CRTC ruling suggests more choice in TV bundles , get ready for the screw.

[ah802]

Sounds like a sneaky backroom deal to squeeze more cash... knowing full well a rate hike would cause mass rejection.

"The CRTC could not provide details about the terms of the agreement, which is confidential."
anytime a government agency talks... 'confidentiality', it's to hide the details.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/07/20/crtc-tv-channel-packages.html (no comments)
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/07/20/2059237/canadians-to-get-unbundled-cable-tv-channels (south of the border comments)

[Blackmajik]

CRTC or not, Bell and Rogers should realize that people are dropping cable subscriptions because it is getting too expensive or have other means and methods of watching their favorite shows. If cable was affordable enough, I may re-subscribe but seeing how the bundles and equipment are not in my budget, I may never have a cable sub again.

[xalex0]

I wonder how much will channel 24 cost.

[JAC]

Sounds like a sneaky backroom deal to squeeze more cash... knowing full well a rate hike would cause mass rejection.

Exactly. Rogers was testing a "build-your-own-bundle" model some time back, in London IIRC. It was pretty obviously designed to fail.

I can tell you how this "ruling" will play out. There will be a set of basic channels we have to get, coupled with the foreign language sh*t we're forced to subsidize. Then Rogers will offer a larger number of "packages", which will consist of one good channel and a couple rubbish channels. In the end, we'll end up paying the same or slightly more for less. There is no way in hell we'll ever get individual channel choice, or if we do, it'll cost so much per channel as to not be worth it.

[bleeet]

whats the catch?

according to the globeandmail the number of channels you choose may not decrease your monthly bill. In fact it may increase it.....so in other words there probably will be a certain amount of channels you have to choose until the price sky rockets.

and I bet they will pull some canadian content rule where you have to have a certain amount of canadian channels

[urameatball]

When I was growing up, all my friends had cable.
These days, only half my friends have cable.

They can jack up rates through shady backroom deals all day long... it'll just lead to fewer subscribers. Viewers have options now (in most cases)

[xalex0]

Viewers have options now (in most cases)
They are fighting against those options too.

[M1K3Z0R]

Cable is a dying medium for television, Rogers knows this and wants to milk consumers while they can, all while squeezing those bandwidth caps to discourage downloaders.

In my experience, I grew up with free OTA television using the bunny ears and I would never consider paying the figures Bell/Rogers charges for cable and satellite. There is just too much garbage included, and you are still paying to see ads in the content. Now that I have HD OTA and can stream or torrent content, it makes even less sense to pay for cable.

[Cough]

I was encouraged by Bell's coments (:sarcasm)


Kevin Crull, president of Bell Media, called the decision a victory for consumers.

[tsatsa]

In my experience, I grew up with free OTA television using the bunny ears and I would never consider paying the figures Bell/Rogers charges for cable and satellite. There is just too much garbage included, and you are still paying to see ads in the content. Now that I have HD OTA and can stream or torrent content, it makes even less sense to pay for cable.

I agree with you, but nowadays many of these Canadian OTA channels are own by the Cable company and Bell, so what is there to stop them from cutting of the OTA channels off if things get really bad for them, like what Sun channel 52 did.

[zod]

whats the catch?

according to the globeandmail the number of channels you choose may not decrease your monthly bill. In fact it may increase it.....so in other words there probably will be a certain amount of channels you have to choose until the price sky rockets.

and I bet they will pull some canadian content rule where you have to have a certain amount of canadian channels

There are benefits to bundling. Everyone is subsidizing everyone elses preferences. A La Carte you end up paying more per channel because there are less people subscribing to it than before.

[JamesA1]

The cable and satellite companies will not allow their revenue to go down. In fact they have to show ever-increasing revenue to the shareholders. Therefore, they will structure their prices and offerings under any new scheme to continue to increase revenue from their customers no matter what. The only possible win for you as a consumer is if your individual needs happen to fit into some special category that can take relative advantage of the new scheme, whatever it is. If too many people take advantage in that category, the companies will restructure the scheme to remove the advantage. Until there is true competition, there can be no "victory for consumers".

