New CANADIAN law, how will it effect Dish Network

[Hall]

I was under the impression that Canada has had regulations about TV offerings for a long time. Iceberg has mentioned it before - they have a base package and then you can add on a "news" option, a "sports" option, and so on.

And like others have asked, how is this related to Dish Network ?

 

[Lue]

What we know so far.

1. Dish/Charlie want A la Carte channels

2. 82 % of Americans want A la Carte channels

3. Canada has mandated A la carte channels

4. Big Media cartels do Not want A la Carte channels

5. Canadian media CEO's want A la Cart channels.

6 U.S. gov working to get A la cart Channels

7. The new internet tv providers should be able to operate with greatly reduced prices
due to the fact that they do not have to install/maintain the lines running to homes
have no satellite launch, build, maintain cost, no call centers with thousands of employees
do not have thousands of installers to have to pay and related equipment/vehicles to maintain
no equipment installed in homes

Value priced A la Carts time has come. looking for it in late 2016

 

[Hall]

2. 82 % of Americans want A la Carte channels

6 U.S. gov working to get A la cart Channels

2) That is a pretty high number. Where is it from ?

6) Where is that from too ?

I'm not against a la carte being made available, but I personally don't think it will work out as well as people think it will. I suspect the price "per channel" will be higher than many think it will be. If someone truly can settle on a very small number of channels, like less than (10), they might get a pretty good deal (and again, it will depend on the channel(s) they select as well).

 

[Lue]

2) That is a pretty high number. Where is it from ?

6) Where is that from too ?

I'm not against a la carte being made available, but I personally don't think it will work out as well as people think it will. I suspect the price "per channel" will be higher than many think it will be. If someone truly can settle on a very small number of channels, like less than (10), they might get a pretty good deal (and again, it will depend on the channel(s) they select as well).

# 2 http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...arte-Pay-TV-Options-Digitalsmiths-104639.aspx

#6 http://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/senators-want-fcc-probe-cable-broadband-prices/392126
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/09/us-usa-cable-congress-idUSBRE94816E20130509
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3017542/posts
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sande...-cable-tv-bill-too-high-they-want-fcc-2003592
http://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/sources-senate-seeks-ovd-contract-info/391269
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/senators-ask-fcc-investigate-ridiculous-pay-tv-prices/2015-07-10
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/se...mers-post-their-pricing-complaints/2014-06-26
http://www.stjoechannel.com/news/mccaskill-wants-to-hear-from-troubled-cable-customers
http://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/sources-senate-seeks-ovd-contract-info/391269
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccains-cable-bill-2013-5

 

[Lue]

2) That is a pretty high number. Where is it from ?

6) Where is that from too ?

I'm not against a la carte being made available, but I personally don't think it will work out as well as people think it will. I suspect the price "per channel" will be higher than many think it will be. If someone truly can settle on a very small number of channels, like less than (10), they might get a pretty good deal (and again, it will depend on the channel(s) they select as well).

Where is all the multi multi multi BILLIONS saved from not having the below????????????????
even this number is too large for shareholders to put in their till, FCC, Congress are going to have an easy time getting A la Carte at greatly reduced prices not to mention the competition eating each other

7. The new internet tv providers should be able to operate with greatly reduced prices
due to the fact that they do not have to install/maintain the lines running to homes
have no satellite launch, build, maintain cost, no call centers with thousands of employees
do not have thousands of installers to have to pay and related equipment/vehicles to maintain
no equipment installed in homes

 

[navychop]

They will need call centers.

Anyone believing a la carte will be a major reduction in cost without losing the channels you like, and the Big Boys will stand by and let it happen - are you smoking it or using edibles?

 

[Lue]

Sign up for Sling TV is all push button, no call, no chat, just the pressing of buttons, Roku and all its myriad of 2000 channels is all push button, Sure the upcoming Apple TV will be the same, All of the many, many others entering this market will have to follow suite or perish.

A la carte will be cheaper, no two ways about it.

Where is the Billions saved going to?

 

[navychop]

Providers will withhold or demand more money. And add the requirement to take multiple channels or none.

 

[Lue]

When you figure out where those multi Billions in savings are going to, then you will know.

Too much money to feed back to investors, being a Virtual provider is cheap compared to old school cable and satellite. Just imagine the vehicle purchase cost, fuel, insurance, licensing, and upkeep the old school cable/satellite companies pay out, alone that is is probably a billion a year combined.

 

[TheKrell]

Anyone believing a la carte will be a major reduction in cost without losing the channels you like, and the Big Boys will stand by and let it happen - are you smoking it or using edibles?

Neither. Nobody disputes the fact that good channels, if sold a la carte, will be more expensive per channel. But most of us only feel the need for about 20 channels if that, yet pay for 200.

Do you really think that the total bill won't go down under such a regime? (I don't.) If we have to pay more for fewer channels in an a la carte regime, then the channel providers would be all over it. Since none are (correct me if I'm wrong), I conclude that their paychecks will be going down, while our pocketbooks will be getting fatter.

Now, if you love some niche channels that cannot stand on their own, then I suppose you might lose those niche channels when they are no longer bundled.

 

[Hall]

The channels (or their networks) don't want a la carte to ever happen. When they are included in a package from the cableco or satco, that's a fixed and guaranteed revenue stream and to a lesser degree, potential eyeballs (viewers). ESPN sure doesn't want people to know what their standalone price is ! If they went a la carte, a lot of channels would never survive. Just imagine the focused channels like the Tennis channel, Golf channel, the Horce Racing channel. Those are very, very niche channels. I'm not even sure the first two show outside of Thursday through Sunday. Will enough people sign up for them ?

