CRTC Enforced $25/mo Cable TV Is Now Available To Canadians, But With Caveats

Deathspawner writes: Last March, Canada's regulatory agency for all things broadcasting, CRTC, ruled that cable TV providers would soon be forced to offer $25/mo packages. With enforcement having kicked-off on March 1, these inexpensive packages have now been made available. As Techgage has discovered, though, the first packages out-of-the-gate pack a number of caveats, and in some cases, are outright misleading. And, despite a simple framework to worth with, the two largest providers in the country, Rogers and Bell, offer vastly different packages, and ultimately vastly different values to the consumer.

Comments

wrong solution

[slashping]

The government shouldn't enforce prices. It should ensure there's enough competition, and that the competition is fair. When that is done, prices should automatically fall.

Re:wrong solution

[Mashiki]

Canada operates as semi-protectionist. Meaning you're never going to see enough competition here, especially for the landmass and number of people(more people live in California then Canada last I looked). That means the government is left with the option of imposing things when stuff gets out of whack, which it is in Canada right now. Most people I know who had cable up until a few years ago was paying $90/mo for 55 channels. Many dropped cable for netflix and so on. Hell even my parents are considering it, because the only stuff that they see is: Reality TV, reality TV, reality TV, reality TV and more reality TV. Most of what is watched in their house is AMC. What most of my friends watch was sports(which they can pay for online).

Re:wrong solution

[gmack]

Both you and TFA are both missing the point of what's going on here. It just doesn't matter if the basic package sucks because the cable providers must now offer "a la carte" pricing for the rest of the channels instead of forcing you into bundles. The upshot of this is that basic cable is now $25 and if you only watch 5 or 6 stations, you buy them one at a time without having to get a package that includes 20 channels you can't be bothered to watch.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

How the hell does a government ensure there's enough competition, if there aren't competitors to go around in the first place?

So why don't more competitors enter the market ? Find the barrier to entry, and then remove it.

Re:wrong solution

[Coisiche]

The government ... should ensure there's enough competition

Not sure how they can do that. It's going to happen anyway in some arenas but not in ones that require large infrastructure.

and that the competition is fair

All I can say is, it's funny how politicians in government seem to have investments in companies that get "fortunate" breaks.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

So then the government should rip out the last mile of cable to everyone's home and install it themselves? And it would be considered a fairer market if the government owned that?

Re:wrong solution

[RabidReindeer]

What if the barrier is that you need a couple of 10s of millions of dollars to buy and install infrastructure just to get started?

I'd do it, but I don't think I have that much change lost between the sofa cushions. In fact, probably 99% of the people you ask will say the same.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Then they just gouge for high speed internet access.

Re:wrong solution

[silentcoder]

So what's the barrier to entry here... oh that's right extremely high initial capital investment coupled with very low per-unit margins resulting in a very long time to make your initial investment back and start earning profits.

Hey wait a second... that's the textbook definition of a natural monopoly.

These kind of industries will never HAVE a "free" market, it's literally economically impossible - a natural monopoly is itself a textbook example of a market failure - a situation where a free and efficient market simply cannot ever exist. In those situations government intervention is not only warranted and justified but REQUIRED.

Re:wrong solution

[valnar]

When there are only a couple providers (like with cell phone companies), it's easy for them to all keep their prices high.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

What if the barrier is that you need a couple of 10s of millions of dollars to buy and install infrastructure just to get started?

Be creative. There's no need to buy the infrastructure, if you can lease it from the current providers.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

So then the government should rip out the last mile of cable to everyone's home and install it themselves?

No, and I never said that.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Yes you did, that's a big part of the barrier to entry.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

Hey wait a second... that's the textbook definition of a natural monopoly.

So, break it up. Decouple the maintenance of the infrastructure from the cable providers. Have one company (or part of a company) manage the infrastructure, and let other companies provide the content, lease the infrastructure and provide content/bandwidth to subscribers.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

It is indeed part of the barrier to entry, but having the state buy it is not the only solution.

Re:wrong solution

[fbobraga]

When that is done, prices should automatically fall.{/blockquote> not always...

Re:wrong solution

[dskoll]

You can't really have much competition in the cable and landline phone markets. That's because the entrenched players have been granted access to run their wires on poles and underground; it's not feasible to open up that market and it's way too expensive for new entrants.

Bell and Rogers are regulated (as they should be) because they are duopolies with control over critical infrastructure that needs to be managed for the national interest.

Re:wrong solution

[dskoll]

The barriers to entry are Canada's huge size and low population density. You can't just "remove" them.

Re:wrong solution

[dskoll]

Bell and Rogers are forced to lease some of their infrastructure to others, but that still puts newcomers at a disadvantage because Bell and Rogers, as owners of the infrastructure, can undercut them.

I'm sorry, even though I'm basically a free-market capitalist, it's obvious to me that in this case pure free-market capitalism is not going to work. Be pragmatic, not dogmatically ideological.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

So the $25/month price is below fair market value and the government is forcing companies to subsidize their customers ?

Re: wrong solution

[silentcoder]

That would be government intervention. And it would include siezing property. We can debate whether its a better solution or not but its definitely still intervention and arguably a greater intrusion on liberty.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Exactly.. as long as someone owns the infrastructure, either A) that someone will have the advantage, or B) that someone will bitch and whine about that advantage being taken away, That's how capitalism sets things up to work.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Except you can't just take something away from a company that owns it. Capitalists tend to bitch and moan about that until they get their way.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

Just take away their advantage, and ignore the bitching and whining. That's how I dealt with my kids when they were growing up.

