Reuters: Canadian gov't to push cable providers to unbundle channels

[minkbarn]

"Canadian gov't to push cable providers to unbundle channels


TORONTO | Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:25pm EDT

Oct 13 (Reuters) - The Canadian government will soon require cable and satellite television providers to make it easier for customers to buy only the channels they want rather than pay for bundles, the country's industry minister said on Sunday.

"We don't think it's right for Canadians to have to pay for bundled television channels that they don't watch. We want to unbundle television channels and allow Canadians to pick and pay the specific television channels that they want," Industry Minister James Moore said during an appearance on CTV's "Question Period."

Some Canadian cable and satellite television providers have already begun to offer so-called "a la carte" pricing, a trend some analysts think could begin to take hold in the much larger U.S. market."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/13/canada-politics-idUSL1N0I30BW20131013


This will happen. It will work. The US will follow at some point. About time.

 

[Mojo Jojo]

I know a lot of people are all for this. However, what if this ends up costing the consumer more? Look at how much one channel may be a la carte on Dish and other providers. $4-$5 a channel adds up quickly.

 

[dare2be]

Key word...choice. If buying too many ala carte channels runs up your bill too much, you should still be able to get the bundle price. If you only want a few channels, then paying a higher per-channel ala carte price will still save you money.

 

[HDRoberts]

I know a lot of people are all for this. However, what if this ends up costing the consumer more? Look at how much one channel may be a la carte on Dish and other providers. $4-$5 a channel adds up quickly.

Depends on who you are. If you only really care about a handful of channels (especially niche channels in higher packages) it could save money.

And there is no reason a la carte cannot coexist with bundles. Contracts can continue to offer providers cheap bundle prices and expensive a la carte prices.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Ala-cart will only happen in this country, over the dead bodies of the current cable/satellite executives, that make their money off of the forced bundling system they have today. Unfortunately, it means we will be paying more and more in the mean time , to keep a few channels we do like. I do hope that some day that the government would legally force them to end forced bundling, but money talks in D.C. and I don't see anyone with money, lobbying on the behalf of the customer and ala cart.

 

[Voyager6]

The problem is that the cable and sat providers ARE NOT the ones requiring the bundling. It is the content providers that REQUIRE the cable and sat providers to take the additional channels. IMO, this will cost consumers more per month.

 

[orlyPR]

Other consideration, Canada have the 32,000,000 (2006) pop while USA have 316,000,000 (2012). In usa are more cable sub than in canada, in usa are more profitable. of course coexist bundle and a-la-carte are a great deal, for example, Dish America package + FX OR Welcome Pack + Discovery Suite OR AT120 + NatGeo.

 

[DJdish]

And pricing a la carte is usually lower in Canada, say $3 w Bell, $1 with Shaw, compare that with $5 w Dish

 

[Yespage]

I know a lot of people are all for this. However, what if this ends up costing the consumer more? Look at how much one channel may be a la carte on Dish and other providers. $4-$5 a channel adds up quickly.

But if I paid $60 a month for the 10 or 15 channels I actually wanted verses $80 a month for 60 to 70, I'd be quite happy. In the end, maybe a majority would stick with bundles because of an implied value, but others like me (who a bit more frugal) would be willing to lose something to save a decent amount of cash.

 

[StevenD]

This would be great, especially if I could subscribe to certain channels only when I want. For instance, I only need ESPN (the most expensive channel) about 4 months a year.

 

[rajmarie]

This would be great, especially if I could subscribe to certain channels only when I want. For instance, I only need ESPN (the most expensive channel) about 4 months a year.

I use premiums like this only. Get it when needed. Plus currently has to sub to at200 rather then at120 due to couple of channels that wife watches. Option here can save me money

 

[miguelaqui]

I would love a la carte so I wouldn't have to pay for ESPN!

 

[Stargazer]

Perhaps if things go well in Canada then USA will come on board with this as well.

 

[orlyPR]

This would be great, especially if I could subscribe to certain channels only when I want. For instance, I only need ESPN (the most expensive channel) about 4 months a year.

If ESPN goes to a la carte, a sport pack w/ESPN suite $15.00 per month, but AT120 drop $5.00, is a great deal.

 

[Laddyboy]

If ESPN goes to a la carte, a sport pack w/ESPN suite $15.00 per month, but AT120 drop $5.00, is a great deal.

I doubt $15 would cover it. The difference is $10 currently for just the RSNs. ESPN wants to start at $8 and escalate upward annually from what I've read.

 

[CK SatGuy]

I was hearing about this a couple days ago. There a thread on digitalhome.ca about this and everyone is worried that the TV providers will jack up the prices (just like when the government forced the wireless providers to switch to 2 year contracts from 3 year contracts, they apparently jacked up those prices to make up any lost revenue).
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=188010

Full disclosure: I recently became a member on that forum and I said they were lucky their government is considering this while we here in the U.S. are still stuck paying for bundles. Again we'll see what happens but if it becomes successful, hopefully the U.S. will follow suit.

 

[Gobucks]

If ESPN goes to a la carte, a sport pack w/ESPN suite $15.00 per month, but AT120 drop $5.00, is a great deal.

That would be great but then I bet the DVR fee would go up $2 then box lease prices would go up $3. Just like when the so called "freeze" took place. Fees were still raised. I doubt we ever get a break. No reason to really complain though. If it gets to expensive we can always cancel.

 

[Jim5506]

You can bet that the programming providers and the carriers will not get less revenue, whether they deliver it bundled or a-la-carte, it will only shuffle who pays what around, the gross will remain the same.

The current situation occurred because carriers were racing to grab more and more channels to provide.

I believe that has cooled off some, but there is a lot of inertia toward the status quo and nothing but the plaintive cries of a few for change.

Since there is little or no way for subscribers to express their preference (no competing carrier does a-la-carte and is succeeding with it), the future outlook is for no change.

Unless the economics change the business plan will remain the same.

 

[TheKrell]

You can bet that the programming providers and the carriers will not get less revenue, whether they deliver it bundled or a-la-carte, it will only shuffle who pays what around, the gross will remain the same.

You are dead wrong, and all programming providers... ALL PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS would have long ago unbundled if they could get the same revenue from fewer channels. They know it, I know it, Dish knows it, the Canadian government knows it, most of us here know it. Why do you keep saying this? (Why do I keep saying what I'm saying? Argh!)

I think you must have a hidden agenda.

 

[tedb3rd]

I can see the next headlines: "Disney, Fox, and ESPN networks declare war on Canada."