This fall, two new all-sports networks are being launched. One, RDS2, is owned by Bell Media. The other, TVA Sports, is owned by Quebecor's Groupe TVA.

Personally, I think this is good news. Competition for viewers will do good things, like bring Montreal Impact games to the TV screen. And the CRTC has determined that sports channels - currently the most profitable format - are healthy enough that they shouldn't be restricted from competition. (Not healthy enough for Radio-Canada and Rogers to jump in the fray, but still healthy).

But you can't get TVA Sports if you're a subscriber to Bell TV. And it's not clear if you'll be able to get RDS2 if you subscribe to Videotron (it has deals with only Bell and Shaw so far). That may change (RDS2 is most likely doomed to failure if it can't get Videotron carriage), but even if it's just a delay, this is yet another example of two companies whose affiliated television distribution services are giving undue preference to their affiliated specialty channels.

Another example in the sports sphere is TSN Habs, a part-time regional offshoot of the TSN channel that has regional English-language broadcast rights to some Canadiens games. It's available on Bell TV, but not on Videotron, despite Videotron's huge subscriber base in Quebec, where I understand the Canadiens are popular - even among anglophones.

Sports isn't the only type of channel where this problem exists. In the past few years, broadcasters have applied for and received dozens of licenses for unregulated specialty channels - the so-called "Category 2" channels that aren't protected from competition and have low requirements for Canadian and original content. In exchange for some liberties in programming, the channels have no guaranteed carriage, so cable and satellite companies can choose whether or not to include them in their lineups, and the broadcasters can choose to charge whatever they would like.

Quebecor has been particularly active in this field, launching a bunch of new channels (including TVA Sports), many of them in high definition. In all cases, those channels are immediately carried on Quebecor-owned Videotron's cable system, but few of them are on Bell TV.

To give you an idea of what's going on here, I've compiled a table below of specialty channels owned by the big cable and satellite companies (Cogeco is included for reference, but doesn't own any specialty channels). I've limited the list to those channels that are either Category 2 (unregulated, with no guaranteed carriage) or that have high-definition feeds available.

I've marked in bold where a service is offered by the affiliated distributor that is not offered by at least two of its competitors, suggesting undue preference. I've marked in red where the opposite is true, where a service is not offered by the affiliated company but is offered by at least one competitor.

(Q)/(O): Denotes channels that Cogeco carries in Quebec or Ontario only.

*Discovery World HD, a separately licensed channel, is available on Videotron.

**The situation with Sun News is complicated by the fact that a conventional TV station was broadcasting its content. Rogers, Cogeco and Bell carried the conventional signal, but Sun News asked Bell to pull the channel or start paying for it.

You can see in the chart 12 instances among the 37 channels where there is evidence of undue preference. This does not necessarily prove such a thing - there could be all sorts of reasons to choose whether or not to carry a channel - but it's annoying nonetheless for customers who want a certain channel and can't get it for no apparent reason other than it's owned by the wrong cable company.

You'll also see four (UPDATE: five) instances where a service isn't offered by the affiliated company. It's worth noting that all of those services predate their ownership by the affiliated cable/satellite company.

The CRTC actually has a rule against this sort of thing. It's called "undue preference", and it is supposed to prevent just this sort of thing. The problem is that it's hard to prove. Negotiations between broadcasters and distributors are secret, and we don't know how much each distributor is paying for each channel.

Still, this may come to a head soon. Sun News has filed a complaint with the CRTC alleging undue preference on the part of Bell when it pulled the station's signal and refused to pay for it.

Hopefully the CRTC will take a close look at this issue and do something about it before the flood of new channels makes the problem - and viewers' frustrations - even worse.

Quebecor begins hypocritical outrage campaign

UPDATE (Sept. 20): QMI Agency has published a joke of a news article by Raphaël Gendron-Martin. It quotes only TVA's Pierre Dion bashing Bell and Cogeco for not carrying TVA Sports, and makes no apparent attempt to contact Cogeco or Bell for comment. The hit piece appears in the Journal de Montréal (on the front page), 24 Heures, TVA Nouvelles and Argent (twice). Dion also appeared on LCN and TVA's Salut Bonjour, where again no apparent attempt was made to contact Cogeco or Bell for comment, no mention was made of RDS2 or TSN's Habs channel not being on Videotron, and Dion went unchallenged on anything he said. (In the case of Salut Bonjour, it's clear host Gino Chouinard is being fed his questions and even refers to Dion as "boss" at the end.)

Despite what I am unfortunately forced to conclude (to use Dion's logic) was an organized misinformation campaign from Quebecor that abused its media power, Cogeco did respond by way of an open letter (PDF) that was also published on Facebook. Cogeco said it was interested in carrying TVA Sports and even made an offer that TVA refused.

No (public) word yet from Bell.

I sent an email to Gendron-Martin asking him about his article. He responded by pointing to full-page piece in Tuesday's paper by Danny Joncas, which quotes representatives of Bell and Cogeco. Gendron-Martin did not respond to questions about why he didn't contact Bell or Cogeco before writing his piece, nor why he didn't mention Videotron not carrying RDS2, nor whether he was ordered by his employer to write this article in this way.

Joncas's reaction piece was not posted online, either by the Journal or by any other QMI website. The original article from Gendron-Martin still appears on those websites unaltered, with no indication that there has since been a response.

Joncas's piece quotes both Bell and Cogeco saying these negotiations should be conducted privately instead of in the media, and that both are negotiating with TVA. It also says TVA rejected Cogeco's offer because it wanted better placement in Cogeco's specialty channel packages.

UPDATE (Sept. 23): The CRTC has released new rules concerning this issue (press release, decision, Globe and Mail story). It offers some specific rules (no mobile/Internet exclusivity deals for TV programs), but also includes a lot of rules barring things that are "unreasonable" or "excessive", which leaves a lot of room for disagreement over what qualifies as unreasonable.

It also pushes off a lot of decisions until later, including whether cable and satellite companies should be required to offer à la carte subscriptions (though they seem to be moving in that direction).

Whether those new rules will change how these big telecom companies deal with each other is to be seen.

Related Posts

• Some truth about Sun TV News
• Community lacking in community TV
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• Battle of the fee-for-carriage misinformation campaigns
• CRTC Roundup: Details on CJNT/CHCH sale

The CRTC will be holding a hearing this month about community television, and at least one group is hoping they will close loopholes (or even just curb abuses that aren't even loopholes) that allow cable companies to use these channels as promotional arms.

The CRTC requires cable companies to devote 5% of their gross revenues to Canadian programming. Of that, 2% must go to a community channel, kind of like those "cable access channels" we hear about in the U.S.

Even though it's a very small fraction of their money, the cable companies decided they would put it to good use. Instead of just giving it over to an independent community broadcaster, they'd run their own community networks. Rogers uses the moniker RogersTV. With Videotron, it's VOX. Shaw TV, TVCogeco, you get the idea.

The problem with having the cable companies in control is that this can lead to abuses. Rogers is being accused of having too much advertising. Others of not keeping proper records (which, admittedly, is a chronic problem for many low-budget broadcasters).

But the biggest problem seems to be that the programming itself isn't fulfilling its mandate:

The CRTC audits found that Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, and Persona all classified staff-produced news and other programming-even MTV promos in one instance-as "access programming". Some Eastlink systems reported no access programming at all.