Re:wrong solution

[fbobraga]

something like it happened here, in Brazil: NET, a private company (owned by the largest TV Broadcaster here), made large investments in cable distributing lines (and nearly bankrupted) - this kind of thing can only be done by near-monopolies (because near-all the return of the investment will be captured from this only company...), which was the case here (and, as a private thing, the cable distribution don't cover small and non profitable markets [which is also the main goal in public investments]) The "invisible hand" don't helps, always :/

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Well you can remove them, but then the service shrinks to just the largest cities. Something the Canadian government has fought very hard against, and rightfully so.

Re: wrong solution

[slashping]

That would be government intervention

Obviously yes. You can't have a fair market without intervention. However, the intervention should be limited to playing the part of "referee", making sure the playing field is level, and everybody sticks to the same fair rules.

And it would include siezing property

Splitting it up doesn't mean it's seized. It just means that you tell companies what they can and cannot do with their property.

and arguably a greater intrusion on liberty

I don't consider the liberty to exploit monopolies very worthy of protecting.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

But then Canadians have people calling them communist.

Re:wrong solution

[slashping]

Except you can't just take something away from a company that owns it.

Not "just", but if companies are violating anti trust laws, you can enforce regulation. It's been done before.

Re:wrong solution

[Mashiki]

The size of the country and the population density shouldn't stop the market from determining a fair price, though.

If Rogers, Bell, Telus or Shaw weren't under the eye of the CRTC like they are now. And after they tried to piss around with GAS(aggregated service for internet), it would cost $150/mo for 60GB and they'd still be charging you $20 to rent a modem to boot. The CRTC kicked them in the balls when they tried that BS before.

The problem in Canada, is while indeed 70% of our population lives within 100km of the US border there's still a whole pile of empty space. Lots of talk over the last 15 years though of building and nationalizing a internet backbone here in Canada though.

Re:wrong solution

[CastrTroy]

Let's not forget that they can take their sweet time fixing problems when it's not one of their customers. Last I heard, the only way for the resellers to communicate with Rogers to fix an issue was to send them an email. There was no tracking system set up, and problems would often take over a week to resolve if it had something to do with the lines. If they really want to shake things up and make things fair, they should force service requirements and deadlines for resolving problems.

Re:wrong solution

[Mashiki]

The thing you're missing is that to get those "a la carte" channels, a lot of those companies are pulling a "and you need to have xyz" service from us too! Internet is the popular one. So, that $25 is now $90 and those 3 or 5 channels you want? Well you might not be able to get them separately, so you might have to buy them in bundle packs. Which could cost you $9-25 per bundle, you're looking at $150+ now...

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Sure, and that might work.. but let's not pretend that it is free market. It is just another brand of government intervention.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

Right, but the proposal of this thread is to let a free market handle it, and that is not a free market solution. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the government is afraid of pissing everyone off and have companies leave the market.

Re:wrong solution

[fbobraga]

I didn't understood the "government intervention" in this case: can you explain it to me?

Re:wrong solution

[fche]

"Find the barrier to entry, and then remove it."

What if the barrier to entry is the very agent that wields the legal power?

Re:wrong solution

[oh_my_080980980]

You really don't understand how business operates today do you. You don't understand how government interacts with business. I have a suggestion: DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH before you post asinine comments. Then you may actually have fruitful discussions.

Re:wrong solution

[Luthair]

Markets don't actually work like this in capital intensive industries with individual consumers. Individuals don't have the power to negotiate and corporations decline to compete. This is why the US and Canada have very expensive TV, internet (also slow) and phone.

Re: wrong solution

[oh_my_080980980]

Tell that to AT&T where in Tennessee where the local community passed a measure to allow a competitor like Google Fiber come into the area and run their wires using the same poles and allow them to move AT&T's equipment. AT&T's claimed they couldn't do that because they would be touching their property. AT&T said the community does not have the authority for that type of legislation and said the state laws of Tennessee forbids that.

Again, DO SOME RESEARCH. Understand how the industry works before commenting.

Re:wrong solution

[gmack]

Come December, they will be forced to offer each channel as it's own option instead of in bundles. This is only stage 1 of that plan.

Mind you, I can't be bothered.,. It's been a good 13 years since I've paid for any service that offers me TV in "channel" form..

Re:wrong solution

[oh_my_080980980]

But their are no anti-trust violations as the government allows this. The courts have re-interpreted anti-trust laws http://www.thenation.com/artic... You are woefully uninformed.

Re:wrong solution

[Luthair]

The vast majority of the empty space doesn't have access to internet or cellular however. As a Canadian I've never heard it suggested we would build or nationalize internet, I'm not sure where you're hearing that. The city of Ottawa used to own a fiber network supplying hospitals and government buildings with internet access, unfortunately that was sold to Rogers.

The real solution here is to breakup Telus, Bell & Rogers - disallow companies from owning infrastructure and dealing directly with consumers. This would provide competing infrastructure as well as make it less expensive for new consumer players to enter the market.

Re:wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market stops working when you can fit all the competitors in a single room. There's three major cable companies in Canada. It is not that hard to collude.

Re:wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the issue has nothing to do with the number of people living in Canada, as most people in Canada live in a very small strip of land near the US border.

The issue has to do with the fact that many cities in Canada sold their souls to the cable company and nobody else is allowed to compete. The correct method would have been for the city to install the cables and then lease access to anyone who is interested in using them, with preferably multiple interconnects offered in each distribution panel.

Throw in also that the CRTC makes it illegal to have any satellite service competition (It is a crime in Canada to view any unauthorized signals, this even includes Canadian signals if they have not received CRTC authorization!) and you have a perfect storm for what is happening now.

