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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

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."

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.

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: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.