79 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

CRTC to require pick-and-pay TV channels, basic package with $25 cap from cable providers

 

Cable and satellite service providers will soon have to offer consumers an “entry-level” television service, at a cost of no more than $25 a month.

 

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released the new requirements on Thursday, following its lengthy Let’s Talk TV hearings last fall.

 

The new, trimmed-down basic packages must include local channels in each service area, as well as channels currently on the CRTC’s mandatory distribution list such as public interest, educational and legislature channels where they’re available.

 

U.S.-based channels that are currently free over the air in most major Canadian markets near the border — so-called 4-plus-1 channels — will also be included.

 

...

 

 

The CRTC says TV viewers will then be able to supplement the so-called “skinny basic” package with either individual channels available through a pick-and-pay model, or what it calls small, “reasonably-priced” bundled channel packages.

 

But service providers will have until the end of next year to offer both a la carte channels and theme packages.

 

 

http://business.fina...__lsa=7746-8bb9

[VicHockeyFan]

 

   A World of Choice

In a World of Choice, Canadians will be able to supplement their entry-level television services with the additional channels they want.

By March 2016, Canadians will be able to buy individual channels either on a pick-and-pay basis or through small, reasonably priced bundles (for example, they could select 5 or 10 channels). Cable and satellite companies may also continue to offer theme-based packages—such as sports, lifestyle or comedy.

By December 2016, Canadians will be able to subscribe to channels on a pick-and-pay basis, as well as through small, reasonably priced bundles. In addition, Canadians will have the option of keeping their current television services without making any changes.

 

CRTC backgrounder   http://news.gc.ca/we...n.do?nid=952909

[Mike K.]

I love how the current packages, for, say, "education," include one or two education-related channels, then a bunch of nonsense filler channels. Ah, but the second "education" package includes another one or two education channels, and also a bunch of filler. So you actually have to buy two packages to get the two or three education channels that should have been in the same bundle in the first place. Like History and H2, why the heck are they in different bundles with Shaw? Education should be History, H2, Discovery, Smithsonian, Discovery Travel, Bio, Outdoor Life (going by the shows), or whatever. Instead to get all of those channels you literally have to buy at least two bundles if not three. It's ridiculous.

[VicHockeyFan]

 

Now that's funny.  And above the head of most.

[Mike K.]

[sebberry]

Like History and H2, why the heck are they in different bundles with Shaw?

 

Because most of the channels are full of crap, re-runs or re-runs of crap and the only way to keep them running is to split them into multiple bundles to increase the revenue.

 

Don't get me wrong, I find an episode or two of Pawn Stars to be interesting, but to see the same re-runs week after week gets a little tiring. 

 

I ditched Cable months ago and I don't miss it at all.  Heck, I got it for a couple months covering Christmas and barely watched it.

[Mike K.]

Major media players are before the CRTC asking for the government to fund local news.

 

I don't understand this. How can corporations earning billions in profits be crying foul about the expenditures they face for local news? They threaten shutting down stations if taxpayers don't help. So why won't they? Why artificially keep alive a medium that is no longer profitable, as they say?

[VicHockeyFan]

Major media players are before the CRTC asking for the government to fund local news.

 

I don't understand this. How can corporations earning billions in profits be crying foul about the expenditures they face for local news? They threaten shutting down stations if taxpayers don't help. So why won't they? Why artificially keep alive a medium that is no longer profitable, as they say?

 

I think one of their gripes is that because they are "over-the-air" stations, they do not get any compensation from cable companies, like, say, TSN does.  That's where they'd like the money (local TV fund) to come from.

 

They argue they are supplying free content to the cable companies and the cable companies are profiting from it.  Cable companies argue that without cable, nobody would be watching those channels, they are lucky to have cable picking up their feed and distributing it for free, since nobody uses set-top rabbit ears.  It's kinda easy to see both sides.

