Pay for what we want - Otherwise cancelling TV Service

[jromyn]

Not really sure if this is possible but I am tired of paying for things I never use.

Unless I can pay for only the channels I watch I will be cancelling my IPTV service next month. I think its ridiculous to have all these channels that I absolutely never look at. The only reason I've been paying for the IPTV service the last 14 months is to watch the Raptors and the Jays. Beyond that- I watch absolutely nothing on cable.

This price increase has made the decision for me. If by the end of March there is no option to only pay for the channels I want to watch then I will be cancelling the service completely and using other methods to watch live sporting events.

Thanks,

Jonathan

[days101]

They have no control over this. The CRTC requires you have certain channels, so you need at least the basic package. Just like with every other provider.

[User153]

I feel your pain, but I think it's a CRTC regulation that mandates how channels are distributed. For example, basic cable must carry by law certain channels. Sun News Network tried to get included in that tier in order to try and make a go of things before they went out of business.

Cable companies also need a minimum amount of revenue in order to maintain their infrastructure, so for the time being, I don't know that pick and pay would be feasible. I think you'd have to set up a fixed cost component and then a variable cost component, and in the end it would likely be a wash. Revenues don't just cover the content you watch, they cover the hardware that get it to you as well.

If you're really only after live sports, you don't need cable with streaming services offered by MLB/NFL/NHL etc. I use NFL Gamepass, but do find the Cdn. restrictions rather aggravating (playoffs, and primetime games aren't included).

[sradonic]

not sure why you are complaining - we have been force fed over 11 channels of sports that I never will watch or have the need unless the olympics are on; so that said my services have gone up over 20% to cover those who do.. talk about choice.

[pbeaul]

I've mentioned this before, but I wish Premium Basic was Basic + any 2 or 3 theme packs (standard ones, not movie networks/HBO). Let sports lovers have their sports, let families have their kids channels, etc and keep the prices/costs down for everyone.

[Hacksaw2085]

not sure why you are complaining - we have been force fed over 11 channels of sports that I never will watch or have the need unless the olympics are on; so that said my services have gone up over 20% to cover those who do.. talk about choice.

Actually when TSN added it's new feeds it was advertised as added at no extra cost to what their original two channels cost providers. So other than the equipment costs to carry the extra channels it doesn't cost anything to have them. I would assume the regional Sportsnet channels have a similar agreement where you get them all from the supplier for one price. So to say you're price is going up to cover the extra sports channels is just plain wrong.

[Hacksaw2085]

I've mentioned this before, but I wish Premium Basic was Basic + any 2 or 3 theme packs (standard ones, not movie networks/HBO). Let sports lovers have their sports, let families have their kids channels, etc and keep the prices/costs down for everyone.

I'd be ok with this, I think it would work better for everyone. It may force VMedia to move some of the Premium Basic channels into Basic because of the licensing and packaging associated with the content licenses but that is something the CRTC really needs to change.

[GeorgeBurger]

I'll jump in here because apart from anything else it is such a refreshing change to be talk about something, if not completely, at least a bit different from the main subject of the last three days. First Hacksaw2085 the sports channels, all of them, have gone up over the last two years, Sportsnet more significantly than TSN. Believe it or not and I am sure all will believe it, moving hockey from one provider to another is not a zero sum game. TSN did not go down as Sportsnet went up. On top of equipment there is also the transport charges, and there are fees associated with the Sportsnet regionals, so all in the bulk of the increase has to do with sports.To pbeau's point, the problem with your solution is the manner in which the US cable channels are distributed. They are very focused on penetration, but broadcasting regulations don't allow the inclusion of US channels into the basic package, other than specifically permitted 4+1 networks. So it is not an option to move CNN or AMC or A&E into basic. If I can't do that, I need a very popular Premium Basic package, with them included, to be able to carry them without breaching the penetration requirements. We will see if those rules are changed in any way when the TV hearing decisions are released in March, but it is impossible to be able to meet those levels without having a robust next-level basic available.I can't see how anyone can ensure that kind of penetration otherwise.Really, I truly believe we have achieved the most choice and flexibility available in our market within the constraints of regulations and contractual restrictions.You won't get better anywhere else.

