1 of 1- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline 
CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
Well this could be interesting. The CRTC has announced that it’s holding a hearing in early September to ask the major TV providers in this country how well they’ve implemented the so-called ‘skinny basic’ package that came into effect March 1st.
The idea is to see if they’ve met the criteria and more importantly, the spirit of the new regulations. While I think most of the big guys have reluctantly fulfilled the mandate – while adding extra charges like installation and billing for receivers and DVRS to pad any potential losses – I will be very interested to see how Bell defends its actions.
In Bell's case, if you only want to pay $25 for its unctuous offerings, it will cost you $46.99 every month – plus tax, which will bring the amount up to the mid $50’s. Add the one time installation and the first month alone balloons to more than $250. Not so skinny any more.
It’s been generally acknowledged that their streamlined package is a farce, consisting of a large number of French stations, government public access outlets like CPAC and as few real choices that anyone actually watches - with no U.S. channels at all. A lot of journalists have called their offering a “middle finger” to the CRTC, and it will be fascinating to see how the commission responds. Supposedly, each company’s licence renewal is at stake, so it’s no small matter.
In its somewhat tepid response to the CRTC, Bell claims it has received only seven – count em! – seven complaints about its ludicrous skinny basic offering, which seems almost unbelievable. They address each one, essentially saying each gripe either is a mistake on the part of the consumer or isn’t required by the new regs and therefore they’re not at fault.
The CRTC has gone on record about being “consumer friendly.” Or at least it did in the Harper era. I have no idea what the Liberals will do, but perhaps we’ll find out when the hearings start on Sept. 7th. Anyone who wants to submit a comment can do so before June 23rd. I’m hoping Bell’s appearance will be more entertaining than anything they’ve currently got on their anorexic basic package and that the CRTC gives them the finger right back. We’ll see.
CRTC summons top TV providers for review of pick-and-pay rollout
Last edited by RadioActive (May 24, 2016 12:08 pm)
- tvguy
- Member
Offline
Re: CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
The selection of channels in "skinny basic" isn't the "fault" of the cable cos. They wanted to offer "more" value. The CRTC said no. French channels are mandatory - regardless whether anyone in S. Ontario watches them or wants them. The CRTC designated some channels as mandatory - including CPAC, and other "odd" choices such as APTN. The only thing that was optional - was the 4 main US networks and PBS. Even distant signals (Canadian) have been restricted - except for some rural areas. The real problem is once you "buy" skinny basic, the cost for sports channels, or channels such as AMC is very high. That's a combination of the owners of those channels seeking high wholesale rates, to make up for any loss of subs from the former packages.
- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline
Re: CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
True, but all the other big providers at least included the basic U.S. networks. Bell is the only one that deliberately left them out, which I'm hoping the CRTC will see isn't in the "spirit" of the rules.
Did Bell follow the regs? Technically yes.
Do I believe they only got seven complaints from their millions of customers? Absolutely not,
Did they violate the idea of what the CRTC was trying to accomplish? I would say a definitive yes, and judging by the dozens of newspaper articles and the thousands of online comments I've seen about this, many would agree with that assessment. But I guess we'll find out for sure sometime in September. Doesn't help that so many of those on the commission came from Bell and Rogers in the first place.
- •
Thread Starter- Don
- Unregistered
Re: CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
If including the US networks was in the "Spirit" of the law, then they should have mandated it. Meanwhile, Videotron in Montreal asked to include CJOH Ottawa in the package because of its history in the market, and the CRTC said "no."
Of course people are complaining...everyone wants more for less, and the CRTC fooled them into thinking that was how it was going to play out.
The only way this would 'work' would be for the CRTC to mandate every aspect. These channels, this price, these fees for equipment/installation, these bundling practices. And they're not going to do that....becuase all they're looking for is a PR play with a catchy brand name.
If the cable/telcos want to sacrifice their long term viablility for today's profits, then fine...let them. There's been more ink spilled on worrying if we have to buy the Weather Network to get TSN than about the affodability of food and housing. Rent? Charge what you want. Cable packages? These must be regulated.
Last edited by Don (May 24, 2016 8:59 pm)
- Prod Guy
- Unregistered
Re: CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
tvguy wrote:
The selection of channels in "skinny basic" isn't the "fault" of the cable cos. They wanted to offer "more" value. The CRTC said no. French channels are mandatory - regardless whether anyone in S. Ontario watches them or wants them. The CRTC designated some channels as mandatory - including CPAC, and other "odd" choices such as APTN. The only thing that was optional - was the 4 main US networks and PBS. Even distant signals (Canadian) have been restricted - except for some rural areas. The real problem is once you "buy" skinny basic, the cost for sports channels, or channels such as AMC is very high. That's a combination of the owners of those channels seeking high wholesale rates, to make up for any loss of subs from the former packages.
I disagree. I posted some of the channels a couple of months ago. These are some of the channels...
VCTV Valemount (CHVC-TV) is southeastern British Columbia's community television station. Programming includes community information, weather forecasts and road conditions.
CFTV Leamington
CHCO-TV, Charlotte County Television, is an independent community channel focusing on public-access content from the southern part of New Brunswick. Viewers are treated to arts, culture, sports and public affairs programs.
CHET-TV Chetwynd
Four channels NO ONE would want instead of, say, NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox. Valemount is a tiny town in the foothills of the Rockies where no one lives and its community access channel gets national distribution in Bell's Skinny Basic package? Someone in a boardroom in Toronto obviously said, "Let's literally make this package the worst thing in Canadian TV history."
Last edited by Prod Guy (May 25, 2016 11:15 pm)
- Old Codger
- Unregistered
Re: CRTC Hearings To Show If "Spirit" Of Skinny Basic Has Been Achieved
The CRTC has lent a heavy hand in creating the plethora of problems afflicting the Canadian broadcasting 'industry'. We need an agency to keep THEM in check too.
Idiots.
Last edited by Old Codger (May 26, 2016 8:17 am)