 

[osu1991]

They probably won't survive and the rights can go back to OTA nets at a more reasonable rate or they can rely on spectators and attendance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[bobvick]

Lue must be an investor in some OTT startup. He gets REALLY excited and link happy about IPTV.
Must be retired, disabled, or independently wealthy, I sure wish I had so much time to devote to a subject.

 

[Hall]

Hehe, I know what you mean ! I asked for references and ~10 minutes after my post, he responded with what, a dozen links ?

 

[DishSubLA]

Keep in mind that one of the arguments against a la carte is that it would hurt the availability and viability of channels appealing to ethnic minorities such as NUVO, etc. because those and future channels would not have the guaranteed number of potential viewers if they could not be carried on a package of channels. Even if such a channel were owned by a huge company like Disney sush as FUSE, Disney would lose the leverage to get that channel on MVPD's because it would have to sink or swim as an a la carte and because it appeals to ethnic minorities, they may not have the high numbers to survive as an a la carte and this would be another example of minorities being given the stick, so to speak and denied programming for them. I give you the ARGUMENT, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with it.

In other words, the Republicans don't like a la carte because the channels/media companies don't like it and the Democrats don't like it because it has the potential to hurt ethnic minorities. First in line at Congressional Hearings if it ever comes to testify AGAINST a la carte are the owners of ethnic channels which some are very small companies.

So, a la carte aint comin any time soon, and Congress will probably avoid the issue by pointing out the the internet is where consumers can find a la carte and at lower prices, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Lue]

A la Carte is coming in 2016, sooner than you think.

All ethnic/ public interest as well as small independent channels will have to be made available to subs.

TV a la cart is Coming to Canada in 2016

The code will take effect by September, 2015.

"consumer welfare destroying death spiral" lol, got to love it when the big guys are spinning.



Bibb is obviously in the loop on what the cable industry is preparing to do, as TV a la carte is coming to Canada by the end of 2016. And if Canada is going that way, then you know the U.S. cable companies will be announcing a similar move in and around the same time frame. Canada gets most of their programming from the U.S., so the announcement is just a sign of what's in the pipeline.


take a look below
The newSkinny basic will look like this: By March of 2016, every TV provider will be forced to offer a smaller basic TV package capped at $25 per month. It must include all local and regional stations, public interest channels such as the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN), education and community channels, plus provincial legislature networks. If distributors want to, they can add national over-the-air stations like CTV, City and Global, or U.S. networks ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and PBS. But they cannot raise the price.



Members from both sides of the isle are pushing for A la Carte
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/09/us-usa-cable-congress-idUSBRE94816E20130509
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccains-cable-bill-2013-5

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3017542/posts
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sande...-cable-tv-bill-too-high-they-want-fcc-2003592

If people would read the links they would know these things.

corner-is-apples-entry-into-the-online-video-distribution-business-too-little-too-late.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/crtc/article23541572/

 

[Lue]

More Rope Please

But more importantly, Wheeler knows that internet video is coming. Cable operators and broadcasters have, hand in hand, been raising prices hand over fist on everything from programming to DVR rentals for years, regardless of these limited localized price caps. Wheeler likely hopes that by removing already meager barriers, the cable industry will feel free to raise rates further, and be painfully punished by the rise of internet video. Basically, Wheeler is throwing the cable industry a small bone -- with the intent of letting them choke on it.

That might work over the long term, but over the short term the end result will probably only be even higher rates. That could help accelerate cord cutting, and a faster shift toward the more competitive TV market Wheeler is probably envisioning. And while giving the cable industry enough rope to hang itself might work television revolution.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ndustry-just-enough-rope-to-hang-itself.shtml

 

[orlyPR]

At the end of the day..Canadians will be paying more money for fewer channels

due to sovereignty of Canada, all communication company must be nationally owned. the nation have 36 million of inhabitant vs 320 from USA. due to extension of territory and population, the infrastructure cost, the rate of cellular service cost near doubly than in USA, you find a offer, unlimited with unlimited data for $80.00 per month? required 2-year contract, not is 3 year!. The same is true in cable company, Most USA channel in Canada is licence, because need to be managed by a Canadian company. In the USA if a la cable is available, the cost will be the same, for those that preferred the complete package.

 

[Juan]

due to sovereignty of Canada, all communication company must be nationally owned. the nation have 36 million of inhabitant vs 320 from USA. due to extension of territory and population, the infrastructure cost, the rate of cellular service cost near doubly than in USA, you find a offer, unlimited with unlimited data for $80.00 per month? required 2-year contract, not is 3 year!. The same is true in cable company, Most USA channel in Canada is licence, because need to be managed by a Canadian company. In the USA if a la cable is available, the cost will be the same, for those that preferred the complete package.

yes if you are grandfathered by verizon

 

[Lue]

Al la Carte to be big savings for the U.S public.

Even prior to the CRTC’s decision, some analysts were seeing pick-and-pay as a negative for the big TV providers. Desjardins Capital Markets analyst Maher Yaghi, for one, expected a reduction of $5 to $10 in monthly revenue per user “as customers get the option to choose the channels they want to watch and move discretionary money toward OTT (over-the-top) services such as Netflix.”

The CRTC’s wisely chosen checks and balances could make that forecast look conservative.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/why-pick-and-pay-will-lower-cable-costs/