Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CRTC Hearings Re: Pick and Pay


I am NOT thrilled that CRTC may be proposing 100% PICK and PAY for program selection for cable/satellite television services.  That woukld mean HIGHER bills and LESS choice.  Less popular channels would not survive without subscribers and remaining channels would be higher priced for Providers to recoup lost revenue from dropped channels.  Instead of paying $9.00 for the Sports bundle you may end up paying $8.00 for TSN and $10.00 for SN!


A combination of Bundled programming and Pick and Pay (like Telus has now) would be preferrable.  I have a couple oif Bundles @ 9.00 each and a couple of Single channels @ 4.00 each. This satifies our viewing desires.


The Basic/Essential services should be limited to local Canadian/Network channels and US Network Channels from West or East.  Why do I have to pay for Much Music on Basic??




Community Power User
Community Power User

$4 a month? I didn't even notice they increased that...

If you find a post useful, please give the author a "Like" or mark as an accepted solution if it solves your trouble. 🙂

Community Power User
Community Power User
Agree that the outcome of the CRTC initiative will lead to finer choice (individual channel selection), but ultimately fewer, more expensive channels to choose from. A number of these specialty channels support Canadian productions, I expect these will be amongst the first to disappear, and we will see greater Americanization of our selections.
If you find a post useful, please give the author a "Kudo"

CPU Alum
CPU Alum

I hate seeing my good money going to CPAC.  CPAC could save so much money if they set up a YouTube channel.


Down with forced subsidies of garbage channels , so that they disappear.  Garbage, as in the programming no longer matches the channel name.  Garbage, as in the same content is being spread about 5-7 specialty Canadian channels because of asinine Canadian Content rules. Garbage, as in content that not many would watch without it being bundled.

If your industry can't go it alone, then you'd better close of shop and try something that doesn't need taxpayer welfare to exist. Oh but that means the Canadian oil Barron's would have to close up shop, such a pity.


Canadian cable TV companies conduct U.S. channel censorship(signal substitution) due to advertisers bribing the CRTC/Heritage Minister to void communication freedom. Canadian content producers couldn't be bothered with creating lots of watchable shows, so they instead will ban free market competition to increase profits. All while buying U.S.A. programming to be able to cut company costs.


Down with all those hidden subsidies for the sports channels. You want sports? Be prepared to pay $20 per channel or multi-feed grouping. Tax payers already subsidize stadiums/teams, all with the politicians claiming the subsidy creates jobs for the surrounding area at game time, and avoid stating about loss of tax revenue from a team that will cry about moving if their demands are not met.



There are basic packages of all the Canadian channels for around $30. Comes with either east or west U.S.A. main networks. Sure does look like a network could buy its way into them to artificially prop up viewing numbers for the advertisers on it.  Shawdirect has a federal government subsidized 'antenna' package, for those that lost access to over the air signals at the change over to digital transmission.



These companies need to move up into the 21st century. It's no longer the 70's/80's and those old business ways need to die.



In the U.S.A. a company called Aereo was killed by TV stations and cable companies.

Their simple business model was to rent a digital antenna to users who then could watch over the air programming on their computers. A legal thing to do, but the problem is that in the early 70's, a bribed Congress added a rebroadcast fee for the cable company to pay. Just another corporate subsidy. The over the air signal frequency is provided for free by the government, but the TV stations hated people being able to easily see their commercials.




Telus, you can provided a great TV experience for your customers. I know your hands are tied by those couple of greedy Canadians who have purchased the rebroadcast content airing rights on Canadian soil.  Fight back. Become the Aereo that wins over corruption and welfare corporations.  Though that monthly $$ reduction in TV subscriber fees would hurt a little.

I have never owned a TV nor have I ever paid for tv programming... and at my age (closer to exit than enter) I don't think I ever will.


There is no quality programming that I have seen from any single station over the last few decades.  Doesn't matter if the price was $1; there are better things to do with my time.


Sports?  Barf.  Rather be outside doing them than watching the marketing machine give us 5% of the game and 95% BS.


I do enjoy specific movies of course, but have been known to walk out in the middle of a so called favorite because the commercials were longer than the actual program.


If many more people were like me and simply said no to TV, instead of thinking it is one of the basic services one needs in every house (and in some houses, every room), I bet the quality would shoot through the roof over night.


If that did happen, I might even be tempted to actually pay for tv programming.


nasty, I like how you think on many of your points.  Great post.

Helpful Neighbour

SA:  what was the last quality TV programming you can remember?  Just curious... 🙂

@tynchu wrote:

SA:  what was the last quality TV programming you can remember?  Just curious... 🙂

I'm thinking, I'm thinking.... 🙂




If I had to pick, it would be Gunsmoke around 1955 or so.  Not all the episodes, but at least the first few years.


Of course, I wanted to be a gunslinger back then too... and TV really was magical at that time.  🙂