[Kris81]

I just want:

FX, AMC, HBO.

That's it. How can I do that? haha

[xalex0]

There are benefits to bundling. Everyone is subsidizing everyone elses preferences. A La Carte you end up paying more per channel because there are less people subscribing to it than before.I'm pretty sure there are plenty of channels that nobody would miss.

[sillysimms]

I also agree that this likely won't mean savings.

After we moved from a condo that included cable in our condo fees, we did not subscribe to cable. We got an antenna and watch some stuff that way, but the majority of stuff we watch is streamed from our computer or tablet hooked up to the TV. We can watch what we want and when we want.

Surprisingly, I don't miss the cable. The only channel I miss a little is CP24, but I'm not willing to subscribe to a cable package when there's only 1 channel I would want.

[Mark77]

Anything that raises the price of telecom services in Canada will only be good in the long run for the consumer as the funds available to telecoms/cable operators to re-invest, especially in costly terrestial infrastructure will be increased.

[ah802]

The only channel I miss a little is CP24, but I'm not willing to subscribe to a cable package when there's only 1 channel I would want.

Run XBMC with plugins for "Live Streams", Canada On Demand", and Navi-X they have CP24 and City News, along with the National and most of the stuff cable people pay for.

[sillysimms]

Run XBMC with plugins for "Live Streams", Canada On Demand", and Navi-X they have CP24 and City News, along with the National and most of the stuff cable people pay for.

Thanks for that! I'll look into that. I have found most other channels, including City News, but prefer CP24 and it was the only one I hadn't found.

[xalex0]

Anything that raises the price of telecom services in Canada will only be good in the long run for the consumer as the funds available to telecoms/cable operators to re-invest, especially in costly terrestial infrastructure will be increased.That is, what's left after paying the shareholders (like Mark77).

[JAC]

Anything that raises the price of telecom services in Canada will only be good in the long run for the consumer as the funds available to telecoms/cable operators to re-invest, especially in costly terrestial infrastructure will be increased.

Please provide exact dollar figures amounts for revenue vs infrastucture re-investments for each major telecom provider, correlated with specific benefits provided to customers and profits for given year. Links should be provided for proof.

[Mark77]

Please provide exact dollar figures amounts for revenue vs infrastucture re-investments for each major telecom provider, correlated with specific benefits provided to customers and profits for given year. Links should be provided for proof.

Terrestial infrastructure, on BCE and Telus' annual reporting (go look it up) is consistently the segment with the lowest ROI and ROE of all market segments in which both firms participate. Hence, only incremental investment has taken place to retain market competitiveness and preserve (but not meaningfully grow) revenue in light of the substantial elimination of long distance tolls as a source of revenue.

If you want to see investment in terrestial infrastructure, the growth numbers for revenue at the terrestial telecoms will have to be a lot better than flat. Flat or no growth is a prima facie indication that the market has indicated that its needs are well served. Money talks -- nothing else matters really! Higher service prices drive additional investment and competition -- not the opposite.

[JAC]

So what you are saying is even though Bell and Rogers' overall revenues and profits are consistently rising year-over-year, they aren't re-investing a proportional amount due to poor growth in those services that involve terrestrial infrastructure. And your suggestion is we should all pay more to finance their network development rather than have them use funds from a more profitable segment.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[infamouskid]

a la carte style has to push forward if these guys wanna survive.
smaller companies like novus is already offering similar offerings using fiber.
there was another isp turned cableco in quebec that did the same but bell bought them very very fast as soon as they became a problem.
either way this is a problem since all the big guys are now gobbling up tv broadcast networks as well.
bell just bought astral media not too long ago... IMHO i think the crtc should step in and break up internet providers from broadcasting and media.
i also think cableco and telco should have heavy regulation on last mile and network infrastructure.
when only a few hands are in the pot sooner or later privacy and the message to the public will become an issue or blurred if not already.
also JAC don't bother with mark77. that dude is a tool. i've had him on my ignore list since the last time me and him had a debate on bell and UBB.

most of the crap he blurts out is pure smokescreen crap.
we already know the big guys are milking the crap out of us with rudiculous profit margins on wireless customers alone.
and using long distance toll restrictions as a revenue model was wrong to begin with since voip was introduced years ago.
all we are facing in Canada right now is greedy companies trying to fight their own customers who are trying to keep up with technology but are getting screwed by silly caps that they cannot justify, even in court.
we have low market penetration in almost all 3 communication markets. and in all markets those products are almost unaffordable or very very unreasonably priced now compared to our other developed neighbors.
even the Mexicans don't get treated like we do.

