Pay for what we want - Otherwise cancelling TV Service

[giggabotch]

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.

Yes you're right. the Sens and the Jets as well. However I swear I've been able to watch other games on TSN, other than the Leafs.

[wearysky]

It really seems like people aren't quite understanding what George is saying with regards to penetration rates. Let me clear things up a little bit:

- The content providers hold all the cards
- If VMedia wants to carry certain channels, they have to guarantee that X% of their customers will get those channels, otherwise they have to pay exorbitant fees for those channels, which will price them out of the market
- If they get priced out of the market, *nobody* will be able to use VMedia, because they won't have a viable business model.

So, unfortunately, yes, you get stuck paying for a bunch of sports channels that you don't want, or subsidizing others who want those channels. If you have a problem with this, you should be complaining to the CRTC (who allow the content providers to get away with this pricing model), not to VMedia. If everybody who was complaining on these forums was as vocal in complaining about the unfair policies of the CRTC, we might actually get some good prices on TV and internet in Canada. Until the CRTC changes things, though, we're stuck with things as they are.

[sradonic]

It really seems like people aren't quite understanding what George is saying with regards to penetration rates. Let me clear things up a little bit:

- The content providers hold all the cards
- If VMedia wants to carry certain channels, they have to guarantee that X% of their customers will get those channels, otherwise they have to pay exorbitant fees for those channels, which will price them out of the market
- If they get priced out of the market, *nobody* will be able to use VMedia, because they won't have a viable business model.

So, unfortunately, yes, you get stuck paying for a bunch of sports channels that you don't want, or subsidizing others who want those channels. If you have a problem with this, you should be complaining to the CRTC (who allow the content providers to get away with this pricing model), not to VMedia. If everybody who was complaining on these forums was as vocal in complaining about the unfair policies of the CRTC, we might actually get some good prices on TV and internet in Canada. Until the CRTC changes things, though, we're stuck with things as they are.

slow down there.. your spilling the kool aid everywhere..
sorry but it was all about choice not force feeding.. if people want the channel pay for it..
I want food TV and Kids pack part of the premium.. so is everyone willing to pay for it, just for me? don't think so..

[Hacksaw2085]

slow down there.. your spilling the kool aid everywhere..
sorry but it was all about choice not force feeding.. if people want the channel pay for it..
I want food TV and Kids pack part of the premium.. so is everyone willing to pay for it, just for me? don't think so..

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with what wearysky was saying. I'm sure if food TV had market penetration rates associated with it's distribution like the sports channels do it would be part of premium basic.

[wearysky]

slow down there.. your spilling the kool aid everywhere..
sorry but it was all about choice not force feeding.. if people want the channel pay for it..
I want food TV and Kids pack part of the premium.. so is everyone willing to pay for it, just for me? don't think so..

You've clearly not understood my point - as Hacksaw mentioned above me. To make it equivalent, let's put it this way - would you be willing to pay $50 a month just for the Food network? I'm guessing you wouldn't. But that's the gun that is pointed at VMedia's head in order to carry the sports channels... If they don't include them in premium basic, they would have to charge RIDICULOUS amounts (my $50 number above is just a random high number picked for effect, but you get the idea) for them. So, in order to stay a reasonably priced service and appeal to as many customers as possible, they include it in premium basic. You may not care about sports, but a lot of people do. Many people *only* have TV service for live sports, since just about everything else can be gotten in other ways (either online, or OTA).

[BitFlipper]

I think I feel a letter comming on aimed at the CRTC. Never written them before. I don't think I should be subsidizing any channel I don't watch nor should anyone else but am forced to subscribe to it any way due to "bundles" or "packages" or what ever way you want to define it. I have no interest in sports for instance. If a channel can't pull its weight on its own for a reasonable price that its wieners are willing to pay than it should have no place in the market.

[pedro]

Layered on top of all this is the recent CRTC ruling for satellite and cable providers to provide a "skinny basic" offering for no more than $25/month within the next year, along with pick-and-pay channel offerings. There is a lot of change coming and it will be some time before the dust clears.