The cable issue is presently unfixable. If the CRTC would delete the rules regarding satellite competition, DirecTV/Dishnetwork would destroy Bell/Shaw in seconds.

Yes, it's bad enough DirecTV is a saviour compared to Bell. It's like wishing Mussolini would move run your country because the current leader is just *that* bad.

If you keep trusting the CRTC to force the competition on Bell and Rogers, I have a bridge to sell you... One that, like the CRTC, is indirectly operated by Bell and Rogers.

Re:wrong solution

[fluffernutter]

When a company is profiting mainly from being in the market first and being able to build their own infrastructure, and then the government comes along and tells them that they have to split up, that is called government intervention. They are not likely to want to, because upon being forced to split up, a case will inevitably be made that the government is costing them money because the two parts that remain are not as valuable as the whole.

Re:wrong solution

[alvinrod]

The real problem with the US is that local governments grant monopoly rights for those services to single companies. There is no one to negotiate with because you either get your cable from Company X or you put up with DSL assuming there's a provider in your area. The towns that have kicked out the cable companies are the ones that are seeing better service for lower prices. If you want to have an open market, the city itself needs to own the infrastructure and allow anyone to provide service on top of it.

Re:wrong solution

[Grishnakh]

This sounds good in (soft-libertarian) theory, but it doesn't work in practice in many cases. For many cases, yes, it's absolutely the right approach; it's effective in a market where there's competition to be had, and is less overbearing than price regulation.

However, this is about cable TV, which is a natural monopoly as it's a utility service. The barrier to entry is ridiculously high (you have to string cable to every residential home, and worse you have to deal with right-of-way issues, plus sabotage by your competitor). It just isn't something where you can decree that competition must exist. I suppose you could try to make it easier for other cable operators to compete in the same place, but with all the issues of dealing with local governments, easements, pole access, etc., it gets messy really fast. A national law banning any kind of contracts between municipalities and cablecos granting them explicit monopolies would probably be a good start though, but that's still a "build it and they will come" situation which usually doesn't work.

However, I will say I think this case is basically a waste of time, because cable TV is not only a completely unnecessary luxury service, but it's also woefully obsolete. The government absolutely should be taking strong steps to ensure competition and low prices for high-speed internet service, but for TV? Nope. We already have OTA broadcasts and that's good enough. Regulating the pricing of cable TV seems to me like regulating the pricing of lattes or tickets for sporting events.

Re:wrong solution

[Grishnakh]

That means the government is left with the option of imposing things when stuff gets out of whack, which it is in Canada right now. Most people I know who had cable up until a few years ago was paying $90/mo for 55 channels. Many dropped cable for netflix and so on.

I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem here is. Why does the pricing need to be regulated? Obviously, some smarter (ex-)customers have figured out the obvious solution to overpriced cable TV, as you noted here yourself. This doesn't need any government interference.

What *does* need government interference is high-speed internet access. That's a basic utility, just as important as telephony and electricity in modern society. Cable TV is not; it's a luxury. If you don't want to spend $90/month for it, then don't. I have no desire to spend thousands of dollars for a box seat at a sports arena, so I don't: I go find something better to do with my time.

Re: wrong solution

[dave420]

The property can be bought - it doesn't have to be seized. If it was paid for by the country in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue.

Re:wrong solution

[RabidReindeer]

And who is going to provide the competition for the current providers? That's a recursive answer at best.

Re:wrong solution

[CanadianMacFan]

We are part of the way there in that they are forced to open up their infrastructure for the last mile (kilometer?) to competitors. I haven't been with Bell or Rogers for Internet access in over 15 years.

Cell phone service is a different matter. Seems like anytime a competitor comes along it stays around for a few years and then gets bought up by one of the big three. It then gets kept around to show that there's some competition even if there isn't. The problem is that there is only two national cell networks in the country (Bell and Telus share one) and the cost to build a competing one is so large. It's hard to see were a third one would come from. I had looked into Wind before they were bought out and their network in Ottawa was so poor I was going to pay roaming charges at my house because it's near the greenbelt.

Re: wrong solution

[silentcoder]

And if Donald Trump was an intelligent, thoughtful, decent person the GOP primaries wouldn't be a complete joke.

Re:wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Bell and Telus don't actually share one network (it's a common myth.) They share some of the same equipment/antenna locations, but ever since they switched from 2G CDMA to 2G GSM based networks like Rogers did a decade earlier (from TDMA to GSM) all the carriers in Canada now operate using the same technology, and unlike the US, aren't stuck with legacy equipment.

Wind was bought by Shaw, and Mobilicity was bought by Telus. Oh look now all 4 primary cable/television/phone companies own all the new entrants. Well so much for prices ever going down. Prepare to see a huge spike in basic service costs (which are already 80$/mo)

Re:wrong solution

[silas_moeckel]

It get even better when you have a sane modern infrastructure like a single strand a fiber to each home from the CO. Layer a muni based L3 network on top on one pair of wavelengths you still easily have room for 7 more per home and smaller players can choose to use the muni's L3 network till it makes sense to build out their own for the town. The muni gains a network for emergency services, school librarys etc, businesses in town can layer on top for their own infrastructure needs at l2 or at l3. If the cost of an interconnect and space is well known and uniform you have a fair playing field.

Re:wrong solution

[Rockoon]

extremely high initial capital investment coupled with very low per-unit margins

Meanwhile in the real world, companies like Google wouldnt be erecting fiber to the home isp businesses if the margins were very low. Google literally couldn't come up with anything better to invest the money in.

