Big Telcos

[User14]

2016-09-20  What does this news today mean for Bell, Telus and Rogers?

Big telcos must provide small ISPs access to their fibre networks, says CRTC.  Bell Canada launched unsuccessful appeals to both the federal cabinet and the CRTC

People are discussing new business models such as ordering a "robot" car and not having to own one. Will we be able to order our TV channels or individual shows through the internet? Let's say we want to watch the National right now. Will you be able to just order it with your "device" and have it delivered for a nominal fee?  Are there any small ISPs that are providing this type of service right now? 

[User14]

---

@Pauly wrote:

---

---

Hi Gdkitty.  I have a family member with Bell IPTV So I can somewhat answer that question for you. The Bell IPTV does not use a public internet connection like other providers such as VMedia.  It will only work where bell has infastructure much like how Rogers Cable TV works where Rogers has Cable Internet.  Now with Rogers soon rolling out IPTV It can be anyones guess how they roll it out. No one knows yet but Iam very curious to know how it works thru the modem or not.

---

@Gdkitty   @BS I know you are busy, but @Pauly is asking a question that I was wondering about too. I don't see modems disappearing in the future because they can be used by the Telcos for controlling your data plans. You may have different views about private versus public internet infrastructure.

We all remember getting 1200 baud dial up speed to get onto the internet with our copper cable, but now we have to get different modems with different internet packages from the Telcos.

Internet (not wireless) data plans:  

Rogers:   25GB  only 5Mbps

               125GB  then 30Mbps  

               200GB then 60Mbps

Bell:         75GB only 15Mbps

               125GB then 25Mbps  

                250GB then 50 Mbps

                250GB at 150Mbps

                750GB at 300Mbps

For Rogers for example the 25GB internet package requires a modem that only gives you 5Mbps! The Telcos can control your speeds as well as the amount of monthly data you can use which becomes a factor in your choice of carrier.  How can the small ISPs get a foothold in door with this kind of situation? We may all need unlimited data for TV, Home Phone and Internet in the future with high speeds, so how will smaller ISPs compete in this environment and what kind of modem box will they have to provide?   For the home phone you can already buy a $35/yr magic jack modem for example to get VoIP.  For IPTV, will you need another modem? Then another modem for internet all controlled by the Telcos. I can see the desire to control these services separately to maximize revenue streams but this may not be in the best interest of the customer. If Marc Garneau can let smaller airlines compete with larger ones to reduce our costs, why can't the CRTC let smaller carriers compete for our dollars as well? There will be obvious resistance to this by the Telcos I assume. 

[Gdkitty]

Yes, smaller ISPs competing in the TV landscape, is a completely different issue.

Internet.. Not as much... as internet is internet.
They do need to use the carrier approved modems..  but generally most of them, rogers (bell, etc) does allow with the 3rd party ones, a wider range of different ones than rogers users can.  But beyond that.. internet then is internet.

Its when you get into IPTV, at least how it currently is.. that it still requires specific modem for the TV, etc.. which is then the only way of allowing/knowing what is IPTV for it and then segregating it and not charging for it.

What really need to be done in the long run, is the same which is being pushed in the US.. the seperation of DEVICE and SERVICE.    With IPTV, this is easily doable.
You want Bell TV?  Fine, you can choose from any of these 10(?) platforms which have apps which will play your bell IPTV.  Heck i saw something today.. that while there are still restrictions (it needs to be in the household with bell internet and have the bell PVR box), that you can use an appleTV 4th gen or higher, to play bell fibe TV as a playback source.   
BUT.. for that to work... and be full seperate.. you then could use on any internet carrier.
WIth caps?  Not always so easy to do.

[BS]

This whole situation is starting to really play itself out.

See these two links https://openmedia.org/en/vmedia-vs-bell-media-what-will-it-take-change-channel-internet-law-and-poli...  and http://www.vmedia.ca/blog/vmedia-launches-fund-raising-defend-bell/

We get to see the little fine print in this situation between BDU's (broadcast distribution undertakings which include IPTV like Vmedia and others where they require both Internet and TV from them with a dedicated and provisioned modem for both services over the one line and traditional cable and Telco IPTV solutions), channel providers, and CRTC rulings.

Bell is suggesting that VMedia's solution of the Skinny package solution which is their true inexpensive solution to the packages that the big players put out there, which is basically financially not viable for most consumers because they require you to pay for the cable boxes, and restrict the add-on packages to various theme packages (at least until the final implementation of pick and pay).

Vmedia provided their solution fo 17.99, no box required, and can be accessed via any Internet provider.

Bell is trying to argue that this solution is an OTT (over the top) solution, similiar to apple TV and the recent ruling on Netflix that they have a different set of rules, still being fully defined and don't fall under BDU copyright requirements.  So as the first article puts forward, this is proving to be the first case study, court case to define this whole situation, and I am sure legislation and CRTC will be coming into play.

So interesting thing is that almost every station that Vmedia provides in my location are the same channels I can get over the air via a digital antenna and that is kind of the argument that Vmedia is also trying to make.