[Mark77]

So what you are saying is even though Bell and Rogers' overall revenues and profits are consistently rising year-over-year, they aren't re-investing a proportional amount due to poor growth in those services that involve terrestrial infrastructure.


For terrestial (ie: wired) infrastructure, revenues are barely rising, but are just holding flat. And that's the problem which I aluded to. High prices in wireless infrastructure has led to massive buildouts, and ultimately, price reductions which we are enjoying now. Just look at the price war on 6gb data plans!



And your suggestion is we should all pay more to finance their network development rather than have them use funds from a more profitable segment.


Yes. Cross-subsidization doesn't work. Bell or Rogers' investors aren't going to take money from the successful cell business and put it into building more capacity in the terrestial business that shows little signs of revenue growth. Money tends to chase.....money! If demand and prices for terrestial infrastructure start rising enough, then certainly it will make a lot more sense for Bell/Rogers/Telus' managers to commit more capital towards terrestial infrastructure.



Am I understanding you correctly?

At the end of the day, the customer always pays for the service. We can sit here and have a 100 page argument (ala UBB) on what an appropriate rate of return on that investment (actually I'd rather not....), but ultimately, you can't expect to have more investment, while, at the same time, demanding lower consumer bills.

[xalex0]

High prices in wireless infrastructure has led to massive buildouts, and ultimately, price reductions which we are enjoying now. Just look at the price war on 6gb data plans!I thought it was the new players that caused the prices to go down.


you can't expect to have more investment, while, at the same time, demanding lower consumer bills.You can cancel the service, though.

[desidealer49]

Soon net neutrality will be throw out in favor of internet blocks purchaseable from these robber companies if they keep lining up the pockets of our politicians. :(

[desidealer49]

At the end of the day, the customer always pays for the service. We can sit here and have a 100 page argument (ala UBB) on what an appropriate rate of return on that investment (actually I'd rather not....), but ultimately, you can't expect to have more investment, while, at the same time, demanding lower consumer bills.

Well they do need more money to line up pockets of politicians and million dollar bonuses earned thanks to sky high priced contracts. Who cares about bills here?

For all the infrastructure you tout, it is laughable their service is spotty even in a big city like Toronto while i send money over to one of my relatives in a "third world" country so they can call me 10 times cheaper than here. The multi-national companies which invest in infrastructure for those low paying customers in those places must have found some magic to make ends meet i guess? Why not let them invest here and see the big three get smashed? Oh right, the stock holders have connections to the politicians who want to keep this place in the dark ages of communications.

[JamesA1]

Higher service prices drive additional investment and competition -- not the opposite.

Maybe you can explain why my satellite bill goes up 12% per year for the exact same package that it's been on for years. I must be missing the improvements somewhere....

[uber_shnitz]

Cable really has no reason to die in Canada if it was cheap enough....

1- mainstream (aka not small companies) internet has low bandwidth in Canada
2- this means services like Netflix (we don't even have Hulu) and downloading actual shows are hindered by point 1

If Rogers and Bell actually priced their TV packages decently, I'd still pick it over the alternatives for the reasons stated. My main bandwidth use for internet IS downloading and streaming media so if I could get that for cheap and save bandwidth I would. Streaming sports games with friends over an HDTV just isn't the same quality as watching it on TSN HD.

[Piro21]

I just want:

FX, AMC, HBO.

That's it. How can I do that? haha

Piracy.

What's so special about TV anyways? Read books and go outside, your brain and body will thank you.

[coolspot]

CRTC or not, Bell and Rogers should realize that people are dropping cable subscriptions because it is getting too expensive or have other means and methods of watching their favorite shows.