The communities in which Google is throwing down fiber didnt have any rules in place to stop Google from doing so. Full stop.

Re:wrong solution

[silentcoder]

Google, however, did not start that as their first business - they were already very rich, and have always had a habit of being willing to take huge investment risks with long-term returns.

That is an extraordinarily rare business model - and you don't get to cite a rare exception like that as a model because we can't base policies on one in a million events, we need to base them on what the other million do.

Re:wrong solution

[Mashiki]

It's technically termed "the last mile" even in CRTC documents. Those TPIA's(Third Party Internet Access) are also trying to get the CRTC to allow it to happen with fiber as well. But Bell, Rogers, Telus are all trying to say "nononononono we want it to be ours and ours alone." Right at the time time that they tried pushing in TPIA rates that would price the competition right out of business. If I remember right, Teksavvy for example pays around $22/mo to bell and rogers, not sure on cogeco or telus. But it's probably around there.

I've got Wind and was quite happy with it, especially the "local calls in your zone" stuff. Since I live and work in southern ontario, it worked out well for me. But I sure can't say for sure on how this is going to shake out now that they've been bought out.

Re:wrong solution

[tbannist]

I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem here is. Why does the pricing need to be regulated?

Because Canadians told them to and , according to one poll last year, 64% of Canadians explicitly support the pick'n'pay policy and 25% are undecided, and that only leaves 11% against it.

Re:wrong solution

[tbannist]

The thing you're missing is that to get those "a la carte" channels, a lot of those companies are pulling a "and you need to have xyz" service from us too! Internet is the popular one. So, that $25 is now $90 and those 3 or 5 channels you want? Well you might not be able to get them separately, so you might have to buy them in bundle packs. Which could cost you $9-25 per bundle, you're looking at $150+ now...

So... you're saying prices are going to go down? Because seriously, $150 sounds like less than what you have paid to get some individual channels last year, and you wouldn't have been getting internet service included in that price...

Re:wrong solution

[CanadianMacFan]

Gee I wonder how I got this wrong?

http://www.itworldcanada.com/a...

https://www.thestar.com/busine...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (and the section below about LTE)

Re:wrong solution

[CanadianMacFan]

Yes, I know the term is last mile but I put kilometre in as a joke since I'm in Canada and it should be metric.

I've been with TekSavvy for a couple of years now and they have been pretty good. The CRTC says that the independent ISPs pay a rate that allows Bell or Rogers to recover their costs plus make a specified percentage of profit (at least that's how it was). I do wish that the physical network was split from the service side of the companies. It would make an independent company to provide what's required for ISPs. But the incumbents have too much political capital for that to happen so I'm thankful that I'm at least able to have a choice at all. The problem is that too many people aren't aware that such a choice exists. If the other ISPs could actually start making a dent into the subscriber numbers then we might see some pricing changes.

Re:wrong solution

[Viewsonic]

Unfortunately, even in the USA, there is not enough competition. The companies collude with each other for the most part, and bring stuff like this on themselves. It's what happens in a Capitalist economy, sadly.

Re:wrong solution

[dskoll]

I dunno. I don't subscribe to cable, so for me a fair market value is $0. (Actually negative; you'd have to pay me to watch that crap...)

Yes, in away the big Canadian telcos were subsidized. But it was the only way to get telecommunications infrastructure going in a country like Canada.

Re:wrong solution

[Grishnakh]

I'd prefer to see a free-market solution to this. That's what we're doing here in the US, to a good extent, and it's working: cable companies keep jacking up their prices for TV service, so smart people "cut the cord" in response while TV-addicted morons get stuck paying the higher prices. Eventually, this should result in the cablecos going out of business, or turning into internet-only utilities (which absolutely should be regulated as I said before).

Re:wrong solution

[Rockoon]

Google, however, did not start that as their first business - they were already very rich,

..and you also cant build a street-legal car without a lot of money, and good luck getting approval for that new medicine you invented while poor.

You are just waving your hands, declaring irrelevant facts as relevant when they are not. You clearly don't know the how and why of business. Google is building ISP's because it has nothing better to do with the money, which means lots of folks also have nothing better to do with large amounts of money. The inevitable competition for which there is currently a demand is prevented by the State. The Statists have created your cable monopoly and now the Statists are saying that only the State can solve the problem that they created.

Are you following along?

Re:wrong solution

[silentcoder]

If you believe the definition of a natural monopoly is somehow fatally flawed - don't waste your time arguing that on slashdot, write a paper - it's GUARANTEED to win the nobel prize if you can prove it, seriously. And that's a *lot* of money you're due.

Can't do it ?

Then I'll stick to the proven economic theories until there is actual proof they are wrong.

Re:wrong solution

[Shaman]

Tens of millions won't get you very far. Maybe a small city, say 20,000 people.

It was a good idea...

[Mashiki]

Good idea, bad rules allowed the providers to fuck everyone over. In some cases, the packages are priced so high that if you want only some of what you had before it would cost you more. It needs to be fixed. There are a few exceptions like zazeen. But Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, Shaw, Vmedia and so on all went the "you have to get xyz or you can't have it at all." The biggest one is the "you must have your internet service through us, or you can't have the skinny bundle."

Re:It was a good idea...

[Luthair]

For IPTV its pretty understandable that they would need you to use their own network

Re:It was a good idea...

[Mashiki]

Except in a lot of cases, that's not what's happening. The CRTC are apparently investigating this already, both Bell and Rogers offer TV services that are not IPTV based.

