Pay for what we want - Otherwise cancelling TV Service

[katburglars]

the only observation i have made, on sports

why then, is NFLnet NOT made avail in one of the Uchoose, options? surely the cost is NOT prime since its made avail on the Premium package...

that is only one that comes to mind? but what bugged me the most about the incumbents is/was the way in which they price out those premiums either alacarte or in Vm's case, "uchoose", ..if one looks at the way its all laid out its almost like, trickery - seriously?

the uchoose 12...NO one really cares that much for the POOR selection...im NOT suggesting THAT was why i signed up with Vmedia ( i had no choice living where i relocated i could NOT point my birds to the southern skies BUT...i ONLY looked at their entry pricing and decided to try IPTV (no way i was going to give in to robbers)..but i gotta admit i came this close ( i likes my TV)... so thankful something went wrong during the process which caused me to make an about turn ( i digress)

so, realized "after" i joined up with Vm they were NO different than incumbents on the trickery (the way they are offered/priced out the premiums) they KNOW full well how to lay it all out to cause enough confusion to the avg consummer...THAT to me is a deal breaker..I WILL NOT give in to those tactics..so i rely on other means to watch stuff not to mention i had recorded like over 3,000 hrs of content b4 relocating so i could go 2 yrs on that alone...but yes, like a mod said, few posts ago, VOD or even UHD (Ultra HD Video) is something might be more the future..

so, IF IPTV was supposed to come to market targeting the lower budget consumer? then it looks like THAT might have failed..let alone not much HD channels, from what i saw

now, as for sports, i tend to disagree with previous post...one does NOT have to look too far for LIVE free streaming these days..all my NFL had NO issues, i like PGA, Hockey and MLB and Nascar, Open wheel racing..most of which i could find, free streaming, yes granted there are some (shared streams) who charge, BUT they are NOT cheap UNLESS one really must have it in HD only...
sometimes i prefer to listen/stream to sports on internet radio, xm, nhl .com game center and such

off topic a little
but interesting tidbit for some of you

. as it relates the HIGH cost of TV content in Canada, i recall, another company, FreeHD aka BluskyHDTV were awarded their license late 09 early 2010 by the CRTC and have YET to launch (failed like 2-3 dates over time) ...well, anyways, THEY started by promising (in their application to the board) that they would offer the consumer (in responses to the digital switch) all locals in HD (720 p/1080i) for FREE providing you bought their set top box and small dish and they would offer premiums at much more reasonable pricing than that of the incumbents

...here's the fun part...couple yrs later (after they did the name change) in well worded paragraph (to mislead the consumer) they were pulling back from THAT promise and started circulating a asinine survey on their home site - meaning the FREE locals were'nt in the offering any longer - this was AFTER they were awarded their 5 yr license BUT they may well have had their hands tied by bdu's g perhaps or realized the cost would NOT be worth the start up??, who knows, games

long story short, IF they DO eventually launch (many are skeptical) i know the incumbents did NOT want them around (strongly objected to the application) it will be interesting to see what their pricing structure will be...the incumbents will NOT only have independent IPTV to contend with cuz IF everything by Blusky will be in HD and at a reasonable price point?? look out..anyways, Canadian consumers are/have been fed up with the pricing of TV content for years, be it cable or Sat companies..most of it is junk these days, anyways, what with programs being rerun on different channels its all so funny all these channels charging for the content they provide to Canadians and then the US feeds, most of whats on there (worth watching) is avail on Canadian major stations..its all games...i wonder if the U.S provides Canadian channels to their consumers? could be wrong but doubt it...is it any wonder there has been a lot of pirates in Canada of US? shhh lol

so there you have "the rest of the story" im NOT paying as much attention a s closely as i was with where i reside now but it does appear they are making gains towards another launch date with license extended to 2017

[giggabotch]

Bell and Rogers hold most of the local and national rights to professional sports broadcasting in the country. Heck the deal Rogers made with the NHL probability tore up Bluskys business plan to shreds not that I think that they had one to begin with. The idea of starting up a bdu with free sports programing? That set top box is going to cost a hell of a lot. And I don't think Rogers and Bell would want to float with that boat.