It is an interesting twist of the CRTC ruling against the big Telco's that they could not argue against Netflix because that was an over the top solution and did not follow under BDU CRTC requirements.  So they have turned that ruling back against Vmedia saying that this is like Netflix, so they cannot untie the Internet from their skinny package.  This restricts solutions for the consumer in that currently Internet is capped due to them not having access to the FTTH, although they do have ADSL DSL cable and FTTN (node), which is what Bell and Rogers currenly only provides in my area anyway.

So for me personally, the Vmedia solution looks interesting while keeping my Rogers (faster) internet on existing infrastructure until full FTTH is availalbe, which will be necessary to handle Internet loads and TV loads into our homes.

And the interesting thing is that Vmedia also distrubes Crave TV on their boxes too, so they are already doing over the top solutions built into their BDU model of Internet and TV.  Bell is basically doing the same thing too with Netflix and Crave right on their box along with their TV solutions.

Interesting stuff going on as the major players try to keep the smaller ISP's out of the TV game by playing around with the current legislation and rulings. It is also interesting that they took them the legal suit route rather than CRTC like they did Netflix.  Vmedia is forced to fundraise to be able to file their counter suit and fight it, when I am sure that CRTC would not rule favourably for the big players.  Interesting times they certainly are.

Confused about what is coming?  Me too.  But the legal side of things is beginning to form itself, while the technical side of things is not a restriction at all - any modem and routing switching system can seperate the signals across the various ends.  No different than routing one Internet connection into two segmented network on different IP addresses and using the MAC addresses assigned to IP open or closed networks.

By the way, I don't claim to be an expert on this whole thing - I just have my basic knowledge from the field from over a decade ago and before and I go looking at this information on the Internet and magazines a lot because I love watching the Big Telco versus the little guy, versus regulation, legislation game and unfortunately, the consumer us, gets overcharged making massive profits.

I still remember when the first cable company I was aware of as a kid went into Cobourg area. They put a huge antenna up on the ridges north of Cobourg - you could see it from the highway, and they captured over the air signals from the U.S. north, to Toronto, to Kingston, and more - and it provided services to Cobourg and Port Hope.  Many moved to the solution because it was tough to get a good signal from any place in that area because of the lack of line of sight to Peterborough, the signals were generally weak in those days, and you need multiple fixed antennas or a rotor to direct your antenna.  And at that time, the solution was so inexpensive that if you lived in apartments like we did for a while, it usually came in at no cost, as the apartments were already provisioned with Coax with Antenna's for local over the air TV.  Basically you had a small BDU running in your apartment building.

So for now, I guess this is the legal case to be watching to see what happens, and also what it is that Bell plans to do if they follow through on their intent to deliver TV without Internet.  

Reference to the Bell announcement on IPTV without Internet

http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/Bell-Fibe-TV-to-be-available-as-a-standalone-TV-servi...

Will try to keep people up to date as I find more.  Also, note my previous post where the FCC has been backing off on complete separation of the box and the service  see http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/8/12852460/fcc-scraps-ambitious-cable-box-plan-in-favor-of-apps

Boy, what a legal, regulatory mess we are in the middle of.

Makes me more eager to just jump to over the top solutions and find the cheapest quality Internet solution to meet my needs and over the air transmissions.

Bruce

[BS]

@User14  If you see my earlier post today on the Bell Vmedia legal actions, yes definitly the question of IPTV over Internet, is now fully out and Bell definitely is fighting back hard.

If you consider Vmedia, they already have demonstrated that you can have a separate TV modem/box to obtain TV services, while not being on their dedicated Internet with their modem.

The requirement of modem for Internet or TV application device, like Roku and modem for Cable can be separate for each other, and that the requirement for both of them provisioned by the same company is merely a regulatory left over from the original BDU model originally implemented by Cable, then Sattelite, small community distributions of over the air channels, and now from distribution centre using IPTV protocols with modem downstream in our home and dedicated feed to the IPTV stream.  But we know that Bell, while fighting to prevent Vmedia from providing IPTV on any Internet feed, is moving to doing just that in the first quarter of 2017.

And yes, the whole issue of bandwidth caps and speeds definitely becomes relevant for the smaller ISP's, if they decide to get into IPTV in that they currently don't know what the model for them to use the big company Fiber connections to the node or to the hub (although Vmedia does advertise FTTN now as an option where available).  If they have to keep their IPTV solutions ontop of their Internet solutions, it is going to be difficult for some to keep up with these provisioning demands.

It is definitely a changing model going on right now.

Kind of fun to watch as a tech person, a pain as a consumer, but for now, I have the best I can get for my current needs, so no need to move just yet.  Although I would love more options.

Bruce

[Pauly]

Bell is not trying to stop or prevent Vmedia from operating their location free iptv over their Roku app. Bell is simply stating that Vmedia is only authorized to rebroadcast CTV/CTV2 on its home iptv network which are owned by Bell Media. A lot of people have been posting misinformation

[Pauly]

What Vmedia is doing is letting customers watch tv on its Roku app which allows them to watch while outside of the networks broadcast territory. Bell is simply stating Vmedia doea not own or posses a licence to retransmit ctv and ctv2 outside of the broadcast territory because they did not negociate these rights

[Gdkitty]

Thats my understanding as well.

its all a RIGHTS thing.