Cost should be $0

[EzInKy]

Public channels are funded by the public and commercial channels should be paying cable and satellite providers to deliver their commercials to viewers, not the other way around.

Re:Cost should be $0

[Luthair]

Unfortunately at least in Canada, the satellite/cable companies also own most of the channels. Then on top of that they also own the sports teams for complete vertical integration.

Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Allow anyone to run competing cable so long as they obey some simple rules... just like driving etc... and the cable companies won't be able to dick with people.

offer them state backed monopolies and they'll fuck you. Every fucking time.

there is no reason why if I'm reasonable about it, that I shouldn't be able to run a fiber optic cable from my home to the trunk... and I wanted to stop off at every house between myself and the trunk and link up that house to my line... I still don't see the problem if every one of those houses wants to be linked to my line.

I could literally offer everyone along the way, high speed internet for peanuts. And as to obtaining "TV" from that... pretty fucking easy to throw the 20 TV stations someone might care about into a fiber cable.

If a jackhole like me could do it... as in I could do without a learning curve... then a mom and pop ISP could do it too.

But no... as usual. give it to a monopoly and then wait for them to fuck you.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[fluffernutter]

Anyone can run competing cable, but who is going to run more cable when there isn't enough market to support it? They'll already be at a huge disadvantage as a new entrant to the market, and be caught fighting for table scraps. The current carries would just swat them like a fly.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

No you can't. Try it.

Try to run competing cable. Right now. See if you can run cable between point A and point B and connect houses and businesses along that line.

You'll suddenly run into "problems"... mostly that they won't let you run it or more importantly connect houses to the line. Not unless you agree to a franchise agreement which will require you to do other fun things like provide internet service to the ENTIRE city.

That's a bit like saying if I want to open ONE sandwich shop for ONE neighborhood... I have to open up hundreds so the whole city can get it. This puts any sort of franchise agreement out of the means of anything but a major corporation.

And even then there are other elements and they add up to a giant "go fuck yourself with a rake sideways".

So no. Anyone cannot run cable. Unless what you mean is that anyone can run cable if they can agree to and comply with a franchise agreement designed to lock them out of the market.

And even if they could... we've seen Google and a few other ISPs have serious trouble actually getting cities to issue franchise licenses EVEN if they are willing to comply.

Its a shitshow and anyone that knows anything about the issue already knows that.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[oh_my_080980980]

No they can't. Not without signing agreements with existing companies. Communities sign franchise agreements that give exclusive rights to that company. You are very ignorant of how this works. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2...

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[fluffernutter]

Ok so I stand corrected, but that makes the problem even worse than I thought, not better.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

What would you accept as evidence?...

I'm very skeptical of requests for information from ACs on Slashdot because it tends to be followed by ENDLESS goalpost moving if I should actually provide the evidence.

Most ACs when asked what they would accept get very vague or change the subject. This leads me to believe that they were intending to goalpost move and my request for specific qualified information made them uncomfortable.

I do not cite this to you to say that I "know" you were going to do that. Merely that I must protect myself from this possibility by requesting elements of the type of information you would accept so that if I go to the effort to find the information you will either be forced to accept it or contradict yourself.

This is not meant as an insult to you, merely as what I see as a reasonable precaution to either stop people from jerking me around in topics or to filter out asshats.

Here is one link that popped up after about 2 seconds of internet searches...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

I am almost positive you're not going to accept it which is fine... I don't really care. But if you want me to get some specific bit of magic bullet info... I want to know before hand that you'll concede the point if I do it.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Rockoon]

Anyone can run competing cable, but who is going to run more cable when there isn't enough market to support it?

Why are you worried about running cables to places the market can't support? Are you imagining some sort of fundamental "right" to cable television?

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

First, implying that you can't make a profit by working for or contracting for the government is... I don't know... Fuckwitted? Consider if you will the "military industrial complex"... or the obviously endless series of businesses and contracts where in the government pays someone to do something and that someone makes a profit doing that.

Now... that silliness out of the way. Did you have parameters you would lead to your concession on this point or am I correct that spending my valuable time to find something you could find if you spent any effort on the matter would be a waste of my time?

You asked for evidence. I counter challenged by asking what you would accept. If you do not meet that challenge your information challenge fails and I will ignore it.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[fluffernutter]

No, I'm talking about major metropolitan areas. Run cables for $100 million when you can only realistically attract $50 million from companies that are already established.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[damn_registrars]

if you run cable for a municipal broadband, you are not running the operation once the cable is in. otherwise it would not be a municipal operation. you can make money from the install, and maybe even contract money on the support, but it is not your resource and you don't have control over it. a municipality blocking the installation of a municipal broadband install is not in any reasonable way similar to a municipality blocking a company from running their own cable.

so keep trying. maybe you can provide better-than-anecdotal evidence for your claim that municipalities are intentionally preventing companies from installing broadband, but you haven't done it yet. hell i've seen municipalities in very blue states that have allowed 3, 4, or even 5 companies to all run their broadband installations through some or all of the community, and that's obviously not including various option some have with satellite internet.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

So what would you accept as evidence? Anecdotal evidence is acceptable? Really? Lock yourself down to what you'll accept. I am tired going through the effort only to have someone arbitrarily change the standards so that the last reference doesn't work. Cite the terms.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

So, as predicted, the fuckwit ACs won't offer an type of source they'd accept.

Your bad faith in the discussion was predicted and your behavior has validated my wisdom in this matter.