[AllseeingEye]

The major media outlets like Bell make bucket-loads of ca$h on their specialty channels which subscribers to regional carriers like Eastlink in Atlantic Canada pay through the nose for. Pure gravy for the big boys: Bell, Rogers et al are taking one slice of the pie - local news - and attempting to paint a bleak broader canvas when in fact they are, overall, immensely profitable enterprises. "Local news" is very profitable Mike in the major markets like TO, Vancouver, Calgary etc. Where I agree there is a problem is in the secondary, smaller markets like St. John's, Moncton, Saskatoon and Victoria. If closures happen its those markets that will be impacted.

[VicHockeyFan]

Where I agree there is a problem is in the secondary, smaller markets like St. John's, Moncton, Saskatoon and Victoria. If closures happen its those markets that will be impacted.

 

But is local news only tough in Victoria because we have two local stations slugging it our for the same ad dollars?  Nobody wants to see just one, but Vancouver only has three (four if you count CBC) in a place with way more population.

 

Saskatoon has three.

 

Should we just let one fail here?

[Mike K.]

Which one?

[VicHockeyFan]

Which one?

 

Well, one has better ratings at news time (CHEK, in all but the youngest demographic), but one has deeper pockets (CTV, but virtue of its national network and parent).

[AllseeingEye]

I think much of the problem here stems from a tiny private sector - typically the source of much of the advertising spend directed to the major media companies - relative even to some other smaller markets.

 

Both Saskatoon and Regina surprised the hell out of me last I was there. Both have large private enterprise employer/advertisers that frankly we could only dream about here. Saskatoon for example is HO for both the largest publicly traded uranium and potash companies in the world, respectively.

 

Victoria by contrast "yes" is hindered by an overwhelmingly public sector-oriented economy ("hindered" in the context of this discussion and in the sense the provincial Education Ministry isn't pumping too many advertising dollars in the direction of CTV News - VI, for instance....). 

Edited by AllseeingEye, 25 January 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

Both Saskatoon and Regina surprised the hell out of me last I was there. Both have large private enterprise employer/advertisers that frankly we could only dream about here. Saskatoon for example is HO for both the largest publicly traded uranium and potash companies in the world, respectively.

 

But wait a minute, potash and uranium are being sold heavily into the local consumer markets, so they advertise on TV?

[AllseeingEye]

But wait a minute, potash and uranium are being sold heavily into the local consumer markets, so they advertise on TV?

No you are missing my point: I have no idea whether those two industries/companies advertise on TV. My point was that unlike here those large private entities exist and they represent a large private sector - that does advertise on television - and that we essentially lack here with a (very) few notable exceptions. A private sector that 'typically' generates the bulk of the advertising revenue for the large media companies.

 

Offhand I don't recall the BC Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ministry or the Solicitor General ever pumping dough into CHEK TV, but I certainly do remember Palm Dairies, Woodward's Stores, Coast Capital Savings etc., among the many private firms that do or have done in the past.

[jonny]

If all these radio stations can survive then surely local TV can as well.

[AllseeingEye]

If all these radio stations can survive then surely local TV can as well.

Don't forget Jonny unlike a radio station a TV operation is a lot more expensive to run and maintain; aside from more warm bodies that you have to pay, the physical premises is much more expansive and needs to be heated and maintained and occasionally re-configured, and above all you have a ton of expensive digital, optical, audio and computer operations and production gear to purchase or lease.

[nagel]

And Astrid isn't cheap.

[jonny]

Don't forget Jonny unlike a radio station a TV operation is a lot more expensive to run and maintain; aside from more warm bodies that you have to pay, the physical premises is much more expansive and needs to be heated and maintained and occasionally re-configured, and above all you have a ton of expensive digital, optical, audio and computer operations and production gear to purchase or lease.

 

I get it, but everybody thought radio was going to die a quick death. Those predictions were greatly exaggerated.

 

If there's a market for local TV, then somebody will be there to supply the market. The days of highly paid local production teams in places like Victoria may be numbered. Maybe the future is a lower cost product like Vice news. Dunno.

[Mike K.]

Exactly. We don't need armies of production people to bring us the news. What we need are hard working journalists with a passion for the job and ownership schemes that are invested in their communities. The rest will take care of itself.

 

Oh, we can do away with the hysterics and fear-mongering ever so present in our televised media.