[katburglars]

Bell and Rogers hold most of the local and national rights to professional sports broadcasting in the country. Heck the deal Rogers made with the NHL probability tore up Bluskys business plan to shreds not that I think that they had one to begin with. The idea of starting up a bdu with free sports programing? That set top box is going to cost a hell of a lot. And I don't think Rogers and Bell would want to float with that boat.

you misinterpreted ...it was LOCALS free...the rest (premiums) were/are (and now locals) going to be offered at (supposedly) better pricing than incumbents and all in HD - so they said..time will tell...and sports alone would NOT have made a dent whatsoever in their plan...this was all haggled out with the board..who knows, but i suspect they didnt have a satellite with footprints sorted out (something to that effect)..i think that is the hold up. plus the issues with the Ultra HD Video..you can read here

http://bluskyhdtv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CARTT.ca-Commentary.pdf

[giggabotch]

you misinterpreted ...it was LOCALS free...the rest (premiums) were/are (and now locals) going to be offered at (supposedly) better pricing than incumbents and all in HD - so they said..time will tell...and sports alone would NOT have made a dent whatsoever in their plan...this was all haggled out with the board..who knows, but i suspect they didnt have a satellite with footprints sorted out (something to that effect)..i think that is the hold up. plus the issues with the Ultra HD Video..you can read here

http://bluskyhdtv.ca/wp-content/uplo...Commentary.pdf

Yes, sorry I did misunderstand. So technically it's looks like what Aero tried to launch in the States, except with the regulatory blessing of the CRTC. I don't think the service would be truly free though. Sure you wouldn't have to pay the the TV service, but because Blusky is a BDU delivery would be on their own network or a partner. On going maintenance costs for TV, I can't believe would be totally covered by the cost of the set top box, ergo the Internet pricing would likely reflect the real cost of the total service.

[katburglars]

Yes, sorry I did misunderstand. So technically it's looks like what Aero tried to launch in the States, except with the regulatory blessing of the CRTC. I don't think the service would be truly free though. Sure you wouldn't have to pay the the TV service, but because Blusky is a BDU delivery would be on their own network or a partner. On going maintenance costs for TV, I can't believe would be totally covered by the cost of the set top box, ergo the Internet pricing would likely reflect the real cost of the total service.

Yes aero and other, name escapes me...by the by , Not internet based ...its a Satellite like all others. No channels will be free. The only channels they promised (at the outset) free, was for locals only...no longer on the table. As i pointed out

[sradonic]

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.

My costs did go up for these channels.. I pay for the news pack as an option because God forbid you have to watch CNN, fox, etc because of me.. but now those who screamed sports I am sacked with extra channels i never watch for extra monthly fees. - my point was it should of been a pack / theme add on.. like it is for rogers - they have packages with family and sports etc.. True choice is choice not sack me with fees for 11 channels of sports.

[Hacksaw2085]

My costs did go up for these channels.. I pay for the news pack as an option because God forbid you have to watch CNN, fox, etc because of me.. but now those who screamed sports I am sacked with extra channels i never watch for extra monthly fees. - my point was it should of been a pack / theme add on.. like it is for rogers - they have packages with family and sports etc.. True choice is choice not sack me with fees for 11 channels of sports.

I'd be fine with that but I'd assume they are part of premium because of the market penetration rate in the licensing contract. Not much VMedia can do about it. Just like TLC is part of premium basic. Ideally everything above basic should be a package or uchoose but unfortunately the CRTC doesn't have the guts to go against the big 3 and break apart these licensing deals, which would be in the best interest of Canadians.

[sradonic]

I'd be fine with that but I'd assume they are part of premium because of the market penetration rate in the licensing contract. Not much VMedia can do about it. Just like TLC is part of premium basic. Ideally everything above basic should be a package or uchoose but unfortunately the CRTC doesn't have the guts to go against the big 3 and break apart these licensing deals, which would be in the best interest of Canadians.

has nothing to do with the big guys, they have pre made packages to suit everyone's preferences..
I signed up with premium, but pay for family, news - that was my "CHOICE" but not what others screamed about.. now we all pay... maybe I should of been more vocal about family and news, to have it combined.. it should not be about who screams the loudest.. and then we are force fed and charged. LOL
moot point in discussing it.. the jocks win again and the nerds lose

[Hacksaw2085]

It has everything to do with the big 3. They own the content and channels. They are forcing others with gaurenteed market penetration rates which forces them to include those channels in their premium package if they want to carry those channels.

Side note, some nerds like sports too

[koreybray]

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/r287...CRTC-Lets-talk

I agree George is limited on options, due to how things are... BUT where he and all BDU's loose me is the "THEN PRICES WILL HAVE TO GO UP ON THESE CHANNELS" which my view is ...
"AND"? Why should I have to subsidise a better rate for BOB next door? I rather see BOB pay what it really costs to provide BOB with the channels BOB wants. If that means he has to pay $24 dollars to have every TSN channel and Sportsnet Channel, then that's BOB's issue, as it's my issue for the channels I want.

The way it is now, means we have endless price increases, and loads of channels that never get watched.

A bare LEGALLY required basic should be an option, then make a PREMIUM basic with all the channels that demand to be bundled, price accordingly, giving people choice. I just feel 5 TSN channels in a BASIC package for example that YOU must have but is not legally required, is a bit much, and likely adds to the reason the cable price jumped from 24.95 to 29.95.