You morons are so predictable... Suck it.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[damn_registrars]

Anecdotal evidence is acceptable? Really?

no. i asked for better-than-anecdotal. so far all you have offered is anecdotal. i already stated why your example of municipal broadband does not in any way support your earlier argument of people being unfairly prevented from starting their own isps.

if you want terms, let's just start with the major news networks. no editorials from them, just news. i'll even let you call fox news a news network if it helps you out. no chat sites though, this has to be something that was actually reported as news. can you do it? hell i would have even been happy with the ars technica article if it had actually supported your argument; unfortunately for you it instead refuted it.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

So anything better than anecdotal evidence would be accepted?

Define what that means. Do you need a scientific study or would merely a lot of anecdotes be acceptable?

See, anecdotes are generally rejected because they're cherry picked and a few outliers can be misrepresented as the norm. However, a lot of them all at once are generally considered more valid because its harder to cherry pick with lots of examples.

I'm just trying to nail down what you're going to accept. Because my experience is that when people are wrong... like you are... that requests for evidence are very frequently a stalling tactic. I'm not wasting my time finding evidence for you if you're just going to come up with a bullshit reason to reject it. So... I want to know, that if I go to the effort to actually prove you wrong... that you're going to eat your sword on this issue.

if you won't... then there's really no point in me going to any trouble at all.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Quote yourself to show where you told me what type of source you'd accept and I'll admit you're right.

If you don't... I'm going to rack up one more point for me.

Hit me with your best shot, chump.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Actually I didn't.

He said he was okay with that link, but it was conveniently not relevant to the discussion so his validation of it doesn't really matter.

I then asked for specific parameters that could be applied to other sources and he didn't respond.

So... no. You just whiffed.

What is more, the nature of your comments to me is further validating my hypothesis that you were not seriously asking for questions but just being a trollish contrarian. Which is okay... I spotted you instantly and you thus far have wasted none of my time getting sources that you'll just ignore because what you really want to do is sit there like a jackass and say "nuh uh!"... which is fine. I'll respond with as much energy to say "uh huh"...

Suck it, troll. Suck it long and suck it hard.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

If you're not arguing with me, then you agree with me.

So why did you start arguing with me in the first place?

And as to citations, I asked you cite what you'd accept.

But whatever. I saw everything you wrote and I am not going to be derailed.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

I don't care if I have a market solution or not. What I want is right of way of cables. I want to run my own cable or for anyone else to run their own cable. This is something you couldn't have known. You assumed what I wanted and went with it. You never asked me.

As to reading comprehension... we've already addressed your lack of it... and its sort of funny that you don't realize how badly you've lost on that point.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Your rebuttal is a nonsequitor.

I asked for criteria for a source and you dodged. Then you dodged again. Then you dodged again.

THEN I insulted you because you keep dodging.

Then you started strawmanning to this free market vs municipal argument which is irrelevant because I didn't advocate for either.

You're a clown.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

I didn't. That was your strawman.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Actually that was a reply to your statements about government owned broadband standing in the way of me as an ISP making money. The assumption on your part that was erroneous was that government ownership or control means companies can't make money in the industry. Often as not, the government uses industry partners, consultants, and contractors to do a lot of the work to say nothing of provide the equipment etc. So while I would prefer to have private ISPs as an option for anyone to use, and I would prefer people be able to bypass the ISPs entirely by running their own cable, saying that "MY" argument is all about money or that municipal ISPs which you think I'm advocating has anything to do with anything... I can't help you.

You're so busy crafting strawmen that we're not even having the same discussion anymore.

I think I'm just going tell you to give me back my jacket and then tell you to fuck off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

To the contrary, I'm very happy to provide evidence. I just want YOU to commit to accepting valid data prior to presenting it. And I want that commitment in the form of you agreeing to accept a given type of information.

I know how people like you operate. If I offer evidence of any kind, you'll goal post move to invalidate the data. I want you to commit to a given type of information. And when I present it... I want to get what I deserve... which is to win.

If you won't commit to accept valid information, then any request on your part for information is insincere and a waste of my time.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

You didn't know what kind of solution I wanted when you said "if you really want a market solution". That was strike one.

Second, I never said anything in advocacy of municipal broadband. That was strike two.

Third, whether the government providing services makes a profit or not often doesn't stop competition IF that competition is allowed to exist. Look at the private healthcare companies in England and Canada. They exist despite being more expensive than walking in and paying nothing which is their competition. Strike three.

And you're gone right there. I know you want to sputtering on about something else as stupid and pathetic as your last comment. But you really should just stop embarrassing yourself. You're an idiot. You don't need to prove me any more right than you already did by continuing to be a dumb AC that proves that my position on ACs is generally fucking gold. Trust me. The case is about as solid as the laws of motion at this point.

Enough.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Actually none of them specified what they'd accept.

I heard one say that ars technica was okay... does that mean only ars technica is okay or what? they did not commit to anything beyond that.

I heard another say that anything that wasn't anacotal would be acceptable. I then pointed out that the line between anacotal and non-anacotal is literally the number of citations. Something that is anacotal as a single example becomes data and evidence if you have lots of the same report. And then you have other issues with that.

But I got no framework for what was and was not acceptable actually despite asking for that repeatedly. And until I get that, I'm not going to waste my time to get evidence because you can still goal post move.

You've missed the point.

I want YOU to be FORCED by your own words to accept my data when I present it. No IFs ANDS or BUTs.

And that's what you're going to do if I don't lock you down before I do it. I know it. You know it. So you've failed to fool me.

Here are your options.

