1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Canadian government: 'We want to unbundle television channels'

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by bradleys, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. bradleys

    bradleys It'll be fine....

    3,687
    4
    Oct 31, 2007
    The problem with this aproach is that it could cost you more money for fewer channels. On the other side of the coin, I would love to get rid of all the sports channels and reduce my bill.

    I NEVER watch sports and they are the most expensive channels in the line-up.


    http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/14/...nment-we-want-to-unbundle-television-channels
     
  2. tomhorsley

    tomhorsley Active Member

    1,172
    4
    Jul 22, 2010
  3. bradleys

    bradleys It'll be fine....

    3,687
    4
    Oct 31, 2007
    It is the Century of the FruitBat? :confused:

    Then I would have to pay attention to what my kids are buying, set-up and monitor some kind of budget... ugghhh, that would be painful.

    Individuals think they will get content cheaper if TV were unbundled, but that really isn't going the be the case. I suspect you would find a la cart pricing to be extremely expensive once you build a package of content you really want.

    The stuff you do not watch adds pennies to your bill, the popular stuff you do watch is what costs you!

    About the only ones that "might" save money on unbundled packages, would be those of us that watch no sports at all. Currently the sports programming is the most expensive component of the bundled package.

    However, loosing those of us that do not watch sports would raise the price even more for those that do... I am actually okay with that! :)
     
  4. tivogurl

    tivogurl New Member

    1,169
    0
    Dec 15, 2004
    That's not the only problem. It is very likely that marginal channels will disappear entirely if unbundled. I doubt your bill will drop any, though. Hardly an improvement with regard to programming breadth.
     
  5. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,504
    177
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Ehhhh.... I doubt it will lower the cost enough to actually make a big difference.
     
  6. tim1724

    tim1724 Member TCF Club

    257
    5
    Jul 3, 2007
    Temple City, CA
    Check your calendar. We're in the Century of the Anchovy now. :)
     
  7. tvmaster2

    tvmaster2 Active Member

    2,057
    4
    Sep 9, 2006
    the only reason I can see Harper's Conservative government doing this is to pay back some deep-pockets companies like Rogers and Bell. If all the smaller companies have to go it alone without packaging, they'll likely either fold or have to accept cheap buy-out offers from the big guys.
    If Stephen Harper is behind it, it's not for the good of the people, it's to repay someone he is in debt to....pretty much
     
  8. swerver

    swerver Member

    223
    0
    May 18, 2012
    You can use amazon or other services now to get shows a la carte, and yes it will cost you much more than just subscribing to cable, unless you have a short list of shows you want to watch and don't care about anything else.
     
  9. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,504
    177
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    The current system of "buying" shows for $3/episode is way to expensive. They need a system like Netflix or Hulu where you pay a flat monthly fee and can watch anything you want. The only problem with that is there are so many content providers to deal with I'm not sure if they could ever pull something like that off.
     
  10. Worf

    Worf Active Member

    1,990
    4
    Sep 15, 2000
    Canadian TV channels have generallly prepared for this day. If you observe, a lot of good shows have now spread themselves throughout the channel networks, so if you want to watch your usual programming, you'll have to buy huge chunks of channels now. So you end up saving nothing because you need to buy History and H2 and all the other channels, Discovery and all those other networks at the same time.

    The other change is the loss of specialization - remember when History used to show historical dramas and documentaries? Now they're doing all sorts of reality TV. Why? Because instead of being able to specialize and appeal as better TV, they now have to cater and aim for the lowest common denominator. Need to stick in some idiotic mind-numbing reality show about people slapping each other so the channel can get enough viewers so air that one WWII documentary that their core audience wanted to watch.

    It's how the channels have adapted their programming for the a la carte world. Hell, it's the only reason why Discovery would show Sharknado during Shark Week. Well, next year they're going to have Sharknado 1-7 airing just because the public liked it or whatever. Or go with any reality show now that has to add "drama" and "conflict" (like Pawn Stars, Deadliest Catch, etc) - stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

    Buying per program sounds appealing, but I wonder if it will degrade all programming to the point where it's basically all unwatchable because every show is trying to build as big an audience as possible to get as much money as possible.

    Remember, more audience is more money, so everyone's going to go for the biggest crowd to get the most money. Earning money "the hard way" through good stories is much more risky (think Breaking Bad style). And when everyone is seeking money, you cannot expect good programming. (Hell, PBS may be the only channel left that's willing to give quality programming purely because it's not all about money?)
     
  11. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,697
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    Although I agree with you, one must understand that different people have different definitions as to what is a quality program.
     
  12. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,743
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    I didn't RTFA, but I would GLADLY pay the *same* amount of money I pay now *for the specific channels I care about*. (Essentially the same ones I turn off in "Channels I receive" even though I DO receive them, or ones I never actually watch any shows on..)

    I *want* there to be some survival of the fittest among channels. Make the ESPN fans actually pay what it really costs. (I watch poker shows, and a VERY few other shows on ESPN. I would probably grumble, but do the price comparison over paying individually for WSOP for example, while turning off ESPN generally.) Yes, I know this would probably end up with more Kardashian shows on, but it also might mean more premium channels with HBO quality shows on.

    (I would gladly pay *per episode* if it ended up the same price or even slightly more than cable now, if I could get it all without commercials.. But not at the RIDICULOUS prices the various services charge per episode now.)
     
  13. TC25D

    TC25D New Member

    202
    0
    Aug 21, 2013
    'Could' cost you more money?

    What program, from any govt, that promised lower cost, more choice, etc., actually has?
     
  14. porges

    porges Member

    438
    0
    Feb 28, 2001
    Breaking up AT&T seemed to have worked out OK.
     
  15. tvmaster2

    tvmaster2 Active Member

    2,057
    4
    Sep 9, 2006
    it did? I thought ClearChannel owned everything since that ruling, and that has nearly ruined radio and journalism in general
     
  16. TC25D

    TC25D New Member

    202
    0
    Aug 21, 2013
    Based on what evidence?
     
  17. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    You no longer have to rent your house phone?:confused:
     
  18. porges

    porges Member

    438
    0
    Feb 28, 2001
    I'm not sure what this is about; I was talking about the 1980s breakup of The Phone Company. (Obviously, in the current mobile market most of the benefits of that are now irrelevant.)
     
  19. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,389
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Those are two different things.

    The AT&T breakup was an anti-monopoly move, while the broadcast outlet ownership rules relaxation was more like a pro-monopoly thing.
     
  20. tvmaster2

    tvmaster2 Active Member

    2,057
    4
    Sep 9, 2006
    yes, but you have to admit the momentum to relax media ownership regulations pretty much got a green light because of how people responded to the AT&T breakup...it's convoluted, but it was the start of a bad thing. People thought, "oh, the government has done us a real solid..keep going"
    Which they did, of course, on multiple levels.
     

Share This Page