CRTC Approves Un-Bundling of Channels

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by MattyC

In half? more like 90%. When this happens I am only ordering sports channels. That's it. Everything else can be downloaded/streamed.

you must not live with a woman, I know my girl won't let me cut out all the garbage channels she finds entertaining

[HotHotHeat]

Has anyone actually had luck making changes? Just called Shaw and they wouldn't let me.

[HotHotHeat]

Looks like this is coming in March...

Cable and satellite providers must provide skinny basic packages priced at $25 a month to every consumer by March 1, 2016, the CRTC says.

The federal broadcast regulator laid out a timetable Thursday for changes to ways television signals are distributed across Canada.

In addition to the basic $25 package, cable and satellite providers must move to a pick-and-pay system or offer small bundles of channels, also by the March 1 deadline. They must offer both by Dec. 1 of next year.

The basic package must include channels on the CRTC's mandatory distribution list, including CBC, CTV and Global, and aboriginal and minority English or French language channels. In addition a group of U.S. channels could be included, usually CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and non-commercial channel PBS.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cabl...ming-1.3326645

[Looch City]

I'm sure by February 1, 2016, all cellphone plans will again increase by $5 to compensate for this.

[Coach]

Still not what I want. Still not getting my business.

Sorry team, I'm not paying $25/month for crap I don't use.

[Erick Estrada]

As always when it comes to the CRTC and the major networs handshake dealings I'm highly skeptical that this will benefit consumers. In fact this may make is more expensive for sports fans as the networks will inflate those channels to make up for losing income on the fluff channels they forced you to take in bundles.

[Joborule]

That's what I'm expecting. I'm lukewarm to the concept since I don't believe there will be savings for the consumer. More people are cutting the cord year by year, so they'll need to make up money, and sports channels will be an easy bundle to make "premium" pricing for.

[GGG]

With bundles watchers of sports get subsidized by the watchers of crap. Anyone who watches more TV channels is subsidized by those who don't

I suspect being sports fans on average users of this site will pay more in an unbundled system and not have the option to watch that one show you wanted on a different channel.

If you are the average viewer you don't pay for the stuff you don't watch right now. You get the stuff you don't watch for free. If 5 million people op out of tsn then the tsn fee goes up to cover it. The total bill for cable will be at best revenue neutral here. What you will end up with is paying the same if you are lucky for less channels.

This is as stupid as people who wanted 2 year contracts for phones when the correct solution was banning combining the financing of the phone with the costs of the service

[sa226]

What concerns me is when the providers start jacking up Internet prices to compensate for people cutting the cord. I don't really care about the TV end of things, but the Internet is something that every household seems to have as a bare minimum.

Just your run of the mill basic standalone broadband connection is already pretty pricey.

[ken0042]

You nailed it, GGG. I have heard the argument of:
- I currently pay $100 per month for 100 channels.
- I only watch 5 of those channels.
- Therefore I should be able to get my 5 channels per month for $5.

Of course a lot of people here seem to understand that the cost per channel may be higher than that, but I can't see my example above coming in any lower than $40 per month.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As always when it comes to the CRTC and the major networs handshake dealings I'm highly skeptical that this will benefit consumers. In fact this may make is more expensive for sports fans as the networks will inflate those channels to make up for losing income on the fluff channels they forced you to take in bundles.

That's one way of looking at it, for sure.

I'm interested in how it ends up coming together. If they end up increasing pricing on a service model that is losing subscribers, the only logical result is they will lose even more.... Which is what needs to happen for the industry to break in the first place.

Overall I think the pay and pay model will kill off all the channels that are literally spam in my TV guide, and for that reason alone it's a good thing.

[Resolute 14]

Yup. This is going to backfire as badly as the whining against three year phone contracts did.

Except in this scenario, both the consumer and the provider will lose.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

You nailed it, GGG. I have heard the argument of:
- I currently pay $100 per month for 100 channels.
- I only watch 5 of those channels.
- Therefore I should be able to get my 5 channels per month for $5.

Of course a lot of people here seem to understand that the cost per channel may be higher than that, but I can't see my example above coming in any lower than $40 per month.

If those channels are HBO and the premium Sports channels I suspect that you'd end up a lot closer to that $100 number.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...says-1.2753436

HGTV earns approximately $1.90 a year per subscriber, or $0.16 per month. Showcase gets $3.50 per year, or $0.29 per month.
TSN gets $30 per year, or $2.50 per month.
Movie Central and Movie Network — which distributes HBO Canada — earn more than $8 per month.

The above is an old article but has some numbers to work with for a discussion. Keeping in mind that this is the cost to Shaw and not the cost to Shaws customers and its unclear if that is all tsn or just TSN 1. You can use the HBO number as a guide shaw charges roughly 2.25 times to the customer then it is paying the Channel.