1. Present a framework of acceptance and then lose when I fill it.

2. Keep pretending you provided one even though both of us know that is a lie.

3. Have the discussion without asking for information you won't accept.

Choose. You will not get me to waste even two seconds of my time getting information without a framework. Period.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

Nah, I'm just showing that your request for proof was insincere and a waste of time. I proved that by showing that you'd not agree to any standards of evidence. And that freed me of any obligation to provide any.

The above is obvious and sustained. Good day.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

I didn't fail to provide evidence. I negated the requirement by proving that your request was an insincere ploy.

As to efficiency, that's not the point. I simply refuse to be trolled into taking people seriously that are not taking the discussion seriously or lack the intellectual integrity to be worthy of my effort.

What you did was make it clear that this is an insult and shit talking thread. I queried you to see if you wanted a real discussion or shit talking. You opted for shittalking. So that's what you get.

I am quite happy to continue the discussion on the basis that your mother is fat. However, i will not be baited into a discussion where you regard the discussion as a shit talking discussion and I am expected to do research and argue logically. I will regard YOU as you regard this discussion. And that means this is what you get.

You chose this. If you want something else next time, then choose otherwise.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

So you'll accept any major news outlet that supports my position? And that is what we consider to be valid information? Mainstream news? I'm just confirming your commitment to accept ANYTHING I provide from such a source.

Also Ars Technica is apparently fine as well. Excellent. So can we assume any alternative tech media is also acceptable? You're making this very easy. I will provide evidence that is mainstream news etc... and then by your statement you'll be obligated to concede.

Press the button. Give me an easy win.

Re:Franchise monopolies... don't give them

[Karmashock]

That's a strawman, I didn't say it is codified that only specific companies are allowed to run cable. I said that the system is set up in such a way that that happens. But that isn't explicitly stated.

Here you'll say that I then have no argument ignoring that we have many other situations where things are not directly codified yet result in those situations. Such as the Jim Crow laws which didn't forbid black people from voting but did create a situation where it was very hard for them to vote which made it statistically unlikely for them to vote.

What I can show you in franchise agreements is that they tend to require that anyone that offers ISP services must service the ENTIRE city to serve ANY portion of the city. That is pretty common. And it means that only the largest companies are well capitalized enough to compete. This does all by itself restrict competition to a handful of companies and it akin to saying someone can't open a sandwich shop anywhere in a city unless they are willing to commit to open hundreds all over the city serving the entire population.

Its not a reasonable requirement. And there are many other unreasonable requirements. Often as not you have to provide free or subsidized access for example which is hard to do if you're a small company. Then there is a regulatory burden which is difficult for anyone that doesn't have a dedicated legal team to handle. And it just goes on and on and on and on.

Waste of $25

[wardrich86]

They're offering up these cheap packages, but they're mostly channels that nobody cares much about... and a lot of them do air broadcasts that you can (or at least used to be able to) pick up with an antenna. The pathetic thing is that once the government started to force everything to go digital, people using antennas started losing a lot of channels they once had access to... That's something the government should prevented.

Re:Waste of $25

[wardrich86]

Rogers pack is practically what I grew up with for free with an antenna...

-ABC
-CBS
-NBC
-CBC
-CTV
-PBS
-TVO
-Some French channel I never watched
-Fox
-CHCH
-WB
-City

Re:Waste of $25

[fluffernutter]

I don't think people in Canada can get all those for free.

Re:Waste of $25

[Mashiki]

Depends on where you live. Lot of places in Southern Ontario you can get all those channels OTA. Seeing people getting 30-50 channels OTA isn't uncommon if you're in say Toronto or Kitchener/Waterloo, or people living along Lake Erie/Michigan/Ontario. Live in northern alberta though? Nope.

Re:Waste of $25

[CastrTroy]

I guess it depends how close you live to a major US City. There's no way somebody in Edmonton is going to pick up ABC over the air. Compare that with Windsor where there's always been a problem getting people to pay for cable because of all the freely available US networks. I'm in Ottawa and most people can't get any US networks unless you get a lot of extra equipment.

Re:Waste of $25

[wardrich86]

Well, I'm Canadian, and that's what I grew up with. I can confirm that at least up until 2008, I had all of those channels. Also for a while I could get channel 3 to come in... it was called VR.

Re:Waste of $25

[Luthair]

Living in Ottawa my OTA antenna gets 3 channels (Global, TVO & CBC). Growing up in a rural community 20-years ago we had twice that. Unfortunately since Bell & Rogers own most of the TV stations they've pulled back on broadcasting.

Re:Waste of $25

[SuiteSisterMary]

Twenty years ago, we got CKVR, CHCO, and TVO over the air. Channels 3, 11 and 2, as I recall. The antenna was connected to a dial that physically rotated it.

At some point, we got Global TV on channel 7.

Ah, growing up watching Robotech, Thundersub, Star Trek and Captain Power....

Re:Waste of $25

[fluffernutter]

Perhaps you were in Toronto, which is very close to the US border. Most of Canada is not in Toronto.

Re:Waste of $25

[wardrich86]

That's true. My cottage further north had Chex and Global.

Brazilian government made it some years ago...

[fbobraga]

with internet access: it generated a plan form a major cable company here (now with 2mbps speed, from 512Kbps on beginning [in 2009, I think...]) for R$ 39,90 (equivalent to ~US$10 now...)

Re:Brazilian government made it some years ago...

[fbobraga]

it was part of PNBL (in Portuguese, or National Broadband Plan, in English)

What you get for your 25 loonies

[NotDrWho]

The Justin Bieber Channel
The "Arrogant Asshole Speaking Archaic French" network.
"Great White North" with the one surviving McKenzie brother.
The "Mounties Going Full Monty" morning show

Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

I love to watch people who support all out capitalism squirm to solve problems like this.. The fact is, capitalism doesn't come close to solving anything. The only defense of it is that nothing better has been tried.