"The CRTC's data show that Canada's 'community' channels have become promotional tools for cable companies," said Catherine Edwards, spokesperson for CACTUS.

A look at VOX, Videotron's community channel, and you can see what they mean. A show devoted to TVA's Star Académie. A show put together by a (former) Quebecor-owned weekly newspaper. Quebecor personalities are all over the schedule.

Sure, there's the "Mise à jour [city name here]", and the half hour where they show traffic cameras. But I don't see much access here, nor do they make obvious how someone could get involved.

Perhaps the era of community television is over. We no longer need cable access when we have Internet access. People can just put their videos on YouTube. (Ratings certainly suggest that, with market shares of 0.1 and 0.2%.)

But until the CRTC makes that determination, cable companies should start playing by the rules - the spirit as well as the letter.

UPDATE (May 15): La Presse's Marc Cassivi also thinks Vox isn't doing what it should as far as community programming.

Related Posts

• Rogers missing the point
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Battle of the fee-for-carriage misinformation campaigns
• CRTC Roundup: Videotron must closed-caption porn
• CRTC Roundup: Rogers gets its own CP24

Here's a comparison chart to give you an idea of how they match head-to-head on à la carte packages:

Both Bell and Videotron tack on a $3 "network access fee" and a 1.5% LPIF fee, neither of which are included in their advertised prices (and aren't included in this table). None of the prices include installation, equipment rental, or bundle rebates (which is why Bell's basic rates are $10 more than advertised).

It's no coincidence that Bell's basic + 30 is the same price as Videotron's, that's the whole point behind Bell's offering, which is only available in Quebec. People in Ontario who might want to benefit from this aren't allowed to for no good reason other than Bell is better able to screw them over.

CBC asked the Competition Bureau about this obviously targetted pricing, but they said it would actually increase competition between Bell and Videotron in Quebec, and be good for consumers here. That's true, but it's obviously unfair to consumers in Ontario and elsewhere who won't have à la carte packages for the sole reason that Bell doesn't have a competitor in those areas willing to offer that option.

The CRTC should look into this, and consider requiring direct-to-home satellite providers to give the same options to customers in all areas unless provincial or local regulations make different demands.

UPDATE: Elias Makos points out something I hadn't noticed: Bell excludes a number of popular channels from its à la carte offering, including CNN, A&E, TLC, MuchMusic and Teletoon. You have to get a separate package for that.

In related news, Bell will also be offering remote DVR programming using Sling Media technology. This will be useful for people who forget to set their DVR to record a show while they're gone - now they can go online and remotely program it from the office or wherever they are.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• CRTC Roundup: Details on CJNT/CHCH sale
• Community lacking in community TV
• Welcome, TSN2
• My new, cheap remote control

On Wednesday morning, TSN2 went live on Videotron's Illico digital cable feed, on Channel 61 (681 in HD). GOL TV, which formerly occupied No. 61, has moved to 58. Channel 661 (the more logical place for the HD feed) is Rogers SportsNet HD, which will no doubt cause some confusion because SportsNet East SD is 81.

The channel is free for anyone who has access to TSN. Similarly for the HD feed.

TSN2 isn't quite like any other channel. Its license actually requires it to mostly duplicate content from the main channel with a three-hour delay. And that's because the license for the network wasn't designed for the purpose TSN is branding it to become (essentially a Canadian equivalent of ESPN2).

Here's the deal: TSN is a national network airing mostly live sporting events (hockey, football, curling, all the good stuff). But live game of the major sports leagues are also really finnicky about television rights. Some of them might enforce a blackout on local television coverage if the arena isn't sold out for a home game. Others have exclusive deals with a local station or network, and so require regional blackouts. Others take their orders from Zorxon the Great and just declare blackouts randomly. So a sports network like TSN (and particularly the Rogers SportsNet regional networks) would be required to black out its programming for certain regions.

To help with this problem, the CRTC allowed TSN to split its network, both timewise - having a west coast feed on a three-hour delay - and to substitute other programming to replace blackouts, like another game. To make sure that TSN didn't use this privilege to create a second network, they limited the amount of replacement programming to 10% of the schedule, which works out to 2.4 hours a day.

In 2008, TSN decided to rebrand this split network and "launch" what it called TSN2. Now there would be ads about what's on this new network (that ran on all of CTV's television properties), and the fact that it's 90% the same as TSN was downplayed as much as possible. Besides, 2.4 hours means they can do what they want between 8pm and 10pm every day. Important events would air on TSN, but equally important events that happened at the same time would air instead on TSN2, and the network made sure everyone knew about that.

The reaction from the public was predictable. Having been told that their favourite sports programming would air on a network that they didn't have access to, they followed TSN's instructions ("For more information about TSN2, viewers are encouraged to contact their television provider") and began badgering their cable and satellite providers. One by one they folded, and began carrying the second network.

Videotron was one of the holdouts, but it was just a matter of time before they too were forced to add the channel. There was a petition, a Facebook group, and all sorts of rumours about when Videotron would add the channel to its Illico digital cable lineup (Pierre Trudel had it "concrete" that it would launch Sept. 30).

This week the rumours were confirmed by various sources inside Videotron, and the service went live as scheduled. TSN sent out a press release about it, boasting that it's now in 4.5 million Canadian homes and is the most-watched digital cable sports network.

I'm certainly not opposed to more sports networks. Even the CRTC has admitted it's time to deregulate them and allow them to compete. Still, I think TSN should just ask for a license for another sports network to air separate programming. Instead, it will eventually go back to the CRTC and say that this arrangement is unworkable, and that it needs more leeway for more alternative programming (no doubt playing it as being better for the consumer) and the CRTC will cave, basically handing TSN the keys to a new specialty sports network.

In the meantime, I won't say no to the channel. I'm just glad I don't have to pay extra for it.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Community lacking in community TV
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• My new, cheap remote control
• CRTC Roundup: Details on CJNT/CHCH sale

My new remote, much like the old one

Yesterday, I did something stupid.

Actually, I did many things stupid. First, I put my glass of orange juice on a table I knew perfectly well wasn't stable. Then I wasn't careful when I sat down, knocking the table and causing the glass to spill onto my remote controls.

Then, thinking I was brilliant, I decided to rinse the orange juice off my Videotron illico remote (taking the batteries out first to avoid short-circuits). It worked, in that the orange juice stickiness was gone. But being impatient, I put the batteries back in after only a couple of hours (the case was dry, but the internals were still soaked), and shortly thereafter started smelling the familiar scent of a blown capacitor.

So I was in the market for a new remote (I suppose I could have just tried to replace the capacitor, but I can't open the remote without breaking it and I value my sanity). It had been hours, and not only is walking the six feet to the television a horrible idea to even ponder, but the thought of pressing the "CH+" button a hundred times to switch between CTV and the Comedy Network made me want to shoot myself in the head.

Since the Illico remote has special functions (that aren't accessible on the box itself), I didn't want to get a general universal remote, and lose something important like the on-screen guide navigation. Looking at Videotron's website and that of electronics retailer Future Shop, I found both quoting a new Videotron-branded remote at $35. Thirty-five dollars for a plastic case, some buttons and an infrared transmitter. I'd blame Quebec union labour, but these things were made in South Korea.