[vwannabe]

Does anyone see this becoming a mute point in the near future anyhow. Nexflix and its success is showing what people want, thus the whole crave and shomi start-up. With Kodi, hulu and more and more on-demand internet content, does anyone see bundles being a big issue in the future and not a remember when?
There is a reason why Bell is filling the sewers with fiber (pun not intended) . Mesh networks in large metropolitan cities are coming and the one who transmits/enables the data makes the money, not the one providing the content. Vmedia is example of just that.
There is a reason why B*l stopped well short and let Rob*rs pay mega dollars for what was released as a win for the NHL program rights. TSN still gets to broadcast the games.
Bill Gates laughed at the Blu-ray media wars suggesting they were fighting over a media that had no shelf life (sorry I do not have the quote) but obviously he saw the future was not a physical media and neither is bundled cable packages. Heck, even Kodi quotes "the future of television" and I think they are closer to the truth than present IPTV bundles.

[Hacksaw2085]

Does anyone see this becoming a mute point in the near future anyhow. Nexflix and its success is showing what people want, thus the whole crave and shomi start-up. With Kodi, hulu and more and more on-demand internet content, does anyone see bundles being a big issue in the future and not a remember when?
There is a reason why Bell is filling the sewers with fiber (pun not intended) . Mesh networks in large metropolitan cities are coming and the one who transmits/enables the data makes the money, not the one providing the content. Vmedia is example of just that.
There is a reason why B*l stopped well short and let Rob*rs pay mega dollars for what was released as a win for the NHL program rights. TSN still gets to broadcast the games.
Bill Gates laughed at the Blu-ray media wars suggesting they were fighting over a media that had no shelf life (sorry I do not have the quote) but obviously he saw the future was not a physical media and neither is bundled cable packages. Heck, even Kodi quotes "the future of television" and I think they are closer to the truth than present IPTV bundles.

If Kodi provided a more legal way of watching TV content I'd agree with it. But streaming is definitely the future like Netflix and Hulu. Only live feeds will be sports and news networks. Everything else will be on demand.

[giggabotch]

Does anyone see this becoming a mute point in the near future anyhow. Nexflix and its success is showing what people want, thus the whole crave and shomi start-up. With Kodi, hulu and more and more on-demand internet content, does anyone see bundles being a big issue in the future and not a remember when?
There is a reason why Bell is filling the sewers with fiber (pun not intended) . Mesh networks in large metropolitan cities are coming and the one who transmits/enables the data makes the money, not the one providing the content. Vmedia is example of just that.
There is a reason why B*l stopped well short and let Rob*rs pay mega dollars for what was released as a win for the NHL program rights. TSN still gets to broadcast the games.
Bill Gates laughed at the Blu-ray media wars suggesting they were fighting over a media that had no shelf life (sorry I do not have the quote) but obviously he saw the future was not a physical media and neither is bundled cable packages. Heck, even Kodi quotes "the future of television" and I think they are closer to the truth than present IPTV bundles.

Live sports broadcasting is the golden goose. Without it I don't think there is a realistic economic argument for BDU's. Sure there are those who need their TLC and Discovery channels linked up with their PVR's. But now I can get a lot of the content I wish to watch outside the environs of a BDU. Sports is what keeps me here. So no surprise the high price for all the rights in Canada for the NHL because live TV is the last frontier. And yes TSN may have games, but they've negotiated the rights from Ro++rs. They could be paying them per game or Ro++rs may own a percentage of the commercial inventory, or both.

[giggabotch]

I agree George is limited on options, due to how things are... BUT where he and all BDU's loose me is the "THEN PRICES WILL HAVE TO GO UP ON THESE CHANNELS" which my view is ...
"AND"? Why should I have to subsidise a better rate for BOB next door? I rather see BOB pay what it really costs to provide BOB with the channels BOB wants. If that means he has to pay $24 dollars to have every TSN channel and Sportsnet Channel, then that's BOB's issue, as it's my issue for the channels I want.

The way it is now, means we have endless price increases, and loads of channels that never get watched.

A bare LEGALLY required basic should be an option, then make a PREMIUM basic with all the channels that demand to be bundled, price accordingly, giving people choice. I just feel 5 TSN channels in a BASIC package for example that YOU must have but is not legally required, is a bit much, and likely adds to the reason the cable price jumped from 24.95 to 29.95.

To take your analogy further, if I own Sportsnet and I'm negotiating with VMedia, we've figured out the money, now I demand 80% of your subscribers at the rate negotiated, and you must take all but 360. Or the Food Network needs 10% of you base. Were do you put the channels? and as far as 'skinny basic' or a-la-carte is concerned, The CRTC hasn't ruled on that yet.

[Hacksaw2085]

TSN has regional rights that they acquired from the team in that broadcast area. No money goes to Rogers for that. Also Rogers and Bell share the leafs regional games since they both own the team.