So with the 40 odd channels you don't want being worth between 16 cents and 50 cents at max you get $20 in savings which get quickly eaten up by households who dump the sports channels.

Shaw charges $17 per month for sportsnet world so I suspect it would be similar for TSN and Sportsnet channels with maybe is discount when you add East and or TSN 2,3,4,5.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GGG

With bundles watchers of sports get subsidized by the watchers of crap. Anyone who watches more TV channels is subsidized by those who don't

I suspect being sports fans on average users of this site will pay more in an unbundled system and not have the option to watch that one show you wanted on a different channel.

If you are the average viewer you don't pay for the stuff you don't watch right now. You get the stuff you don't watch for free. If 5 million people op out of tsn then the tsn fee goes up to cover it. The total bill for cable will be at best revenue neutral here. What you will end up with is paying the same if you are lucky for less channels.

This is as stupid as people who wanted 2 year contracts for phones when the correct solution was banning combining the financing of the phone with the costs of the service

I'm a sports watcher, and there are definitely sports channels I'd pay for. But I think it is ridiculous that the 80% or so people who almost never watch some of these expensive sports channels are forced to pay for them. TSN and the like cannot just charge what they want if they expect people to pay for them. I have no problem with them setting a price that maximizes their revenues if everyone has the choice whether to pay for the channels or not. Their revenue will definitely take a hit and they'll just have to pay less to the sports leagues, and the sports leagues will have to adjust their salaries lower. IMO that is a good thing. Carriage fees of sports channels and public financing of stadiums have subsidized athlete's salaries for far too long

Most of the crap channels have tiny carriage fees and are mostly advertiser supported. The expensive movie channels have always been a la carte.

[polak]

Yeah currently I pay $50 a month for 100+ channels and 30 mbps internet.

There's no way I see this new thing coming out cheaper than that.

[keratosis]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah currently I pay $50 a month for 100+ channels and 30 mbps internet.

There's no way I see this new thing coming out cheaper than that.

That has to be for the first 6 months only. I don't see a plan anywhere that is that cheep. $60 was the cheapest comparable I saw and that was for the first 6 months for new subscribers. Then bumped by $80 a month.

[polak]

Yup it is for the first 6 months. I'll cancel and switch to whoever gives me the best deal in a few months.

If I can't find something cheap then I'll just cancel my cable all together. Useless for anything besides sports.

[HotHotHeat]

Did you buy the equipment on day one?

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by GGG

If those channels are HBO and the premium Sports channels I suspect that you'd end up a lot closer to that $100 number.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...says-1.2753436

HGTV earns approximately $1.90 a year per subscriber, or $0.16 per month. Showcase gets $3.50 per year, or $0.29 per month.
TSN gets $30 per year, or $2.50 per month.
Movie Central and Movie Network — which distributes HBO Canada — earn more than $8 per month.

The above is an old article but has some numbers to work with for a discussion. Keeping in mind that this is the cost to Shaw and not the cost to Shaws customers and its unclear if that is all tsn or just TSN 1. You can use the HBO number as a guide shaw charges roughly 2.25 times to the customer then it is paying the Channel.

So with the 40 odd channels you don't want being worth between 16 cents and 50 cents at max you get $20 in savings which get quickly eaten up by households who dump the sports channels.

Shaw charges $17 per month for sportsnet world so I suspect it would be similar for TSN and Sportsnet channels with maybe is discount when you add East and or TSN 2,3,4,5.

This is good info, thanks for sharing.

So if TSN (presumably just the main channel) costs a company like Shaw $2.50 a month, the 2.25 factor would put it up to $5.75-$6.00. But you pointed that Sportsnet World costs $17. I would think that to get the TSN 1-5 might cost a little less than $17, considering most of the time the feeds show the same content. $15 maybe? And maybe we could see the Sportsnet / Sportsnet 1 / Sportsnet 360 channels offered together for about $15 as well.

Throw in an AMC, an HBO, and maybe something like FX or Showtime, and that might be another $20-$30.

Add those to the skinny bundle that must be offered (hopefully this includes some US networks), and I could see something like an $85-$95 cable bill for just picking only the channels I want. This is opposed to a $53 bill now for the minimum Personal TV from Shaw, + Sports1 bundle (which gets me TS2 and Sportsnet 360), but doesn't include the premium channels. If I threw in HBO and AMC under the current billing, the bill would jump from $53 to $106, as it doesn't look like AMC is available on its own but as part of a 46 channel "Best of HD" bundle for $35.

Hmmm.

[HotHotHeat]

My math worked out quite a bit lower.

$25 - Skinny package - All main US, Canadian networks (according to the article posted earlier)
$8 - TSN Pack
$8 - Sportsnet Pack
$6 - AMC
$4 - CNN
$4 - History

Total $55

I think TSN is actually going to lose out huge on this. They hold rights to two NFL games/week... Can't think of anything else.