Rather than pay that ridiculous price, I headed down to cheap electronics store Addison Electronique. They specialize in raw electronics. If you need a resistor, a switch or a breadboard, that's where you go. They suggested a similar remote that they said was compatible with Illico boxes, and it only costs $8.

Left: Videotron-branded RT-U49C-15+. Right: Pioneer BR-360

Though the Videotron remote is Videotron-branded, it's hardly unique. Rogers, Time Warner and other digital cable providers use identical remote controls and boxes by the same manufacturers, with only the branding changed. The Pioneer remote is supposed to go with a Pioneer-made digital cable box, but has a similar design and uses the same codes as the one used by Videotron.

I took a chance (Addison has a no-refunds-no-exchanges-it-doesn't-matter-if-it's-an-empty-box-you-ain't-getting-your-money-back policy), took the remote home and it worked perfectly once I got the AAs in.

The differences are minor. Missing on the knockoff remote are the "all" and "mode" buttons, the # button for HD zooming, the M1/M2 memory buttons and the favourite button, none of which I ever use. The device buttons don't light up, and there are a few buttons (Menu, help, day +/-) that don't do anything. But all the important stuff (guide, info, A/B/C, VCR-style controls for video on demand, and the usual remote functions) work fine.

In fact, I discovered the new remote had an extra feature the old one didn't: it communicates properly with my television set, something the old one never could achieve despite hours of entering programming codes. I can now remotely turn on and off the TV (and control its volume) with the same remote I use to change the channel.

So, if this new remote does all the same functions and is essentially equivalent in every way that matters, why does Videotron's remote cost more than four times as much?

UPDATE (Nov. 29): $8 too expensive for you? It's only $5 at Acces Electronique on the West Island.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Community lacking in community TV
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• Welcome, TSN2
• CRTC Roundup: Details on CJNT/CHCH sale

The purchase price for both stations is $12, specifically:

• Land $3.00
• Buildings $3.00
• Other Fixed Assets $3.00
• Goodwill $3.00

The stations would be financed through a loan of $4 million from CIBC and Brian C. Hurlburt, and $3 million from Channel Eleven. That would go to increasing the size of CHCH's newsroom and creating a new production facility at CJNT, plus eventually changing both stations to digital.

Canwest can pull out of the deal if CRTC approval is not given by Aug. 31. Channel Zero expects the CRTC will make a decision on the same day as the hearing, I guess.

The proposed programming grid for CHCH would be as follows:

• Weekdays: News and local progamming from 5:30am to 7pm, followed by two movies, news from 11-12, a repeat of the prime-time movies and a really-late-night movie from 4am to 5:30am
• Weekends: News and local programming from 6am to 1pm, followed by two movies, a one-hour 6pm newscast, two more movies, a one-hour 11pm newscast, and then three repeats of movies shown that day

The proposed programming grid for CJNT would look like this:

• Local ethnic programming in the morning and during the evening supper hours (four hours a day total)
• Music videos during the day
• International ethnic movies during prime time
• Movies (it's not clear if this would be ethnic or not) overnight

On how they'll bring the stations to get rich quick modest profit:

A short answer is that we will, if the application is approved, focus each of these stations on their core competency; news and local programming at CHCH and relevant and local multi-cultural programming at CJNT. We will not be relying on expensive first run U.S. programming and therefore we can bring the stations to modest profitability in a relatively short time frame.

A table of financial projections optimistically shows CJNT showing a profit as early as fiscal 2011, mainly due to the assumption that local advertising sales will have more than tripled by then, from $1.2 million a year to $4.3 million, despite the fact that they're replacing first-run U.S. shows by less-expensive movies in prime-time.

Similarly, ad sales at CHCH are expected to recover to $43 million a year (on par with pre-recession levels, optimistic since more than 80% of that advertising came from non-news programming which Channel Zero would be getting rid of), which combined with spending $30 million a year less on programming expenses, and the CRTC's new taxes on cable companies, would result in seven-figure profits beginning in fiscal 2012. Without its projected $4 million a year from fee for carriage (it predicts a "75% likelihood" for that "by 2011"), the station would stay in the red until 2014.

Channel Zero is also asking for changes to the licenses for CHCH and CJNT. Among them:

• Deletion of a requirement for CHCH to have a minimum level of "priority programming" (things like Canadian dramas and news magazines). It argues such requirements are not asked of small stations, only of large broadcast groups.
• Deletion of a requirement at CHCH for an independent monitoring committee, since these are related to Canwest's cross-ownership of various media which Channel Zero does not have
• Deletion of a requirement for CHCH to air four hours a week of described video (with the understanding that the station would use described video where available)
• Removal of a requirement for CHCH to have distinct programming from Global's CIII-TV Toronto, which becomes moot if CHCH isn't owned by Canwest.
• Deletion of a requirement for CJNT to make sure 25% of its films are Canadian (Channel Zero argues there aren't enough foreign-language Canadian films to make that feasible - and it will abide by other Canadian content requirements)
• Deletion of a requirement for French-language non-ethnic programming. Canwest twice asked to be relieved of this requirement, and was turned down twice by the CRTC. Channel Zero argues the station must focus on one market for non-ethnic programming, and the French market is already saturated here. It's hard not to agree with that logic.
• Increase in minimum requirements for local ethnic programming from 13.5 hours to 14 hours per week

The Canadian Media Guild's Lise Lareau looks a bit skeptically at Channel Zero's plans for CHCH in Hamilton, notably the requested license amendment to remove the requirement to air Canadian dramas and movies in prime time.

UPDATE: The CHCH union, which has agreed to support the sale in principle, is grieving Canwest's plan to wind up its pension plan before the sale.

Campus/community radio review

The CRTC is undergoing a broad-based review of its policies for campus and community-based radio stations. Among the questions it's asking:

• Should campus and community stations be treated differently?
• Should high school stations be licensed?
• What kind of programming requirements should they have?
• Should low-power "micro" radio stations be licensed or exempt from license?
• How much advertising should they be limited to?

The deadline for comments is Sept. 11. The hearing is Nov. 30 in Gatineau.

Not so bold

After being slapped on the wrist for violating terms of license, the CBC has made good on its promise to request an amendment to change the nature of its specialty channel known as Bold. Formerly called Country Canada, the channel was licensed as a network for rural Canadians from a "rural perspective", but since its transformation into bold (they don't capitalize the B, so as to remain edgy or something) it's basically been a network to throw leftovers at. It airs everything from drama reruns to soccer games.

The CBC's argument for the change boils down to this:

There is insufficient programming from a "rural perspective" to program the service.

Sorry farm people, but you're just not interesting enough for a whole channel, even with Heartland and Corner Gas.

New programming categories

Since the CRTC announced that it would allow specialty networks access to all programming categories when asked, they've gotten some requests for exactly that.

Astral Media is asking for access to all programming categories for Canal Vie, Canal D, Historia, MusiMax, VRAK.tv, Ztélé and MusiquePlus

TVA has received approval for Les idées de ma maison to air up to 10% animated programming. Argent and Mystère have access to a slew of new programming categories, everything from religious programming to feature films and music videos, so long as they fit with the channels' themes and don't compete with other networks and don't go above 10% of the broadcast day. Prise 2 also gets categories added (see below)

Prise 2 must keep its CanCon

Prise 2 can now air TV programs that are as little as 10 years old (the previous minimum was 15) and movies as little as 15 years old (previously it was 25), as well as access more programming categories (documentaries and live sports, limited to 10% of the broadcast day). A request to reduce their CanCon requirement from 35% to 30% was denied.