The average Canadian isn't aware of the alternatives... Most people are not that Internet savvy yet.

[Mark77]

The average Canadian isn't aware of the alternatives... Most people are not that Internet savvy yet.

If everyone were to switch to "the alternatives", the cost of the systems that currently deliver both types of traffic will have to shift the entire cost burden onto the (presumably unicast IP) traffic that flows over such systems.

So instead of a $50/month TV bill, and a $50/month Internet bill -- you may end up with a $120/month Internet bill instead ($20 more because obviously Internet isn't multicast like TV is -- hence, higher capacity requirements at various points in the networks).

As early adopters of 'alternative' services (ie: VoIP, Netflix, etc.) -- maybe you're saving some money as an individual, but if everyone were to make the switch, collectively, it would be impossible to save money.

[Mark77]

I thought it was the new players that caused the prices to go down.

New players only appeared in the cell space because of the high prices. If you want more competition in the marketplace, then prices need to be allowed to rise, such that, investors see a good 'business case' for investing in new capacity.



You can cancel the service, though.

Why do that though? Certainly even the Internet at twice the price, is still quite a bargain, historically speaking, compared to the cost of accessing the same level of information/entertainment/business connectivity through other sources.

[Piro21]

New players only appeared in the cell space because of the high prices. If you want more competition in the marketplace, then prices need to be allowed to rise, such that, investors see a good 'business case' for investing in new capacity.

Why aren't they charging those same high prices then? And why did the big 3 almost instantly lower their prices?

[wilsonlam97]

If everyone were to switch to "the alternatives", the cost of the systems that currently deliver both types of traffic will have to shift the entire cost burden onto the (presumably unicast IP) traffic that flows over such systems.

So instead of a $50/month TV bill, and a $50/month Internet bill -- you may end up with a $120/month Internet bill instead ($20 more because obviously Internet isn't multicast like TV is -- hence, higher capacity requirements at various points in the networks).

As early adopters of 'alternative' services (ie: VoIP, Netflix, etc.) -- maybe you're saving some money as an individual, but if everyone were to make the switch, collectively, it would be impossible to save money.

True but that's only because the providers are gouging the customers.

[gilboman]

You can never please people, they said they wanted to choose individual channels, you got it, now complain it costs more per channel compared to a bundle before.

Hello???? any braincells left? of course a package/group pricing will get you a lower/unit price. You got what you wished for, you were warned about it, but chose to ignore common sense.

[Mark77]

Why aren't they charging those same high prices then? And why did the big 3 almost instantly lower their prices?

They're not charging the formerly high prices because the market no longer supports them, and its an exercise in optimization. Obviously a new entrant to the market would, in their economic analysis, have to predict the impact of adding new capacity to the marketplace, in order to arrive at modelling that supports a business decision. Apparently some of the new entrants mis-judged how aggressive "Robellus" would be in lowering their prices, as well as the cost of entry to the marketplace, and hence, have not achieved efficient returns on invested capital.

[wilsonlam97]

New players only appeared in the cell space because of the high prices. If you want more competition in the marketplace, then prices need to be allowed to rise, such that, investors see a good 'business case' for investing in new capacity.



Why do that though? Certainly even the Internet at twice the price, is still quite a bargain, historically speaking, compared to the cost of accessing the same level of information/entertainment/business connectivity through other sources.

Uh no. People pay for a maintained and built internet connection. Its not a service like your daily milkman. If everyone were to think like you than internet costs would be $1000/month at its cheapest and you'd argue that the value of the information obtained over the internet outweighs the cost of service thus being a good deal. Wrong. We pay for a connection to the WWW. Providers have no business to what we do with it.

[Mark77]

Uh no. People pay for a maintained and built internet connection. Its not a service like your daily milkman. If everyone were to think like you than internet costs would be $1000/month at its cheapest and you'd argue that the value of the information obtained over the internet outweighs the cost of service thus being a good deal.


