lol…that’s so cute……………..you know this is Canada, right?
I don’t know, but I hope so. Television, which is immensely competitive, should not be tied to internet providers, which are immensely anticompetitive.
To some degree, yes. But this of course depends on getting CRTC approval for the new channels, and for getting coverage and distribution for them. The distribution hurdle is enough to discourage many of the players from bothering, and would kill any independent channels from starting up.
Over the top services and alternate IP TV systems will not work until the Canadian public is getting unlimited internet connections. With usage caps, it’s unreasonable to consider using an IP TV system (aside from the ISP’s own usage cap exempt service). Canada’s internet market place is solidly set up to keep you on cable, just the way they need it to maximize profits.
You have to remember that it’s incredibly unlikely that any of this happens too quickly. Many consumers are on contracted rate plans for upwards to two years. In many cases, it’s a certain service level of internet tied to the tv package, or the other way around. Bundling and such is a big negative against skinny basic, as consumers may see the loss of the bundle benefits as being too significant. When you combined those things, you are looking at a slow evolutionary process, and not overnight distruction.
Of course, there may be a sudden and sharp drop for many as their first starts. If even 10% of consumers move to a skinny package, the repercussions would be felt particularly strongly on channels that are depending on subscription money to pay the bills. It may be enough even in the very short term to make these channels economically nonviable.
There will of course be rapid rebranding, and possibly more channels ditching their narrow focus theme for a more populist line of programming. It may work short term, but long term it may just split the market up too much and create multiple stations going out of business.
The end result is consolidation. The method by which to make a channel the most profitable is to have less competition, and more of whatever it is people are willing to pay for in one place. Change a relatively premium price for it, and aggregate a big enough audience to be viable for national advertisers to buy space. 10 channels averaging 1000 viewers an hour is way more expensive to put on the air than 1 channel with 10,000 viewers an hour. Consolidation is the easiest and more obvious business strategy towards an improved bottom line.
But this of course depends on getting CRTC approval for the new channels, and for getting coverage and distribution for them.
CRTC approval isn’t hard, and it’s not even necessary unless new channels start out with a large subscriber base. Distribution is harder, because of having to negotiate with various providers and because many of those providers have limited bandwidth and have to make choices.
Over the top services and alternate IP TV systems will not work until the Canadian public is getting unlimited internet connections.
Netflix seems to be doing pretty well. I think there’s a future for IPTV-based TV providers, provided their software is good and they offer competitive programming and prices. And major providers are offering unlimited Internet options now.
You have to remember that it’s incredibly unlikely that any of this happens too quickly. Many consumers are on contracted rate plans for upwards to two years.
Unless those plans include subsidized equipment (like a free set-top box), the law says they can cancel any time.
Distribution is all but impossible, unless you are going to let the cable company take all the money. Why would they want to run an indy channel when they can run sometime from their in house owned channels? With limited channel space, it’s a no brainer.
I just checked Bell Fibe internet for Quebec, the only unlimited packages are either their $150 a month very high speed, or as a $10 upgrade if you also paid for Fibe TV, essentially negating the need for most of the over the top services. Yup, Netflix is an exception here.
it’s why most packages include equipment. It’s also a given that consumers are not aware of their options, and are not likely to cancel even if they have a very easy out.
But I can buy my own set-top box, right?
Yes, but the models of boxes you can purchase are limited, and it costs a few hundred dollars, depending on which type and whether you want a PVR included.
After checking what I was paying over $55 for (with Bell Satellite), I compared it with their $25 plus $5 time shift.
Now my cost is $30 and I cannot seem to find any channels that I actually watched that would be missed.
With so much available online and netflix, even with the skinny pack there is more television than I can watch.
While it may not serve the heavy duty TV fan, it is superb for those who really want a basic package.
as a never-cabled, I am looking at skinny basic because in my part of Outremont the OTA reception of digital tv is terrible. But I would like, at least, PBS from US. Still, with Netflix + Tor as the lower-cost alternative, I conclude that skinny cable isn’t doing it for me quite yet.
As for all the crtc staff who were convinced that skinny basic + pick&pay would suddenly cause Canadian media delivery companies to halt their business model of screwing customers to the maximum possible, well, how’s that working out?
I don’t think anyone at the CRTC seriously had that impression. And I’m unaware of anyone who works for that organization who has said such a thing.
Unfortunately, Outremont is on the wrong side of Mount Royal compared to Verdun where reception is excellent and you’re looking at 24+ channels and all the American border stations and their sub-channels. You’ll have to put up with Pay TV and what they are offering.
All I can say is I use an antenna and I’m getting 24 channels at present 13 of those are American primary channels and their sub-channels. All are Digital and most are HD with stunning clarity. For the amount of time I watch TV these days and being retired meaning lower income I find it good enough for me. And the cost can’t be beat at $0 Dollars per month. Being a 30+ year veteran of Pay TV I know what it means to spend money or flush it down the drain if you will on Pay TV. I had cable and then satellite with the 300+ channels at $125+ per month and ended up only watching 10 or 12 channels regularly. One thing no one has suggested that are on Pay TV is a system whereby people pay only when their TV is switched on. With the present system you may only watch TV 6 hours a day but pay for 24. That would reduce costs but obviously would meet with resistance from Pay TV.