Télé-Québec, Canal Savoir stay on the air

While the major networks (TVA, CTV, Global) got one-year license renewals as they sort out that fee-for-carriage thing, the smaller non-profit networks are being renewed for the full seven years.

CFTU (Canal Savoir) has been renewed for seven years with no changes to its conditions of license (except a reminder that it will need to transition to digital by August 2011).

CIVM Montreal (Télé-Québec) and its retransmitters across Quebec were also renewed until 2016, with some considerations about representation of minorities but otherwise no changes.

Corus gets more steamy

Corus Entertainment has come to an agreement to buy Sex TV and Drive-in Classics, two specialty channels, from CTVglobemedia. The next day Corus reported a $145-million quarterly loss. Last year Corus bought CLT from CTV and rebranded it VIVA.

In other news:

• Bell has, rather unsurprisingly, decided to pass on new local programming fees directly to the consumer.
• CBC News has a piece looking at the future of a CBC radio AM transmitter in Whitehorse that might be shut down when the station switches to FM.
• The CRTC is going to mandate broadcasters to provide at least four hours a week of descriptive video.
• Canwest has asked for MovieTime in HD.
• The Green Channel has had its focus changed slightly from "environment" to "sustainability", and a request to bump its feature film limit to 15% from the new standard 10% was denied.
• Rogers Cable is ditching PBS station WPBS Watertown (N.Y.), in favour of a PBS station in Detroit, citing the fact that the Detroit station has better programming and a more reliable signal. Rogers says basic cable subscribers won't be charged more (they just get a different PBS station), though some Rogers customers in Ottawa and London are getting mixed signals from customer service.
• Videotron, which is setting up a wireless network in Quebec, has reached a deal with Rogers that would allow Videotron customers to roam in Canada using the Rogers network.
• Canwest has received authorization to make changes to its CHCA-TV-1 retransmitter in Calgary, which is funny because Canwest has announced that it is shutting down CHCA.
• Oh, and CTV still needs our help to save local television.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• Welcome to the new TV
• CRTC okays CJNT, CHCH purchase
• CRTC Roundup: They saved local TV!

In April 2008, the bill was $94.74 a month.

Nothing has changed in the amount of service I get. The increase of $5.64 a month is due entirely to Videotron's price hikes:

• Basic digital cable rose from $13.99 a month to $14.99 a month
• The price of 20 extra channels rose from $14 a month to $15 a month (it took effect when I was forced to swap a channel that Videotron didn't want to pay for anymore).
• High-speed cable Internet rose from $58.95 a month to $61.95 a month
• And, of course $0.64 in extra taxes on that extra $5 a month I have to pay.

I could understand this if Videotron's costs were going up and it needed the extra money to stay afloat, but according to Quebecor's financial statements, Videotron makes a shitload of money. Like, $800 million in profit off $1.8 billion in revenue. Not only are those numbers higher than any other unit of the megacorporation, but the profit margin is way, way higher than Quebecor's newspaper or broadcasting divisions.

Even if you take amortization and capital costs out of the equation, that leaves $165 million of profit for Videotron, more than enough to cover interest payments on its $1.8 billion debt.

I'm not that great with quarterly statements, so my numbers might be off here. But Videotron is making a heck of a lot of money off me and other cable subscribers.

No wonder Canada is considered to have the most overpriced broadband Internet in the developed world.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Videotron wants more money
• Quebecor doesn’t inform when it doesn’t feel like it
• Quebecor starts PR counterattack
• Enquête sur Quebecor: Good, but I expected more (UPDATED)

The month, the CRTC ruled that, well, yes, they should.

While you might think it common sense that such programs should be excluded from closed-captioning requirements, the CRTC said that children should have access to captioning so they can learn to read, and parents should have access to what their children watch. There wasn't much discussion about the porn angle, namely that nobody cares what people are saying in pornographic movies.

In any case, the CRTC said Videotron hadn't made a case that it's so financially strapped that it can't afford captioning costs, so the application was denied.

Konrad's oopsie

The CRTC chairman said sorry for saying that conventional broadcasters like CTV and Global wouldn't commit to taking carriage fees from cable and satellite providers and putting all that money into local programming. It turns out they were ready to make just such a commitment.

That certainly makes the TV people look better. But what guarantee would we have that they wouldn't take back their existing funding to local stations now that this new source of revenue is available to them?

Bye Bye was wrong

You hate to still be talking about this, but the judgment is in about Radio-Canada's Bye-Bye: It really was racist. The CRTC passed on complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and asked them to judge the show. The CBSC normally rules only on private broadcasting, but the CRTC asked them for their advice (if anything, this shows that there's no reason the CBSC shouldn't also deal with complaints about public broadcasting).

The CBSC's ruling dismissed most of the complaints (though some only barely), including those about jokes on anglos, the poor, immigrants, dépanneur owners, Indian call centre operators, Julie Couillard, Céline Dion, politicians, and a single complaint saying they were unfair to GM. It also said that the show did not go over the line in its treatment of Nathalie Simard, and didn't even hint at the abuse she suffered at the hands of Guy Cloutier, father of Bye Bye hotst Véronique Cloutier.

The council did rule that three things crossed the line:

• Jokes against blacks, particularly the sketch involving Denis Lévesque and Barack Obama as well as comments from Jean-François Mercier about Obama being easier to shoot in front of the White House.
• The portrayal of violence against women in a sketch involving the family of Patrick Roy.
• The rebroadcast of the show the next evening without viewer advisories.

The racist jokes, the council said, were gratuitous and abusive. Though Radio-Canada, the show's producers, its writers and its performers did not intend to foster racism and intended for the comments to be ironic, the council ruled that the context didn't make this sufficiently clear, and the comments could easily have been taken at face value. It brought up a number of previous cases to support its view that comedic irony isn't a blank cheque to make racist comments.

It's hard not to agree with the council's well-thought-out decision. Bye Bye didn't intend to be racist, but it did intend to shock. And when you're spouting racist comments just to shock people, how is that different from just being racist?

This decision is worth reading if only for the words "a rather cartoonish rabbit-like act of intercourse."

Technically, this is just a recommendation to the CRTC. It is up to the commission to decide if it agrees, and if so what kind of sanction it will impose. Normally, private broadcasters are required to air a notice of the decision to viewers. We'll see if the CRTC orders Radio-Canada to do the same.

More power for radio

It's going to be a bit easier to listen to some out-of-town radio stations thanks to some CRTC approvals of power increases:

• CKOY 104.5 FM in Sherbrooke, the sister station to Montreal's CKOI, gets a huge power boost to up to 50,000 Watts. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll be easy to hear, especially with CBC Radio One's second 100W transmitter at 104.7 FM in the west end. But if you're in the Eastern townships and had trouble hearing the station, you should have much less of that now.
• CJLM 103.5 FM in Joliette gets a modest boost from 3,000 to 4,500 Watts, which will help people on the north side of the island and on the north shore.
• For those on the south side, they'll be hearing FM 103.3 in Longueuil, which in the same decision saw its allowed power output grow more than five-fold. It's still a low-power community radio station, but maybe now it won't disappear off the dial when I hit the Plateau.