I was referring not to the value of the information, but simply to the value of the connectivity. Many folks these days have basically the capacity of a dedicated T3 line as a VPN to their workplace, through their Internet connection, for a mere hundred bucks a month. Through a dedicated service, that would cost thousands of dollars a month to have delivered to a residential address.

You're 100% correct in that the transport providers are not entitled to toll for specific traffic that goes over the facilities, but that doesn't stop them from tolling overall traffic or against capacity provided -- as that's exactly their service offering.

[wilsonlam97]

You can never please people, they said they wanted to choose individual channels, you got it, now complain it costs more per channel compared to a bundle before.

Hello???? any braincells left? of course a package/group pricing will get you a lower/unit price. You got what you wished for, you were warned about it, but chose to ignore common sense.

Well don't you think $100/m for a couple of hours a day of entertainment daily is worth $100/m? I mean service providers are NOT supposed to charge us based on content value but how they want their profit margin + actual service costs. There is an obvious disconnect in profit margins when going up in packages at Rogers/Bhell. Its absurd gouging. You can fend for your beliefs in our great telecom system but the pricing is horrible and this new "ruling" made by the corrupt CRTC only allows for the correct legal opportunities onto gouging the customer more and more.

[wilsonlam97]

I was referring not to the value of the information, but simply to the value of the connectivity. Many folks these days have basically the capacity of a dedicated T3 line as a VPN to their workplace, through their Internet connection, for a mere hundred bucks a month. Through a dedicated service, that would cost thousands of dollars a month to have delivered to a residential address.

You're 100% correct in that the transport providers are not entitled to toll for specific traffic that goes over the facilities, but that doesn't stop them from tolling overall traffic or against capacity provided -- as that's exactly their service offering.

I'm sorry but $100/month for an ongoing service is not cheap. That's 12k in a year. Again we shouldn't be charged on the basis that the connection we receive with the technology provided is the factor to the cost to the customer. As a business rogers/Bhell should provide service at cost + profit margin. Again this is obviously not the case because using more data per month obviously does not cost the provider $100.

Edit: sorry I'm on my phone and it auto corrected away my decimal for 1.2k

[Mark77]

I'm sorry but $100/month for an ongoing service is not cheap.


Ummm, when I got on the 'net in 1991 or so, my sponsoring institution paid around $4k/month (in 1991 dollars) -- $1500/month for a leased 56k line, and the balance for onwards connectivity. Plus the Unix box to do anything on was at least $20k. So $100/month for hundreds of times more additional capacity is very cheap, at least to me.



That's 12k in a year.


Forgot a decimal place there???

[xalex0]

New players only appeared in the cell space because of the high prices.
And they showed that the necessity of high prices was nothing but a myth perpetuated by Robellus and their supporters.


If you want more competition in the marketplace, then prices need to be allowed to rise, such that, investors see a good 'business case' for investing in new capacity.You are looking at this the other way around. What people want is lower prices, not competition. That is just the means to get those lower prices.



historically speakingIrrelevant. We live in the present, and only it matters.

Ummm, when I got on the 'net in 1991 or so, my sponsoring institution paid around $4k/month (in 1991 dollars) -- $1500/month for a leased 56k line, and the balance for onwards connectivity. Plus the Unix box to do anything on was at least $20k. So $100/month for hundreds of times more additional capacity is very cheap, at least to me.
I have got a Toshiba Tecra laptop from mid 90s. It was top of the line and cost more than $6000. I'm in a good mood today so you can have it for $1000. Don't miss such an opportunity!

[wilsonlam97]

And they showed that the necessity of high prices was nothing but a myth perpetuated by Robellus and their supporters.

You are looking at this the other way around. What people want is lower prices, not competition. That is just the means to get those lower prices.

Irrelevant. We live in the present, and only it matters.

I have got a Toshiba Tecra laptop from mid 90s. It was top of the line and cost more than $6000. I'm in a good mood today so you can have it for $1000. Don't miss such an opportunity!