Re:Capitalism

[oh_my_080980980]

It screams government intervention. Unfortunately these are government sanctioned monopolies with exclusivity agreements. Government will need to regulate on two fronts: content and infrastructure. From the content perspective demand unbundling and force a la carte. This actually will cause channel prices to drop. More people watch QVC than ESPN yet ESPN changes several times more. ESPN is guaranteed revenue from people who don't watch the channel. Remove the captive audience and ESPN is forced to compete on price. Then you will see the true nature of pricing. Cost might go up, because ESPN throw money are programming because they can pass the cost onto the customer. So they might rethink their 10 year $15 Billion dollar deal with the NFL to carry Monday Night football. Customer might balk and a massive price increase - since now you have a smaller customer base - and ESPN might go back to the NFL and actually negotiate on what they can afford.

If government runs infrastructure - like they're suppose to do - then they can lease out the lines to companies to provide the service. Like the way the FCC licenses the air waves for TV and Radio transmissions.

There are ways forward but the industry opposes it and politicians aren't interested in upsetting their donors.

Re:Capitalism

[aicrules]

Capitalism solves it perfectly. You don't want $50 a month TV, don't buy it. DONE! If enough people DO want $50 a month TV then it will stay $50 a month. DONE! If the problem you're referring to is some people can't afford cable TV, that's not actually a problem, that's just a fact. Not everyone can afford an car, so they have to figure out other methods of transportation. Not everyone can afford cable TV, so they have to figure out other methods of entertainment.

Re:Capitalism

[fluffernutter]

That sounds like a great solution for large corporations, but it sucks for the individual.

Re:Capitalism

[nvm_my_comment]

That's what I do but it seem there a fair amount f**ktards who don't really value their money... So nothing change.

Not everyone can afford cable TV, so they have to figure out other methods of entertainment.

Well I can afford it but as mentionned in the article, 25 = 40 a month because of hiddent fee, and the amount of profit they make is disgusting. Not enough competition it's true.

Even $25/month isn't true. It's more than that.

[uniquegeek]

The companies are charging an additional $3-$7 / month on top of it for the box.

You know, I've seen Canadian shows on Netflix. And for the most part, the ones that make it there are good. Let cable hang.

Monopoly

[fbobraga]

NET was not "the market first", but the market only in the case (and, I think, it only made the investments thinking this situation will persist up to now [but it changed, by government intervention: it causes the near-bankrupt of the company...])

Re:Monopoly

[fbobraga]

(it was a reply to http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - I think I've fucked up things here! sorry)

Investments by monopoly?

[fbobraga]

NET was not "the market first", but the market-only in the case (and, I think, it only made the investments [several years ago] thinking this situation will persist up to now [but it changed, by government intervention [some years ago]: it causes the near-bankrupt of the company...])

What is cable TV?

[Bartles]

And who cares? This seems like a law that would have been relevant in 1993. But now the world has passed it by, and the Canadian government looks like a bunch of out of touch beaureaucrats.

Re:What is cable TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a system wherein you pay to get advertisements served directly to your home. Sometimes they interrupt the ad stream but never long enough that your ADHD starts to itch.

Re:Even $25/month isn't true. It's more than that.

[fluffernutter]

Also, some have a $100 installation fee *only* for the basic cable package.

From Nova Scotia/Eastlink

[Anonymous Coward]

Just checked out their $25 package.. Ripoff...
See they had broadcast analog TV here for 50+ years with 3 channels... CBC, ATV, Global(newer)... Then they ended analog TV and reduced digital coverage significantly...
The new $25/month package has government channels and all Bull $hit with the only watchable channels being... CBC, ATV, Global... So what this amounts to is, $25/month + $5+tuner RENTAL to get the 3 channels we had free since TV took to the airwaves...Oh and 15% HST sales tax on top of that... Yes netflix subscriber... Internet pricing has gone up nearly 50% in the last few years as well..

Crooks the lot of them, not just cable companies CRTC which serves THEM.

http://www.eastlink.ca/cabledi...
 

Broken business model

[spaceyhackerlady]

They can tweak all they like but it won't make any difference. The underlying business model is broken Changes in technology will do that.

I pulled the plug on cable years ago. When I look at what's on cable now it's not even the handful of channels I would watch, it's the handful of programs I would watch, since most of the content is garbage. An on-demand setup like Netflix is a much better fit for me.

...laura

Re:Even $25/month isn't true. It's more than that.

[bjohnso5]

Rogers charges $12.95 / mo for the "NextBox" rental. Also, having just spoken to a rep to change my account, switching to the "starter" plan also removes any promotional codes from your account, which will generally cause your package price to skyrocket.

I am so happy they screwed this up

[EmperorOfCanada]

The only thing that would have come about from this going well would have been a slowdown of the death of the cable TV industry. But by overreaching with their greed, the customer bleed should continue apace.

Zazeen is an exception

[JigJag]

They are offering $10/month + free STB for the first year provided you commit to one year. It comes with 35+ channels, received my STB one or two days later. Works flawlessly. There is also an app to watch on your tablet but support is limited. Nexus (Google) is out, Yoga 3 (Lenovo) is out, Galaxy (Samsung) is ok, Ipad (Apple) is okay.

$25... do you still need a cable box?

[SeaFox]

Wondering if the channels are all still encrypted, requiring separate fees per-TV for a cable converter, or if Canada was wise enough to mandate they be ClearQAM or something else so people can just connect their set and watch.