Haitian station wants change of frequency

CJWI, a Haitian AM station currently on 1610 AM, wants to change its frequency to 1410, which is where CFMB used to be. The move would put CJWI in the regular, non-extended AM band, allowing people with older radios to hear it. It also wants to increase its output power from 1kW to 10kW, and relocate its transmitter.

Rogers, small cable companies get nannied

The Canadian Cable Systems Alliance asked the CRTC to intervene in stalled negotiations it was having on behalf of small cable companies across the country with Rogers over its SportsNet service. The CRTC has the power to intervene in these cases, but it prefers not to. However, since regulations require some cable companies to carry SportsNet (and will until new regulations take effect in 2011 that deregulate the cable sports channels), it decided it must step in here. Details are kept in confidence to protect both businesses, so that's about all we know.

Slice wants less CanCon

Canwest-owned Slice channel has noticed that its Canadian content requirements are much higher than what other specialty channels require, so it wants to get the same deal. It's asking that its CanCon minimum programming requirement be dropped from 82.5% to 60%, and that it be forced to spend only 45% instead of 71% of revenues on Canadian programming.

City wants less CanCon movies

Citytv has asked the CRTC for a change in license that would eliminate a requirement to air 100 hours of Canadian movies each year - which works out to about a movie a week. Rogers (which owns City now) argues that it is the only conventional broadcaster that has this requirement and it shouldn't be singled out. Canadian movie-makers say Rogers has pulled a bait and switch, praising Canadian movies when it bought the network and now quietly wanting to get rid of them.

Want Al-Jazeera?

The CRTC is opening up the can of worms about allowing Al-Jazeera English into the country. The commission had previously approved the Arabic-language version of the network, with unique requirements that distributors monitor and censor its content, something that requires far too much work for the cable and satellite companies.

The commission is considering adding the English channel to eligible foreign networks that cable and satellite can add to their lineups, but it wants comments from Canadians who might be opposed to it. They specifically want evidence of abusive comments, with tapes if possible.

More specialty channels

Conventional TV may be dying, but specialty channels are exploding like nobody's business. The CRTC is holding a hearing on July 21 where it will listen to proposals for new networks:

• Black Entertainment Television Canada (English and French) - self-explanatory, I would imagine.
• Reality TV - A Canwest proposal for reality shows, DIY programs and scripted reality shows. This network was originally approved by the CRTC in 2005, but expired before Canwest could launch it, forcing them to start over from scratch.
• AMET-TV, an African and Afro-Caribbean-themed channel that carries programming in English (70%), French (20%) and African languages (10%)
• New Tang Dynasty Television Canada HD, a generalist network mainly in Mandarin but also other Chinese languages.

CPAC wants to be patriotic

CPAC, the politics channel that carries House of Commons proceedings among other things, is asking for permission to expand its boundaries on July 1 of each year. It wants to add three programming categories which would allow it to carry musical performance, variety, entertainment and related programming from Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill and elsewhere. A reasonable request if I've ever heard one, though I don't think there are similarly specific exceptions to such rules on other channels.

A bold move

The CBC was in the process of getting slapped by the CRTC because it was violating its license with respect to Bold, a specialty channel. Formerly Country Canada, its license says it should air programming directed toward rural Canadians. But since then it's basically been a dumping ground for whatever content the network wants to put there.

After the CRTC called a hearing, the CBC waved the white flag. It has proposed a license amendment, though one that would keep the rural focus.

Good news, bad news for Olympics

Following a request from the CRTC chairman, CTV and the CBC have been in talks about using CBC stations to broadcast French-language Olympics coverage for the tiny, tiny portion of Canadians who:

• are unilingual francophones
• don't live in Quebec or within range of a TQS station
• don't have cable or satellite TV service
• don't have broadband Internet access
• AND want to watch the Olympics in French on TV

You'd think this number would be so small as to be negligible (about 10,000 apparently fit the first three criteria), but in the spirit of political correctness, CTV (which owns the broadcast rights and is part of a giant consortium that's covering the games) is looking at using some CBC stations to retransmit its TQS/RDS Olympics coverage over the air.

The problem is that the CBC isn't crazy about donating the stations and getting nothing in return. Specifically, the debate is over ad revenue: CTV wants to keep it all (minus some compensation for what they would have had with their regular programming), and CBC thinks that's crazy.

On the plus side, Corus has joined the giant consortium, which currently includes CTV (with TSN and RDS), TQS, Rogers and APTN. Corus will have Olympics coverage (though it doesn't sound like much) on CKAC Sports as well as updates on CKOI, Info 690 and 98.5FM in Montreal.

In other news

• Bell ExpressVu (now Bell TV) has been allowed to continue the practice of having part-time channels. Currently, the satellite provider which is tight for space and already has 30 channels used up by conventional local television stations from the big three networks alone (almost 70 if you include CTV, CBC, Global, Radio-Canada, TVA, TQS, E!, A, City and OMNI), allows people to access newscasts from other stations through use of two shared channels, that carry the newscasts from CJOH (CTV Ottawa), CBC Fredericton, CBC Charlottetown, CFER (TVA) Rimouski and CBLFT (Radio-Canada) Toronto.
• Approved for broadcast in high definition: Leafs TV (it wasn't already?), Bite TV, AUX TV, TREK TV. Equator HD gets the reverse, approved for a standard-definition version.
• Media concentration continues: Two Kingston radio stations have been bought up by Rogers.
• ARTV wants more flexibility in programming
• Movie Central, western Canada's version of The Movie Network, has asked to be allowed to distribute in HD.
• Coaticook, Quebec (just southeast of Sherbrooke) wants a community radio station.
• The CRTC has approved a bid by World Impact Ministries to buy the Christian Channel. As a matter of policy, the CRTC goes over sales carefully when they happen shortly after launch or change in ownership, but there were no signs of any financial impropriety here. The network is a perennial money-loser and its new owner will keep all its obligations.
• Ownership reorganization at The Score and Outdoor Life Network
• bpm:tv can now add infomercials to its schedule

And finally, not that anyone doubted it would happen, but the CRTC has allowed CBC Television and Télévision Radio-Canada to continue to operate for another year.

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: The American retransmission consent model
• CRTC Roundup: Global, porn and death
• Broadcasting regulation nerdgasm
• CRTC roundup: Videotron doesn’t want to closed-caption porn
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers

There's only one hitch: You have to be a Rogers cable subscriber to use it.

Perhaps CBC got it wrong, or Rogers executives are using a stretched analogy, but they seem to be talking about video on demand over digital cable, not online video.

UPDATE: This post makes it clearer: Rogers wants to setup online video in a walled garden format where you'd have password-protected access to programming based on what you've subscribed to on their cable system.

People in Quebec who have Videotron Illico digital TV get lots of video on demand. Plenty of TV shows can be viewed for free on the service, provided those TV shows are owned by Quebecor. Quebecor owns Videotron and TVA, so you only see TVA shows on the service.

That doesn't sound to me like it's solving the new media problem.

Related Posts

• Community lacking in community TV
• Battle of the fee-for-carriage misinformation campaigns
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• CRTC has decided: It’s time to pay for free TV
• Grab the popcorn, the real local TV debate is about to begin

So why are they charging more now? Well, all the investments they're making in infrastructure (that won't affect me), including all those jobs they're creating in Quebec.

