Opinion: Let’s have a discussion, not rush to judgment, on pick-and-pay

Consumers want more choice and flexibility in television. Unfortunately, before Canada’s television regulator has even had a chance to carefully consider the issue, there has been a rush to judgment. The detractors say it can’t be done, or shouldn’t be done, as though Canadians are wrong for thinking it’s even possible to pay only for the television channels they want to watch. It has been our experience as public interest advocates that, when the sky is about to fall, it’s because so too are excessive profit margins at those companies with the most to lose. The detractors’ main premise is that unbundling can’t and shouldn’t be done because the fundamental economics of the television industry are such that, without the ability to prop up less popular channels by including them in bloated “basic” packages, heads will roll at the smaller channels and Canadians won’t have access to as many channels. Others say it shouldn’t be done because it will just lead to more “fleecing” of Canadians when the current (albeit pricey) model falls apart. But what do Canadians think? A Canada-wide survey conducted by the Environics Research Group between Aug. 23 and 26, 2012, as a follow-up to our 2005 survey, tells us that Canadians are dissatisfied with the level of flexibility and choice offered for television services, and find that the cost of television is unreasonably high. The commitment the government made in its speech from the throne, to let Canadians pick and pay for the channels they want, is therefore welcome news. We’ll have even more up-to-date information beginning as early as next week, when the broadcast regulator, the CRTC, launches its long-anticipated “Conversation with Canadians” on television services. The legislation that governs all this—the Broadcasting Act—includes as objectives for the Canadian broadcasting system a wide range of programming, but it also speaks to our broadcasting system being readily adaptable to technological change, serving the needs and interests of Canadians, reflecting their circumstances and aspirations, and being affordable and responsive to evolving demands of the public. So let’s not prejudge aspirations to improve the way we do things on the basis that the status quo is as good as it gets. Let the CRTC have its upcoming conversation with Canadians, and let’s all bring the issues to the table so that there can be evidence-based policy making. Forcing television subscribers into bloated TV bundles is an anachronism in an increasingly digital, custom, content-on-demand environment. Canadians, who already pay an average of more than $185 per month per household for communications services, want to pay only for television services they consume. Introducing pick-and-pay, which some companies are already doing to address consumer demand and to better compete with over-the-top services, will ideally allow customers to manage their subscriptions to trim excess, unwanted content, and control their expenses. One possible model that we have been advocating is a “skinny” affordable basic television service, on top of which consumers can exercise a choice to subscribe to only the services they want to enjoy. We’re looking forward to a conversation about how it will be done. John Lawford is executive director and general counsel at consumer group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).

Opinion: Let’s have a discussion, not rush to judgment, on pick-and-pay

Uncategorised | 10/17/2013 6:50 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us