+1

[gilboman]

Well don't you think $100/m for a couple of hours a day of entertainment daily is worth $100/m? I mean service providers are NOT supposed to charge us based on content value but how they want their profit margin + actual service costs. There is an obvious disconnect in profit margins when going up in packages at Rogers/Bhell. Its absurd gouging. You can fend for your beliefs in our great telecom system but the pricing is horrible and this new "ruling" made by the corrupt CRTC only allows for the correct legal opportunities onto gouging the customer more and more.

sorry...am I missing something? are you being forced to watch cable tv?

WTH? you think you have any right telling a private business what they should charge you on and what their profit margins should be? Why don't you go b !tch about alcohol at bars/restaurants, fountain pop or something?

where is this sense of entitlement coming from? You want or choose to purchase an optional service for a luxury, and then you complain its $$ and how the profit margins should be?

Do you go into Chanel and ask why a piece of hide cloth made into a little bag costs thousands of dollars? and then tell them only a x % profit margin is acceptable?

[wilsonlam97]

sorry...am I missing something? are you being forced to watch cable tv?

WTH? you think you have any right telling a private business what they should charge you on and what their profit margins should be? Why don't you go b !tch about alcohol at bars/restaurants, fountain pop or something?

where is this sense of entitlement coming from? You want or choose to purchase an optional service for a luxury, and then you complain its $$ and how the profit margins should be?

Do you go into Chanel and ask why a piece of hide cloth made into a little bag costs thousands of dollars? and then tell them only a x % profit margin is acceptable?

The profit margin is not necessarily tied to what channels you order but how they discriminate against what channel packages you order. They could be making less by offering a 100 channel package for the same price as a selective 10 channel offering. That's the rip. They don't fairly set out the prices. What the h*ll are you talking about? The companies have unfairly set their prices and we're here to discuss about it. If you don't like it than don't reply or discuss in this thread.

Oh and your Chanel argument is invalid. This is a service being provided we're talking about.

Edit: oh and with your attitude, Canada could make us slaves by taxing us 100% but it'd be fair because they are in a sense a business with authority and in that case they may tax us however they want. I'm sorry but your a fool.

[george__]

I gave up on cable TV, satellite TV etc long ago../

[wilsonlam97]

I gave up on cable TV, satellite TV etc long ago../

Good. Usenet, bittorrent, unblockus and netflix will suffice.

[xalex0]

you think you have any right telling a private business what they should charge you on and what their profit margins should be?It's CRTC regulated, so it's not that private of a business.


You want or choose to purchase an optional service for a luxurySince when cable is considered luxury? Even people on welfare get cable.

[wilsonlam97]

It's CRTC regulated, so it's not that private of a business.

I admire what the gov in the UK has done to their telecom providers. Its a ethics haven over there in terms of telecom services vs Canada.

[mp328]

I just want:

FX, AMC, HBO.

That's it. How can I do that? haha

anything that airs on those is easy to find on usenet/torrents

personally i want TSN + TSN2 for Formula 1 only - it takes too long for F1 to show up on usenet and i dont have the patience to watch the race the next day :(

[Mark77]

It's CRTC regulated, so it's not that private of a business.

Since when cable is considered luxury? Even people on welfare get cable.

If they get cable, then they have to give something else up in their overall consumption basket. The fact that many people on welfare have cable TV is a testament to how inexpensive cable TV is as a form of entertainment. You don't see people on welfare going to the latest Mirvish shows, or Leafs games, now do you?

I don't see the point of complaining about something that costs so little that even people on welfare can afford it.

[xalex0]

costs so little that even people on welfare can afford it.
Read the first sentence of your own post.

BTW, did I just manage to turn gilboman and Mark77 against each other?

[Mayosandwich]

The thing is unless youre a couch potato, vew seldom people have the time these days to make a $80-100 tv bill worth it. I pay $60 a month for like 5 channels i watch and even that i find is steep. I watch about 10 hours on a normal week, 30 or so during playoffs and much less in summers. To me cable, for my 5 channels should be $10/ month tops, $2 per channel. Youre paying for a signal feed, not a lobster buffet dinner.

You would be surprised how many victims are getting scammed paying $100+ a month for service and maybe watching 2hrs a week. I know some with the full meal deal and paying $150!

