontario is $40.48 a month for "190+ channels," while Bell offers Ontario customers more than 150 channels on both Fibe and satellite options for an advertised price of $41.98 a month on its website.

This will be the first time the CRTC has regulated a basic cable package price since 1998.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ckage-1.3001370

[johnk]

Like dogs, the telcos do it because they can. Tollbooths on the digital highway.

[lanforod]

No basic package @ $25/mo is going to bring me back to TV. If I could just pay $1/channel/mo, with say, a minimum 20 channels required, perhaps. Anything else, forget it, I get it all online, including sports - just a hassle for sports currently, that's all.

[sebberry]

Likely $25 for basic Digital (Not High-Definition) TV.  Upgrading to HD will probably cost double.  Pick and Pay will probably end up with a requirement to have SD versions of the HD channel you want, for an additional fee.

 

This'll be like the cell phone contracts and end up costing consumers more for less. 

[Nparker]

...This'll be like the cell phone contracts and end up costing consumers more for less. 

Sadly, this.