Heritage Minister asks CRTC to report on pick-and-pay television services - Macleans.ca

Heritage Minister asks CRTC to report on pick-and-pay television services


VANCOUVER – Canadian Heritage Minister Shelly Glover says she has asked the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to prepare a report on so-called pick-and-pay television services.

Glover says the agency has until April 30 to deliver the report, including the steps the commission plans to take toward unbundling TV services.

The broadcast regulator has urged cable and satellite companies to adopt a consumer choice pricing model and unveiled new regulations in 2011 aimed at preventing television providers from restricting consumer choice.

Last month, the CRTC launched consultations on the future of television in Canada.

Industry Minister James Moore has said previously that government will force TV providers to stop “bundling” cable and satellite channels.

Glover says she will wait to see the report but believes consumers will have more choice and better service under a new regime.


Heritage Minister asks CRTC to report on pick-and-pay television services

  1. Why? Why would we have better choice?

    Cable companies are a private entities, and like all private entities, they seek to maximize their revenues. With bundling, a niche channel enjoyed by a small subset of the audience can be purchased and placed in a bundle with more popular channels, where it is subsidized by the wider audience that might not generally watch it. As most companies know, it’s far more cost effective to get current customers to “add-on” than it is to get new ones.

    Remove bundling and the niche audience loses their channel because there’s simply not enough of them to make it worth the cable company paying for it. Cable companies lose some revenue from not being able to sell add-on services to these niche customers, but not as much as they’d lose if they had to pay for the channel and rely on only the niche audience to support it.

    I mean, sure, if we had a really competitive cable provider network out there, this would make sense. Smaller companies would pick up the niche, and, by concentrating on it, make a profit from the small user base.

    Aside from that though, I always find it funny to see the CPC engaging in “nanny-state” activities to direct the marketplace, considering what they generally espouse come election time. I keep wondering if any of these actions ever make an impression with their base?

    • Or maybe we the public will actually demonstrate, with their selections< what is truly wanted as TV viewing fair instead of the pap that is being forced on us with bundles.
      If you "network" gets the boot by the cable provider then it wasn't popular enough. Add that up with cheaper rates (I doubt that though) and I may just come back to cable tv instead of watching video on the internet.

      • That’s very nice, but has absolutely *nothing* to do with the argument that Ms. Glover is advancing that removing bundling will add choice.

        If anything, you’re just echoing my argument.. choice will be removed as the “pap”, as you call it, gets dropped.

    • Private cable companies have no real competition so the bundles are designed to drive up costs. Its all about screwing the consumer. I would rather see Canadians having the ability to use US satellite groups and forget the Canadian cartels and inbreed channel selections.

  2. Yep, but why talk about it and just do it. If it means I can drop 200 channels I don’t watch and save money….

    Less talk and more action would be appreciated.