[Mark77]

The thing is unless youre a couch potato, vew seldom people have the time these days to make a $80-100 tv bill worth it. I pay $60 a month for like 5 channels i watch and even that i find is steep. I watch about 10 hours on a normal week, 30 or so during playoffs and much less in summers. To me cable, for my 5 channels should be $10/ month tops, $2 per channel. Youre paying for a signal feed, not a lobster buffet dinner.

You would be surprised how many victims are getting scammed paying $100+ a month for service and maybe watching 2hrs a week. I know some with the full meal deal and paying $150!

As I stated before, if everyone moves to an IP on-demand-based service, then the infrastructure, which is largely the same, will still mostly cost the same to build and operate. Hence, the provider will be forced to recover the costs of operating that infrastructure (+ profit) over solely the IP-based service.

So you should be thankful that there are some gullible folks who haven't discovered Netflix/Hulu/etc., and are still paying full freight. Because otherwise, the cost of IP-only services definitely would go up.

[pmcd]

CRTC or not, Bell and Rogers should realize that people are dropping cable subscriptions because it is getting too expensive or have other means and methods of watching their favorite shows. If cable was affordable enough, I may re-subscribe but seeing how the bundles and equipment are not in my budget, I may never have a cable sub again.

People are not dropping cable or similar services. They might try and depending on your location OTA makes sense.

philip

[xalex0]

People are not dropping cable or similar services.You might find that a few posters in this thread already did.

[uber_shnitz]

You might find that a few posters in this thread already did.
Yes select people are dropping cable, moreso now that Netflix is in Canada, but overall there's still lots of people on cable just as there's lots of people still using "telecom giants" capped internet (probably in a package too).

Like I said, it's just an issue of price. If cable were 50% of the cost it is now, I'd get it. However, companies who offer cable KNOW they have a monopoly (due to broadcasting contracts) so they have monopoly on episodes first, on HD sports games and whatnot; therefore, they charge as a monopoly would. Just like movie theaters know they still have a monopoly on new movies (bar cam torrents) so they'll charge whatever they want.

[flash67]

I've dropped rogers for cable...

Only have internet now...

This is my solution package to NO CABLE...

1. Extreme Internet
2. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GTT-7-LTT-7-Cable-Locking-CATV-Boxes-Terminator-Tool-CATV-Boxes-/130734392105?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e70608329 (at least get basic cable)
3. Netflix
4. www.vipbox.tv
5. Bong

[Piro21]

People are not dropping cable or similar services. They might try and depending on your location OTA makes sense.

philip

Older people might not be, but tons of younger folks are, or just never bothered to order it once they moved out (like me). The only reason I even have a TV is for Netflix and video games. I bought an antenna because my guests get bored when I'm cooking and stuff, but I never actually watch anything.

[wilsonlam97]

As I stated before, if everyone moves to an IP on-demand-based service, then the infrastructure, which is largely the same, will still mostly cost the same to build and operate. Hence, the provider will be forced to recover the costs of operating that infrastructure (+ profit) over solely the IP-based service.

So you should be thankful that there are some gullible folks who haven't discovered Netflix/Hulu/etc., and are still paying full freight. Because otherwise, the cost of IP-only services definitely would go up.

The infrastructure is not largely the same. Cable TV is delivered over digital/analog and it uses completely different systems than the cable internet. They may run on the same last line but the infrastructure put in place is very different. And than you have satellite television which obviously has no real purpose of being a IP system. I don't understand. Do you have any real facts?

[Tijuana]

The infrastructure is not largely the same. Cable TV is delivered over digital/analog and it uses completely different systems than the cable internet. They may run on the same last line but the infrastructure put in place is very different. And than you have satellite television which obviously has no real purpose of being a IP system. I don't understand. Do you have any real facts?

Nope. Just that he is an investor and believes the consumer should give them money for absolutely nothing.

[uber_shnitz]

See how people felt about cable 10 years ago is how we feel about the internet now (aka it's nice but not necessary). For all we know, in 10-20 years, mobile data will replace "static" internet as the main means for entertainment medium and people will wonder why we "still cling to home internet" :lol: Or something like that anyways.