And those investments have made a difference, after all (emphasis mine):

Customer surveys indicate that our customers' satisfaction level remains high; indeeed we are in the top league of suppliers of cable TV products in Québec.

Well, if Videotron is one of Quebec's top cable TV providers, then it must be good, right? And if customer surveys reveal high satisfaction, I'd be stupid if I wasn't satisfied too. I mean, it's not like Videotron has an absolute monopoly over digital cable TV in this area and is abusing that to suck as much money out of customers as possible, knowing full well that their only other option is another customer service nightmare with Bell's satellite TV.

Taking a look at parent company Quebecor's latest quarterly financial report (PDF), I see that Videotron made $579 million in profit in the first nine months of 2008. Mind you, most of that money was taken up by amortization and capital costs, which left a paltry $150 million of actual profit from Videotron's 1.7 million customers (which works out to about $100 profit per subscriber over nine months).

So I can really see how that extra $1 a month is vital to the future operation of Videotron's services.

UPDATE: Rogers is also raising its cable/internet rates. Coincidence?

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• My cable bill and Videotron’s profits
• Quebecor doesn’t inform when it doesn’t feel like it
• Quebecor starts PR counterattack
• Enquête sur Quebecor: Good, but I expected more (UPDATED)

Of course, for those who want to see them, they're all over the place online: Just for Laughs, Spike, NFL, FanHouse, YouTube, MySpace. Some include so-called "banned ads" and other attention-grabbers.

Dominic Arpin provides some of his favourite ads. But really, they all suck.

Oh, and that was a good game today, even if I could pay only half attention to it.

Related Posts

• CTV ruins Super Bowl ad fun
• Five ways for Montrealers to watch U.S. Super Bowl ads
• CRTC Roundup: No Super Bowl loopholes this year
• Montrealers still screwed for Super Bowl XLVI ads
• CFCF sets up HD transmitter to close Super Bowl ad loophole

On Jan. 15, more than two weeks after the signal on Channel 115 went dark, Videotron sent out a letter to customers who had it as a custom channel selection telling them it was no longer being offered:

The gist of it is that WPCH demanded more money for carrying the channel, and Videotron balked.

Now, I could complain that the notice came out much too late, or that there was no mention of a refund to customers who had a dead channel for weeks, or that those forced to redo their channel selection are being charged more now because of new rates established for "new services".

Instead, I'll refer to the "attached directory", a pamphlet of available channels, which apparently Videotron didn't think to update:

I have no words to describe this level of incompetence.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• STM’s in my lane
• Community lacking in community TV
• Honouring our lovely ladies
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec

Over-the-air carriage fees

The big one for broadcasting companies like Canwest/Global, CTV, TQS and Quebecor is the decision to reject the suggestion that "broadcast distribution units" (i.e. cable and satellite companies) should be required to pay fees to TV broadcasters who broadcast over the air freely.

This idea came out of the whole TQS saga, when the network's owners decided that it needed the ability to somehow blackmail cable companies into giving them money. Since cable specialty channels get per-subscriber fees in exchange for their content, shouldn't broadcast networks - whose budgets are supposedly higher because they need to produce local news - get money too?

The flip side of the coin is that these network broadcasters are broadcasting freely, using public airwaves. Cable and satellite companies are required by law to carry local broadcast channels on their basic packages. Subscribers don't get any added value from getting over-the-air stations on cable (except, perhaps, not having to deal with rabbit ears), so why should they have to pay for them?

The CRTC's decision was tough (emphasis mine):

CTVgm and Canwest proposed that any FFC only be made available if broadcasters meet monthly local programming requirements. However, they did not commit that the FFC, or any portion of it, would result in incremental spending on Canadian programming.

While OTA broadcasters have shown a recent decline in profitability, they, as other enterprises, might first look to their own business plans before making a request for increased revenue from the Commission. In the Proceeding, no business plans suggesting new sources of revenue were provided to the Commission. Neither the rationale for strategic initiatives by OTA broadcasters, such as recent major acquisitions, nor the basis for financing those initiatives or the impact of those initiatives on profitability were explained to the Commission at the public hearing.

The CRTC did cave on one point though: It said that so-called "distant signals" (e.g. CTV Vancouver for us Montrealers) should be able to "negotiate" carriage, in order to offset the trouble that this time-shifting business has caused. What that effectively means is that broadcasters can set rates for out-of-market broadcast stations and simply not allow their channels to be carried on other regions' cable networks unless they pay their fees.

Broadcasters are happy with the parts of the decision that give them money, and unhappy with the ones that don't. They're for less regulation in the broadcasting industry, but they want corporate socialism for the "ailing" over-the-air broadcasting sector.

TV packaging

The CRTC wants to streamline rules for TV packaging to make it easier for subscribers to choose what they want to see. The basic rules would still apply: A basic package, which includes things like CBC Newsworld, RDI, CPAC, etc. would still be required, porn channels can't be packaged with non-porn channels, and more than half of all channels in a subscriber's lineup must be Canadian.

Another point of contention is over so-called "U.S. 4+1 signals", which permit cable operators to carry four nearby stations of major U.S. networks (usually ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX) and a PBS station in their lineup. Recently, this was expanded to allow a second set of such signals for time-shifting purposes. Providers use this to offer east-coast and west-coast feeds of these networks.

Tellingly, the Canadian networks aren't happy about U.S. stations being allowed to broadcast their U.S. programming when they're trying to broadcast the same U.S. programming:

CTVgm and Canwest, in their final written submission, requested that the Commission simply prohibit the distribution of the second set of U.S. 4+1 signals.

A slight compromise would require subscribers to have corresponding Canadian stations to their out-of-market U.S. ones. For example, if I wanted to add the Seattle stations, I would have to also add the Vancouver stations to my lineup.

Local programming

The CRTC took broadcasters to task for the fact that they're not investing in local news:

The Commission’s own data demonstrate that private broadcaster spending on local programming has been flat since 1998. Between 1998 and 2007, the spending on local programming by English- and French-language commercial broadcasters increased by 22.8%. However, as the growth in the consumer price index (CPI) during this period was 22.1%, there was no real increase in local spending. This contrasts with spending on non-Canadian programming, which, after adjusting for CPI growth, increased by 61%, as well as spending on other Canadian programming, which increased by 8.3% over the same period. The data indicate an inability or unwillingness on the part of OTA broadcasters to invest in their local stations.

The Commission has also examined broadcasters’ spending on local programming by market size. In the six metropolitan markets with a population of over one million, spending on local programming, after adjusting for the CPI, has increased by 11.8% since 1998. However, in markets with a population of less than one million, local program spending has declined by 15.6% since 1998.

In other words, CTV and Global have more money than God with which to buy simulcasting rights to House and American Idol, but are constantly tightening their belts to the point where weathermen have to be shared.

Their solution, naturally, is a new government-controlled fund that people are forced to pay into that will be used to subsidize local news in smaller markets.

In addition to the 5% of gross revenue they have to put toward community channels (like Videotron's VOX network), cable and satellite providers would have to add an extra 1% which would go to a Local Programming Improvement Fund. This fund would be distributed to TV stations in small markets to get them to produce more local news.

