More

Should Canadians Have To Pay For TV Channels They Don't Want?

Posted: 04/ 8/2012 10:23 am Updated: 04/ 8/2012 10:23 am

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

Michael Geist at the Toronto Star:

Consumers have become accustomed to lots of choice for entertainment and information services. Music and movie services offer single downloads and a range of subscription models, while newspapers and magazines sell their content as individual issues or subscriptions on multiple platforms. Yet Canadian cable and satellite providers remain a stubborn holdout.

Read the whole story at Michael Geist at the Toronto Star

FOLLOW CANADA BUSINESS

Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
294 Fans
 
08:32 PM on 04/08/2012
I have now reached the point with Bell and their packaging of garbage just so I can watch one channel as criminal. They know what everyone watches so they make up packages so everyone has to have at least five. I have basic plus 7 themes and the movie channel. they have tagged on some extra charges and I end up paying $131.74 a month. Since I live rural this transmission is by satellite. Anyways this fall it goes back to basic and I will stream my movies etc off the internet, put them on my hard drive and play them through my media player. People need to wake up. Bell should allow you to order by channal and give you a reduced rate for more channels picked. I think in time Bell will have to do something or lose the business.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgeorge
Paper Ballots WORK. Unverifiable e-voting doesn't
489 Fans
03:53 PM on 04/08/2012
I haven't paid for TV in more than 7 years. The internet provides any show I want to see -- for FREE. And, I also have an antenna attached in case I want to see anything live.

Why anyone would pay money for cable is beyond me.
Permalink  |
joethehood13
13 Fans
03:15 PM on 04/08/2012
i dont want or need 80% of my channels but i have to pay for them
native,punjab,chinese,business on and on
too many garbage channels i pay for and never watch
Permalink  |
photo
phrenicmonkey
7 Fans
02:19 PM on 04/08/2012
I gave up tv 5 years ago when I became a first time homeowner. E!Channel and Fox News made the idea attractive. It was mostly an economic decision, and if there's a show I absolutely need to see it'll be on the net in a few days. I joined a gym around the corner to watch the occasional sporting event on the treadmill.
I'll get cable or satellite when I can choose.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjlowry
135 Fans
 
02:05 PM on 04/08/2012
Right now channels are content to let the shows be mediocre as long as cable and sattelite companies guarantee their spot on the lineup. If people could pick their own channels and dismiss the ones that don't make any quality programming... that would force networks to spend a little money to improve the product and in the end the viewers would be the real winners.
Permalink  |
parrotfish
364 Fans
01:45 PM on 04/08/2012
"Should Canadians Have To Pay For TV Channels They Don't Want? " No they shouldn't and the cable providers and TV executives/corporations have done an excellent job buying off the politicos and the CRTC to keep their money train chucking along for decades on decades.
Permalink  |
pinnsy
85 Fans
02:13 PM on 04/09/2012
Is that capitalism or socialism in action?
Permalink  |
photo
kedikatt
55 Fans
01:03 PM on 04/08/2012
Ideally having communication pipelines as just carriers should provide an even playing field for content suppliers. The pipeline charging X amount per data transmitted, with profit, maintenance and expansion costs covered. That would encourage them to expand to make more profit.
But the complex part comes in content providers setting and getting their prices. There would have to be a central clearing house for billing. Would it get to the point of pay per every show? Only pay for each show actually watched? What a wildly varying bill. Maybe have it like a cell plan. Buy X amount of minutes. A show is a phone call, the caller pays per minute, the one called gets payed per minute.
Permalink  |
4eight5
60 Fans
12:56 PM on 04/08/2012
Why do we pay for any TV or internet anyway? They should pay me for having a portal into my home and my buying practices and preferences. It's not like it isn't a benefit to advertisers to have access to my household.
Permalink  |
photo
xphilosoph
Almost nothing is actually impossible.
119 Fans
12:51 PM on 04/08/2012
People should not be forced to buy non-essential entertainment or information services.

It is quite reasonable to require everyone to pay into a 911 emergency service, CPAC or similar.

However it is a clear violation of consumers rights to force people to directly pay for entertainment they do not want, while denying them services they do want through economic disincentives.

If the government strongly believes in subsidizing some minority, cultural or specialty programming, they can pay the subsidies themselves. make it a FREE or cheap channel and be held accountable for it at election time.

If carriers, cable or satellite companies want customers to subsidize THEM through extra charge bundling, the answer should always be NO.

In addition to this many international entertainment Internet services are blocked by Canadian ISPs: Google Movies, US Netflix, Hulu, tv.com, etc.

This is a clear violation of freedom of choice in a democratic country.
The concept of geographically exclusive or restricted licensing of media in the Internet age is ridiculous and ultimately doomed to failure.

If Canadian providers and distributors can offer consumers competitive access to globally available media content and services, then they will reasonably prosper, else they deserve to die and make room for those that will.

The old broadcasting model is Dead, "Long Live the Internet" and freedom of choice.
Permalink  |
photo
KeithYoung
2 Fans
12:01 PM on 04/09/2012
"In addition to this many international entertainment Internet services are blocked by Canadian ISPs: Google Movies, US Netflix, Hulu, tv.com, etc."

They aren't blocked by the ISPs. They are blocked by the content delivery sites themselves. The reasons for the "blocks" are based on licensing agreements. The owners of the content divide the globe into areas (most times by country - sometimes, like for DVD, by region). They then negotiate with broadcasters in each area to carry their programming, which is why CTV, etc. carry American programming.

A similar notion directly applies to online streaming services (to a degree). There is no deal for Hulu in Canada because most of the online content that is on Hulu that a Canadian could see in Canada is already tied up in distribution licenses with Canadian broadcasters.

If you go to the CW's website all the video content is blocked for streaming to Canada. If you go to the website of the Canadian network broadcasting shows from the CW up here you will see the show available. If they didn't do this, then why would we ever feel the need to go to CTV's, or Global's, etc. websites when you could go directly the CW's, etc. website to consume the show's content?

It isn't the ISPs. It is the regional distribution rights that result in these blocks.

I'm not saying I agree with the way this is set up, but it is important to know the distinction.
Permalink  |
photo
xphilosoph
Almost nothing is actually impossible.
119 Fans
09:54 PM on 04/09/2012
Thank you for the clarification.

I suspect the CRTC and the Canadian Cable/Satellite companies would fight it tooth and nail, if it was available.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
truenorth46
17 Fans
11:00 AM on 04/08/2012
Being a content provider (CTV/Global/Rogers/Telemedia) as well as bring a common carrier (Bell/Shaw/Rogers/Videotron) should be illegal.

This is a massive conflict of interest. Why don't anti-trust laws apply here?

Why doesn't the government protect the public interest?
Oh, I forgot - Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Quebecor are all pro conservative.

Disgusting
Permalink  |