[xalex0]

For all we know, in 10-20 years, mobile data will replace "static" internet as the main means for entertainment medium and people will wonder why we "still cling to home internet" :lol:Doubtful. You can't physically fit as much spectrum over the air as through a wire. Also the crosstalk between channels will be prohibitive.

[wilsonlam97]

Doubtful. You can't physically fit as much spectrum over the air as through a wire. Also the crosstalk between channels will be prohibitive.

Tell that to LTE Advanced.

[uber_shnitz]

Doubtful. You can't physically fit as much spectrum over the air as through a wire. Also the crosstalk between channels will be prohibitive.

I said "for all we know" aka I was just throwing random stuff out there. My point is there will be something bigger than the internet eventually and people at that time will wonder why or how we managed to pay this much for our internet subscriptions the same way we look at cable TV now.

[Oversized Rooster]

I was encouraged by Bell's coments (:sarcasm)

Hahaha a "victory for consumers"? Well then why is it confidential? LOL

[PwrSurge]

I've dropped rogers for cable...

Only have internet now...

This is my solution package to NO CABLE...

1. Extreme Internet
2. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GTT-7-LTT-7-Cable-Locking-CATV-Boxes-Terminator-Tool-CATV-Boxes-/130734392105?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e70608329 (at least get basic cable)


This is not a solution package, this is a solution on how to steal cable TV, pure and simple. If caught, you will pay a fine of up to $10,000 depending how long you were doing it. You better put that filter back!

[flash67]

This is not a solution package, this is a solution on how to steal cable TV, pure and simple. If caught, you will pay a fine of up to $10,000 depending how long you were doing it. You better put that filter back!


I'm not concerned... I just moved into a basement apartment and that was already hooked up like that. I dont even own the tools, it was already done for me lol.

[wilsonlam97]

Anything that raises the price of telecom services in Canada will only be good in the long run for the consumer as the funds available to telecoms/cable operators to re-invest, especially in costly terrestial infrastructure will be increased.

Idk if your a troll or an idiot.

[wilsonlam97]

Terrestial infrastructure, on BCE and Telus' annual reporting (go look it up) is consistently the segment with the lowest ROI and ROE of all market segments in which both firms participate. Hence, only incremental investment has taken place to retain market competitiveness and preserve (but not meaningfully grow) revenue in light of the substantial elimination of long distance tolls as a source of revenue.

If you want to see investment in terrestial infrastructure, the growth numbers for revenue at the terrestial telecoms will have to be a lot better than flat. Flat or no growth is a prima facie indication that the market has indicated that its needs are well served. Money talks -- nothing else matters really! Higher service prices drive additional investment and competition -- not the opposite.

Oh such capitalist thoughts. How about creating a product that relies on good PR and puts people first and money second. Google is a great example.

[Mark77]

Oh such capitalist thoughts. How about creating a product that relies on good PR and puts people first and money second. Google is a great example.

Google doesn't make its shareholders money. Bell/Rogers does. Bell/Rogers is far more sustainable than Google.

[xalex0]

Google doesn't make its shareholders money. Bell/Rogers does. Bell/Rogers is far more sustainable than Google. Talk about priorities.

[ichpen]

Google doesn't make its shareholders money. Bell/Rogers does. Bell/Rogers is far more sustainable than Google.

Yeah with a mere 21% growth in revenue over last year and almost 3bn in quarterly profits it's sure a bad deal for shareholders. I'd be pissed at a stock price over $600.

I'll give them credit where its due. They will be the de facto marketing company of the world.

[Mark77]

Yeah with a mere 21% growth in revenue over last year and almost 3bn in quarterly profits it's sure a bad deal for shareholders. I'd be pissed at a stock price over $600.


Where's the shareholders' money then? I haven't seen Google pay a dividend or buy back shares in excess of dilution. And you have to keep in mind most of those profits are pre-tax, as they're held offshore in tax havens.

[xalex0]

Where's the shareholders' money then? I haven't seen Google pay a dividend or buy back shares in excess of dilution.Are you their shareholder?