[Hacksaw2085]

Thanks George, I stand corrected.

[pbeaul]

So the US networks are interested in market penetration, does that mean they won't allow you to have channels if you don't agree to offer them? Is it an all or nothing deal?

Hypothetically, would something like this be possible?

1) Basic (The minimum required by the CRTC/whoever)
2) Flexible Basic: All the Basic channels + a very small handful of channels that are required to keep broadcasters happy + 2 or 3 theme packs so that customers can modify the package to their interests
3) Premium Basic: Same as what we have now I guess.

I personally would opt for a #2 if it presented a similar value as the premium basic package does today... I prefer choice over 14 TSNs that I'll never watch.

[GeorgeBurger]

pbeaul then you get into another tricky situation because if your take the non-obligatory channels out of Basic, then you run into penetration problems with them and their rates balloon, so that your next package down gets very expensive, and your third package gets even more expensive, so that you start to slide down the slippery slope of falling penetrations. Believe it or not this business is like a living breathing Rubik's cube.

[Munzo]

A premium like package without sports channels but possibly as a substitute, a channel such as HBO would be great. I would not be surprised if a lot of customers felt inclined to move from basic up simply for the benefits.

[Sarum]

there are other things to consider, not spoken of in this thread yet.
the future of TV is IPTV.. both bell and rogers have gone that route already, in a different way, but the end result will be the same.. youtube has many streaming channels now as do other types of internet media, this can only get bigger..
everyday we are slowly moving away from the traditional Tv content, like networks, and specialty cable channels, and moving to a more VOD type system.. look at the netflix success and the wannabe netflix usurpers like rogers shomi and bell crave... soon there will be a IPTV streaming channel for every television program there is.. old and new. (there already is tons when you search online.. ie 24/7 "friends" channel, "mash" "simpsons" and hundreds of others..)

besides event programming like the Academy awards which happen every once in a while and news programming (which doesn't need to be live feeds), there is only 1 thing on TV that needs to be Live in order to get the best viewing experience and that is sports..
streaming media like i mentioned above will not replace the need for live sport programming.. yes there are live sporting streams available if you look around,, but none of them are stable unless you go premium $$ (which is what Vmedia is) this is due to the constant maintenance needed for live events.. so this will not ever be free in the foreseeable future.

this is probably where Vmedia is thinking ahead and making sporting programming, part of their base program content..
a huge population have subscribed to Vmedia TV for the sports, and that number is only going to grow as the above mentioned transitions happen..

lets face it... with a pair of digital receiving capable "bunny ears" for Over the Air programming and some info on where and how-to stream these new 24 hour VOD programs.. there is pretty much no traditional TV programs that you can not watch on TV... except live sports..

just my two cents

[koreybray]

George,

Sadly I think if someone wants a channel, they should have to pay and not have everyone else pay for channels they don't watch to subsudise. Having a legally required only basic, and a premium basic is fine. Then allow people pay for what they want. This may mean sports etc viewers may have to pay more, but will allow fairness for all. Our home never watches Tsn, E!, Game, Vision etc, but we are forced to take it. I rather see basic being just legally required channels and allow people to make their own package via al-la-caRte and or theme packs or simply invent your own pack. More channels, deeper the discount.

I respect what you are saying George, but iptv should be more choice and less cable company

[giggabotch]

Every time I see people complaining about the way the bundle packages are arranged, I wonder if it's that you don't believe George's explanation or if it's like the sound of the adults in the Charlie Brown TV specials, all you hear is Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah!
There's a false assumption that BDU's have control over how packages are bundled, that's not entirely true, especially with VMedia

Here is a link from dslreports discussing hearings performed by the CRTC last September asking Canadians what they wanted changed about their TV services, including the bundling issue.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28762317-CRTC-Lets-talk