This extra tax would be levied on the oil companies cable and satellite providers, whose profit margin the CRTC estimates at 40% and 17% respectively. Because they're making so much money gouging customers with their monopolies with their efficient service, the CRTC expects that the oil companies cable and satellite providers will simply absorb the cost instead of passing it on to the consumer. Yeah.

The other problem is whether or not this fund could be used by the CBC. They have plenty of stations in small markets. But then, if the CBC could make use of the fund, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (of which the CBC is not a member), which would administer said fund, would be in a conflict of interest. And then it gets complicated.

The idea for this fund sounds good-natured, but I wonder how much of it will actually go to local programming and how much will be used to line the pockets of the broadcasters' parent corporations.

Despecialization of specialty channels

One decision that seems to be welcomed by all parties is a very common-sense one to lessen the regulations on two genres of specialty channels that have become competitive: news and sports networks.

Currently, all specialty channels have genre protection, which means we have one comedy network, one weather network, one history network and one science-fiction network (in each language). As the number of channels increased, these genres became more specialized. One science channel became different channels for health and nature. One sports channel became a national sports channel, regional sports channels and sports headline channels, as well as channels for individual sports. One news channel became a news channel, a headline news channel and a business news channel.

News and sports, even if they are not supposed to directly compete, have been effectively doing so for years now (TSN vs. SportsNet, CBC Newsworld vs. CTV NewsNet, RDI vs. LCN). The CRTC's decision reflects reality, and opens up the field to more competition. New channels in these genres are more than welcome, as long as they play by the same rules (i.e. CanCon).

In addition, specialty channels will no longer have to apply to the CRTC every time they want to add a new programming category (like Discovery did in January to add game shows). These categories specify what kind of programming (news, sports, documentaries, dramas, comedy, etc.) each channel can select from (the subject of such programming should still fit the channel's genre), and are usually specified with maximums and minimums as a condition of license. Generally, channels are severely limited in terms of things like feature films, sports and music unless they are meant to focus on those things, to prevent a channel from going to the cash cow too often.

Instead, the CRTC suggests a standard provision that channels be able to take up to 10% of their programming from these categories:

• Long-form documentary;
• Professional sports;
• Drama and comedy;
• Theatrical feature films aired on television;
• Animated television programs or films; and
• Music video clips and Music video programs

Taming the VOD squad

Video on demand is such a new technology that even the CRTC realizes the existing rules are way out of date. And because even the industry has no idea how it wants to do things, the CRTC is sending out an "anyone got any ideas?" public notice for comments. Among the issues are whether VOD providers should be able to include advertising, whether packaged "subscription VOD" should have CanCon requirements, and what kind of competition regulations VOD should have.

Honestly, there's already a VOD service that has no regulation and a wealth of Canadian content. It's called the Internet.

But still, the fact that my Videotron VOD library contains only TVA and VOX programming (Quebecor owns TVA, VOX and Videotron) kind of bugs me, and it would be nice if the effects of media convergence weren't so obvious there.

You can read all about these crazy decisions in the CRTC's massive public notice.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere:

• Patrick Lagacé likes cable competition
• Bill Brioux thanks the CRTC for not fleecing customers to pad TV networks' pockets

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: Videotron must closed-caption porn
• When is a channel not a channel?
• CRTC roundup: Cancon porn, TSN2 and the Rural Channel
• CRTC roundup: Videotron doesn’t want to closed-caption porn
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers

Videotron Illico subscribers get their first taste of Teletoon Retro on Channel 97 (French) and on Channel 159 (English). (Data for the channels apparently haven't been input yet into the on-screen guide, but the channels are live.)

Teletoon Retro was initially approved by the CRTC back in 2000, when all the networks were scrambling to come up with new specialty channels. It was then re-approved in 2005, when Teletoon actually wanted to launch it. The English version launched last year, and the French version launched today, hence the inclusion of both on Videotron's Illico service.

In case it's non-obvious, Teletoon Retro is a classic cartoon network, with repeats of Spider-Man, Scooby Doo and The Jetsons, Rocky & Bullwinkle and others.

Sadly (and curiously), the channels are not being offered as free previews to subscribers. Instead, Videotron has added the channels to the popular Anglo and Franco packages, and both to the digital Telemax package at no extra charge. (This means your humble correspondent gets access to the anglo version but not the franco one.)

UPDATE (Sept. 9): Richard Therrien points out that the franco channel doesn't have much home-grown cartoons, and prefers to have dubbed Bugs Bunny instead.

UPDATE (Sept. 11): Therrien adds that Bell TV (formerly ExpressVu) has no plans to add the channel in the near future due to lack of interest.

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: Videotron must closed-caption porn
• Broadcasting regulation nerdgasm
• CRTC roundup: Videotron doesn’t want to closed-caption porn
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Some truth about Sun TV News

1. Videotron has applied for a change in the license for its illico video-on-demand system. They want a change in the requirement that it broadcast closed-captioning with 90% of all programming during the day to add an exception: "adult movies and programs for pre-school children." In other words, they don't want to have to waste money closed-captioning on-demand porn and baby programming that nobody is going to read anyway.
2. Rogers, which owns CITYtv but not the CP24 all-news cable channel that CITY started (that station belongs to CTV after CTV bought CHUM, even though it shares a newsroom with Rogers-owned CITYtv -- complicated enough for you?) wants to create a new all-news, all-Toronto digital specialty channel with the imaginative name CITY News (Toronto). Presumably, this would replace CP24, which would then be properly absorbed into CTV, which would have to decide what to do with it since it already has its own all-news network.
3. The Fight Network wants to create a new digital specialty channel Le Réseau des combats, which would be a French version of its existing programming.
4. Application for a new digital specialty channel Chaîne Ethnoculturelle Clovys Entertainment Channel, which would broadcast mainly francophone music from urban, world and latin music styles.
5. CTV wants to amend the license for MuchMusic to allow it to carry game shows (presumably music-related, but then again this is MuchMusic we're talking about)
6. The CBC (and its gajillion partners) are applying for a license to broadcast the Documentary channel in high definition. Considering the channel is mostly NFB archives from the 70s, this would seem to have limited use.
   
7. VidéOptique Inc. wants to create an on-demand programming network in Drummondville and nearby areas.
8. Corus Entertainment wants to move its talk radio station 102.1 FM from Montmagny to Quebec City to make it a Quebec City station and have access to the much larger urban market.

UPDATE (Aug. 2): Pat Lagacé has some comments about Videotron and porn CC. He says deaf people will have to start reading lips of the porn actors. I'm not quite sure which lips he's referring to.

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: Videotron must closed-caption porn
• Broadcasting regulation nerdgasm
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Some truth about Sun TV News
• Community lacking in community TV

If you never got a chance to see it in the theatre, now's your chance to see it in your home theatre, at just a bit more than the price of a DVD rental and with none of those annoying extra features and deleted scenes and stuff.

Videotron's Illico digital service offers Video-on-Demand, a service whereby for only $5, you can download a new release and watch it as many times as you want on your digital terminal over a 24-hour period. If you wanted to rent the DVD, you'd be billed less, which means you'd have to deal with change and stuff, and you'd have anywhere from two days to a week to see the movie. With such a long rental time, you're bound to get confused and forget the movies altogether, until your living room is filled to the ceiling with rented DVDs you forgot to return.

