CRTC Approves Un-Bundling of Channels

[Mike F]

Story.

The option to pick and pay for only the channels that a viewer wants to watch moved closer to becoming a reality for millions of TV subscribers on Friday.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission decided Friday to adopt a proposal from Bell to allow its channels to be unbundled while rates for individual networks will fluctuate based on the number of subscribers who sign up.

With Bell shifting away from “tied selling” other major channel owners like Shaw Media and Rogers Media are likely to follow suit. “It wont just be us, if you’re a cable provider, you really need all of your suppliers to participate,” Mr. Crull said.

[WhiteTiger]

So glad to hear this. I only ever want to watch 3-4 channels, but am not interested in paying for 30-40 I don't care about on top of paying for the service in the first place.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I could live with 8-10 HD channels (TSN, TSN2, SNW, SN1, Score, AMC, HBO, CTV, Global) and be completely satisfied. Interesting.

[gottabekd]

Awesome. I'm paying $30/month just for TSN + Sportsnet. If you want CBC, CTV, CityTV, Global, you can get it for free over-the-air anyways.

Also, I'll pay an extra $5/month for AMC. But not $10.

[Caged Great]

So will this be the case for all channels, and all carriers?

There's only about 20 channels that I use even occasionally and some I'd like to add but don't want the other 15 channels in the bundle.

[DownhillGoat]

I'll be quite happy if I can just get the HD channels without having to pay for the 150 SD channels I don't watch.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Wow. I might just have to reconsider my absolute hatred from the CRTC. They got something very, very right here.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I could live with 8-10 HD channels (TSN, TSN2, SNW, SN1, Score, AMC, HBO, CTV, Global) and be completely satisfied. Interesting.

Yup, just give me the HD channels and eff everything else. I don't watch them don't need them.

I just watch National Geographic HD, I don't even want the SD version of it.

[metallicat]

Oh man, this sounds so awesome. My mouth is watering at saving a bunch of money per month by losing the useless channels. Am I too hopeful?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

You guys are assuming that you will end up paying less for the fewer channels you enjoy. I bet that's not how it will shakedown.

This. Basically they give away a bunch of channels as it is right now, so the cost to add those to channels you want will be nothing anyway. It's not a flat rate per channel; popular channels will cost more than channels that no one wants.

The interesting thing to watch will be which channels survive though. Can a channel remain profitable/in business with just a few thousand subscribers? I also wonder about the obvious conflict of interest where cable providers also provide content. Interesting to watch.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Slava

This. Basically they give away a bunch of channels as it is right now, so the cost to add those to channels you want will be nothing anyway. It's not a flat rate per channel; popular channels will cost more than channels that no one wants.

The interesting thing to watch will be which channels survive though. Can a channel remain profitable/in business with just a few thousand subscribers? I also wonder about the obvious conflict of interest where cable providers also provide content. Interesting to watch.

Surviving for the sake of surviving is not good enough in my opinion. If they are not offering content that people what then why should they be cluttering up the airwaves?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Surviving for the sake of surviving is not good enough in my opinion. If they are not offering content that people what then why should they be cluttering up the airwaves?

Oh, I don't disagree at all. It will be interesting for sure. I would guess that most people would be satisfied with say 20 channels or less. Through CP I would hazard a guess that this would require a total of about 40-45 channels with a lot of overlap. So when you have to buy these tiered bundles everyone is getting a huge amount they never watch. Will consumers willing pay the same amount for 1/10th of the channels? Thats what the cable providers will aim for.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by fotze

You guys are assuming that you will end up paying less for the fewer channels you enjoy. I bet that's not how it will shakedown.

So right now I get 30 channels for $30. Let's say I just want 2 channels: TSN ans Sportsnet. You're right , I bet that costs $20. So, less, but still a decision point. It makes the bundle look like a deal.

[Joborule]

Awesome news. Good job CRTC.

[SuperMatt18]

Not sure this is actually a positive, if it's a proposal from the cable co's it's likely not because they wail make less money this way.

Instead of paying $9 for a bundle you will now just pay a premium for individual channels and the cable co will save on content costs since they have to pay a rate to the channel provider for each subscriber.

So now they will charge more for each individual channel and will save more on content costs win-win for them.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by fotze

You guys are assuming that you will end up paying less for the fewer channels you enjoy. I bet that's not how it will shakedown.

I honestly think I would be OK with paying more for subscribing to only what I want to pay for. I'd have to see the final prices before I could say that for sure. But knowing my money isn't subsidizing a bunch of crap I have no interest in and would never, ever watch is a good trade off.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by fotze

You guys are assuming that you will end up paying less for the fewer channels you enjoy. I bet that's not how it will shakedown.

It will certainly tell everyone where advertizing dollars should go. Those dollars should make these channels cost less.

[Mike F]

From the article:

“Fewer channels will mean unit costs for those channels will be higher than if you buy a bigger package,” the Bell executive said. “There’s a volume discount” for viewers who take bigger TV tiers with more channels.

If TSN for example costs a cable subscriber $2.50 month in a bundled package, individually, that fee could soar north of $10. Still, by opening up channels, consumers who want fewer channels at a lower cost will get their wish, Mr. Crull said.

Asked whether the new model lower bills, which are averaging about $60/month nowadays, he said: “It will for some people for sure, you will now have the ability and choice to buy a package that very well could lower your overall bill.”

I went through my regular viewing lineup, and I could drop about 15 of the HD channels I currently get and all of the SD.

However, the ones I would keep would be TSN, TSN2, SN, etc., which would likely carry the high price tag.

In the end, though, we'll finally have a choice, and choice is good.

[Table 5]

If nothing else, if I could drop SD entirely from my line up and save whatever that costs me, I'd be one happy camper.

[Finny61]

I'll just remain pessimistic on how this will play out.