sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

September 7, 2016 10:26 am  #1


CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

The CRTC is taking a closer look at whether the big guys (namely Bell and Rogers) have actually tried to adhere to the spirit of the skinny basic mandate laid down by the Commission earlier this year. Apparently, the fate of their licence renewals hangs in the balance if they’re found not in compliance.
 
While all of the major cable/sat providers will come with their big legal guns insisting they’ve done everything by the book – despite massive subscriber complaints to the CRTC to the contrary - I’m guessing it will be Bell that has the hardest time making its case, since their skinny basic package was almost anorexic.
 
Not only does it contain almost nothing worth watching (including several CPAC-like provincial services to help inflate the number of channels) but they’re also increased prices for essentials like set top boxes and other incidental charges those on the regular tiers don’t have to pay.
 
My guess? The CRTC will make it look like they’re doing something pro-consumer and in the end, do nothing of any significance. Which means there will be no major consequences if they’re found not to be in compliance, as lawyers tear apart the term “spirit” of the mandate.
 
And the game will continue.

Next up: forced a la carte offerings, beginning in December. That should be equally interesting. 
 
Television providers defend skinny TV packages at CRTC hearing following consumer complaints

Last edited by RadioActive (September 7, 2016 10:27 am)

 

September 7, 2016 11:18 am  #2


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

Because I’m part masochist, I actually watched part of the hearing on CPAC’s online feed. It featured the people from Rogers, trying to explain how they did everything in their power to promote and fairly price their skinny basic package.

Here are some (and I use the term loosely) “highlights.”
 
When asked how they promoted the skinny basic package, as per the CRTC mandate one Rogers rep responded, ‘We were pretty out there.’ They said they used community forums (did anyone hear about these being called or go to them?) ‘prominent’ placement on their website' (can anyone corroborate they could find this information easily?) and my favourite, direct mail to inform consumers about the new basic tier. (Did anyone here receive a single piece of junk mail from Rogers even remotely mentioning the new package? ) 
 
“And we proactively reached out to the press on the subject.” (Hmm, must have missed that coverage somehow.) They also claim they did ‘major research’ and asked consumers about what they’d like to see in a skinny basic package before releasing their final offer. And they insist they spent “an extraordinary amount of time on training” customer reps on the new slimmed down offerings. Can’t comment on that one, since I would never call Rogers to find out. But did anyone here have any contact with them about this? What were you told?)
 
Does anyone believe any of the above statements? How does lightning not strike these people?

At one point, a commissioner asked about reports that some companies told their reps to deliberately downplay the new package if they called to ask about it, a story that got prominence in the press. Rogers denied they ever did that, with one rep replying wryly, "no we're not the company that did anything like that." (Hmm, wonder what other firm they could be referring to?) 
  
Meanwhile, the CRTC commissioner asked what Rogers was going to do for the upcoming a la carte shift in December. Surprise! The answer was ‘we can provide you a list of channels, but we’re still negotiating the prices – and we’ll be doing so right up to the deadline.’ Which means the commission won’t know if they’re planning to make the pick and pay channels so expensive no one in their right mind will want to choose them, until well after the program goes into effect - and the licence renewals are well past.

Can't wait to see what Bell has to say for itself.  

Last edited by RadioActive (September 7, 2016 11:20 am)

     Thread Starter
 

September 7, 2016 11:55 am  #3


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

As usual, Rogers refrains from telling the CRTC what they told me:
"Sure, you can now have skinny basic, but then your PVR will no longer be free and you will be billed $25 on top of your skinny basic...do you record shows sir?...I'd leave your cable the way it is..."
(something along those lines...)

Any monkey can hook up a VCR or DVD recorder, I suppose, but I LOVE rewinding live TV.
 


RadioWiz & RadioQuiz are NOT the same person. 
RadioWiz & THE Wiz are NOT the same person.

 
 

September 7, 2016 4:00 pm  #4


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

I watched all of Bell’s excruciating appearance before the CRTC (they just adjourned, as I post this.) But there was one admission that was frankly stunning.
 