And if you don't have Videotron Illico digital TV? Well now's the time to buy! A basic digital terminal costs $99, but for a limited time only Videotron will give you one for only $49 with contract! That's practically giving it away! Or you can upgrade to high definition and a personal video recorder for only the low low price of your first-born child! How can you not take advantage of this opportunity?

Buy now!

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Justin Trudeau is a good sport
• CTV mascot Jellybean enters rehab
• Fagstein, Quebecor enter partnership
• City admits pothole brigade doesn’t exist

1. It's expensive. $90 a month ($80 with a 12-month subscription)
2. There's a 50GB cap (combined upload/download), $1.50/GB after that, with no upper limit on bandwidth-related overcharges. This cap is actually lower than their 10 megabit "Extreme High-Speed" service, which is only $75/month and has a 100GB/month cap.

According to my l33t math skills, it would take just over two hours at the maximum download speed to surpass the cap. In the theoretical (but practically impossible) situation where you were using that bandwidth non-stop for a 30-day month, the overage charges would amount to $24,225.00.

Roberto offers that you won't be using the top speed all the time, which is true. At just about anything beyond 10 or 15 megabits, the bottleneck is going to be on the other side.

But if you're not going to use the top speed, why pay for it? The 30-megabit service is $15 less per month, and still faster than you'll really need unless you have a dozen people in your family downloading movies at the same time.

This service sounds good on pamphlets and in press releases, but the cap ensures that the people who would really find such service useful aren't the ones they want using it.

UPDATE (March 15): Criticism of Videotron's marketing campaign, which seems to be targetted at movie downloaders.

Related Posts

• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Community lacking in community TV
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• Welcome, TSN2
• My new, cheap remote control

I can't find the press release online, so whether this will apply to subcontracted technicians who have never heard of Macs isn't clear.

At this rate, they should have basic Linux support by 2020.

UPDATE: Roberto forwarded me the press release:

The only provider with in-house experts for Mac support

Videotron now supports Apple/Mac platform

Montréal, December 17, 2007 — Videotron has announced that it now supports the Apple/Mac platform in its regular customer service operations. The move will benefit the growing proportion of Videotron subscribers who use Macs. Customer service, technical support and technical quality staff have already received training to enable them to guide customers towards connectivity solutions between Apple/Mac systems and Videotron's service.

"As the only major Internet Services Provider in its service area to support Apple/Mac users with in-house experts capable of solving Internet-related problems of all kinds on Apple/Mac platforms, we are proud to be able to serve this growing customer group," said Manon Brouillette, Senior Vice President, Marketing, Content and Product Development.

Supported applications
Forty Videotron customer service employees have received training and are able to advise Apple/Mac users on setting up Mac software such as Apple Mail, browsers and Mac OS 10.x and higher, including Jaguar v10.2, Panther v10.3, Tiger v10.4 and even Leopard v10.5, the release of which was announced in October. Like other Videotron services, this support is available 24/7.

"With the booming popularity of Apple and Mac products today, we are confident that our decision to support these platforms and meet all the needs and challenges involved will have a very positive impact on customer satisfaction," said Manon Brouillette.

As of January 2008, Videotron will be offering Mac users an Internet kit that has been fully redesigned for Apple/Mac systems, including installation CD, modem box and documentation.

Security on the Mac

Videotron has decided not to offer any security services for Apple/Mac products for now, since Apple/Mac systems have little vulnerability to security threats. However, the growth of Apple's market share may eventually lead to the introduction of Mac security systems similar to what is available for PCs.

Videotron Ltd. (www.videotron.com), a wholly owned subsidiary of Quebecor Media Inc., is an integrated communications company engaged in cable television, interactive multimedia development, Internet access services, cable telephony and wireless telephone service. Videotron is a leader in new technologies with its illico interactive television system and its broadband network, which supports high-speed cable Internet access, analog and digital cable television, and other services. As of September 30, 2007, Videotron was serving 1,616,000 cable television customers in Québec, including 720,000 illico subscribers. Videotron is the Québec leader in high-speed Internet access, with 899,000 subscribers to its cable modem service. As of September 30, 2007, Videotron had activated 39,000 phones on its wireless telephone service and was providing cable telephone service to nearly 574,000 Québec households and organizations.

Related Posts

• Internet providers have better things to do than monitor my bandwidth
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Community lacking in community TV
• Want choice with Bell TV? Move to Quebec
• Welcome, TSN2

Though Michael Geist did a good job explaining the issue back in June (certainly better than Industry Canada's very technical policy framework document), I take a crack at it in today's Gazette.

In short, it means some wireless frequencies (which cellphones use to communicate with cell towers, and for which wireless providers need licenses from Industry Canada to operate) will be reserved for new companies in the market, like Shaw or Yak or Videotron (which currently re-sells Rogers service under its own brand). This wasn't the idea of the current oligopoly (Bell, Rogers, Telus) because they say it gives an unfair advantage to newcomers (even though many of their licenses came through similar breaks given to their predecessors).

So now, the only thing standing in the way of at least one new entrant into the business (either regionally or nationally) is the opening bids, which for a high-bandwidth national frequency could reach past $200 million.

Videotron plans to use $500 million to setup a Quebec-wide network (including the cost of the cell site equipment and administrative costs of running an entire wireless network), which might expand to other provinces if successful.

Also included in the decision this week is a requirement for existing cell providers to share tower space with new entrants (which will significantly lower their startup costs) and a requirement to allow roaming (so, for example, new Videotron customers will be able to use their phones outside Quebec with reasonable fees being billed for use of the other company's network).

Read more of my article here.

Related Posts

• Justin Trudeau calendar has 33 pictures of Justin Trudeau
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• The Ruth Ellen Brosseau love song
• Canadian Tire not so Canadian in Quebec
• Be careful who you make fun of

The logic is simple: They can see clearly when bandwidth usage goes up, but they don't warn the customer because they profit heavily off bandwidth overage charges.

Thing is, I'm not terribly convinced that's the answer.

First of all, there's an assumption that Internet Service Providers like high-bandwidth users. But they don't. They hate peer-to-peer networks and other bandwidth-intensive activities. The vast majority of Internet users are well below their monthly quota, and the difference between the two is free bandwidth the companies are not eager to give away. There's also the problem that a high-bandwidth user will slow the connections of other users on the network.

Secondly, I have no reason not to believe the providers' PR-clouded appeal to their own laziness. They say they don't have the resources to check every account for unusual activity (and if they do for one customer, they'll be expected to do it for all). They'd have to hire tons of new people just to do this (and they won't, of course; they'll just pull people off technical and customer service). They'd have to do it on a schedule more often than once a month (because that's when people are billed for excessive bandwidth use), and that's really not feasible.

Similarly, the comparison with credit card companies and banks is a bit silly. These organizations deal directly with money, which is very important. You might get charged $30 for maxing out on bandwidth for one month, but it's hardly the end of the world.

Finally, this isn't an exact science. An increase in bandwidth usage might mean someone's stealing your Wi-Fi, or it might mean your grandson is over for the holidays and is playing Halo 3 all day. And how many Wi-Fi leechers really run up the bandwidth meter anyway?

Just my two cents. (That doesn't put me over the limit, right?)

Related Posts

• Bell wins throttling case
• Videotron discovers Mac
• Bell Let’s Talk Day: “This is why we do it”
• Specialty channel war is screwing customers
• Is selling out okay for a good cause?