When questioned regarding a CBC-originated story about Bell customer service reps (CSRs) being told to downplay or avoid mentioning the new skinny basic tier, Bell admitted that there was some “material” that did, in fact, do that.
 
“There was what I would call an unfortunate incident in the early training of CSRs in Atlantic Canada,” admitted Bell’s Robert Malcomson, “where some training materials were not accurately reflective of our obligation to promote.” He then insisted they were “taken out of play” and further stated that while they were "developed," they were never used.
 
It means it actually DID happen. And they never explained how that document was created in the first place – or why. Unfortunately, that question was not asked. But I would have loved to have heard their explanation.
 
In the meantime, Bell claims that it thoroughly promotes skinny basic on its website and in its stores, insisting that fulfills the CRTC mandate to promote the cheaper package. 
 
By the way, the phone behemoth apparently added the U.S. networks to their starter package on June 20th, something the CRTC admittedly didn’t require them to do. But all their major competition had it and it took them months to finally include it – although they say it was included on a “free preview” basis at launch in March.
 
At one point, commissioner MacDonald read a complaint from a Quebec customer who wanted to downgrade to skinny basic, but also subscribed to Bell’s telephone and Internet services. And guess what? “They said if I chose that service my telephone will increase by $20 month and my Internet by $30. I find it abusive…” he complained to the CRTC. 
 
Bell’s (non-)response? “Without knowing more specifics, [we can’t answer]” claimed content V.P. Payal Gabrani-Bahl. “The CSR should have done a better job.” She admitted it shouldn’t have happened but added that certain offers that are linked to the TV package might be to blame. But she couldn’t and ultimately didn’t, explain it.
 
Bell also says it will be introducing Fibe without the need to also subscribe to its Internet service – something they previously insisted wasn’t possible. That is, until a press release was issued - just one day before the hearing, which commissioner MacDonald termed “interesting timing.”  
 
And just for the record, Bell remains the same bloated entity it’s always been. While Rogers made it through the hearing with just three representatives, Bell had at least six people sitting at the panel, although only two did the majority of speaking.

Last edited by RadioActive (September 7, 2016 4:01 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

September 7, 2016 4:38 pm  #5


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

Prime Minister Kevin O'Leary will clean out that gang in a hurry

​g.

 

September 7, 2016 5:25 pm  #6


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

I was very disappointed no one at the CRTC bothered to ask Bell about its anemic Starter package. Although they've augmented it a bit since it was first launched, most of the press coverage back in March agreed that Bell was essentially giving the middle finger to the commission by offering such "great" programming as:

-APTN
-The Weather Network
-Both CPACs
-RDI, TFO, TV 5, TVA and V, all French stations that few in English Canada have even heard of, let alone watch.

And the list goes on and on. Well, actually, it doesn't go on much past that. It's not worth 25 cents, let alone $25, and it doesn't take much TV knowledge to tell that.  

Yet there wasn't one word about which stations Bell chose to offer. I was hoping it might at least come up somewhere, but the CRTC said absolutely nothing about these anemic offerings. At least they finally added the U.S. networks, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't what the commission intended when they drew up this supposedly "consumer-friendly" plan. 

     Thread Starter
 

September 7, 2016 6:45 pm  #7


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

The only way for this to possibly work is for the CRTC to regulate every little detail. Exact channel list, price, bundling policy, exact equipment price, CSR scripts, and promotional font sizes. And they won't, obviously.

 

September 7, 2016 7:33 pm  #8


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

Don wrote:

    The only way for this to possibly work is...         

Not  the only way....

Voting with your wallet helps too...









 


  
 

September 7, 2016 7:39 pm  #9


Re: CRTC Opens Hearing Into “Spirit” Of Skinny Basic Cable

I guess I meant - The only way for the CRTC to make this work.

Say what you want about Bell/Rogers/Shaw, but they know how to make money in the short term. If "skinny-basic" made any business sense, they would have done it already. There were no regulations stopping them.

If the CRTC wants to force something that doesn't make short-term business sense, they have to go all-in.

Last edited by Don (September 7, 2016 7:40 pm)