That they are paying for for regular broadcast rights over their regular TV service.. much like how rogers pays for those channels to bell as well, etc.

That they are not paying the rights for OTT for it.

Its all a big mess of RIGHTS and paying for them.
Lets just say for a simple channel that bell owns (lets say Space), what rogers would have to pay to bell, would be a seperate license fee for:

- SD Channel
- HD Channel

- Then specific rights for specific shows on that channel to be available on RoD

(though i wonder, if rogers has to pay OTT extra fees for RoD stuff, since its available that way?  I would guess so.
But would be different than THIS  issue, as its LIVE OTT vs archived?)

[BS]

I think at this point, I wouldn't go as far as saying misinformation - from my perspective, the question of Rights, versus OTT, IPTV, BDU's and so forth has just been formally laid out on the table and now is being set out in the courts, and ultimately, I would suspect (only my humble opinion) that since the CRTC is looking at all of these vary issues right now, it will ultimately end up with them or on the legislative table.  Ultimately, the outcome will lie with negotiations, the courts, legislation, and regulations, as well as competition.

I see your point about that Bell is trying to keep them restricted to the their IPTV offerings, and not available outside that area.  This is the same issue as with Netflix and VPN's, they have signed agreements with the providers of media that they will distribute in only some geographical areas, then people circumvent it via VPN IP addresses outside the normal viewing area.  They have done some small work at shutting down IP addresses and access through VPN's, but this is a bit of a bouncing ball, they shut down one, another comes along.

I know that Sony Canada used to control this on their OTT solution by distributing content to Canada customers through a server in Canada, so trying to bypass via VPN didn't work, as your access was through the Canada servers, where as a Canadian Netflix account is portable as you move across boundaries and they haven't conrolled access to Canadian accounts to only Canadian licensed content.

I think the thing to keep in mind with this whole thread is it is all speculation on information that is being distributed through the media and corporate announcements and legal actions.

But having said all that, I do agree that the case that Bell is putting forward is that it is a licensing rights issue that they have not given permission to Vmedia to broadcast the CTV and CTV2 channels outside of the Vmedia television network which is obtained by providing it through the provisioned Internet.

But it is a gutsy challenge on their part to bring the whole discussion to the forefront.

It is an interesting one and one I am sure technology, technology, and legislation/regulations will ultimately answer - it has been a troubling one for the whole industry for quite a while, made most obvious by Netflix.

It makes for an interesting discussion and speculation though - nothing in any of this thread is confirmed, it is all speculation of the possible futures.

Bruce

[BS]

Another intriguing change when it comes to alternative ways to receive Bell Fibre - was checking with them today - you can receive Bell Fibre as long as you have a Fibre TV with a PVR - would suspect that is because their model is now that it runs from the central box wirelessly, Bell Fibre subscription, unlimited Internet, an HDMI cable, not included, a MyBell registration, and a 4th generation Apple TV.  You then get the Bell Fibre TV app installed on the Apple TV box.

So, you could go with their single box, and use Apple boxes for additional connections.  This would allow them to meet their own requirements related to rights for usage of material, while giving the user the choice of use of boxes in their home.  

It relates to the claim that Vmedia is trying to fight and Bell is taking to court for clarification, which is that you can use alternative equipment to receive TV packages, but I guess the interpretation at the moment is that the box is OTT tv, but they are adding it on top of the standard rights and restriction related to use of media material and they are using the connection of Internet to provide for the provisioning and restriction to having their full Fibre service, but adding in your own equipment.

So I guess what becomes the next question, is can companies technologically provision for delivery of say the Vmedia simple package over a open Internet (not Vmedia Internet), and provide for payment of all rights and meeting the requirements of the media provision company (like Bell).

So I guess the question becomes, is the issue that the current model does not restrict the over the air signals to a geographic area, that Bell isn't willing to issue the rights to use their signals using the Vmedia model, or is there a technological issue in that the only way to restrict access is via provisioning over the dedicated stream of data over the same companies' Internet networks.

No where at this point in the description did they say that the Internet had to be theirs, just that you had to have Bell Fibre, although they direct you to your MyBell account to get unlimited Internet - and I can see why they want to separate their Fibre and Internet streams in the future - the minimum required speeds are 15mbs.  This would probably create issues with multiple devices in the home, as well as Internet load, so makes sense that they will be looking at separating the two.  

This may open the door to people having Bell fibre on lower speeds (I have 50 available in my area, but they have indicated that they plan to provision for full fibre in the new future, we have FTTN at the moment). and then I could stay with my choice of Internet provider - would suspect they will do nice bundling pricing models to encourage you to get both from them.

again, time will tell - this is just me thinking out loud.

In a lot of ways, I would be happy running Vmedia over Bell connections to my home - cheaper and meets my needs, but if Bell can match, I would consider them. I haven't been happy with Rogers since the whole Navigtr debacle began and it still leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. And at the moment, I could run the vMedia over the Bell lines, with one of their full Vmedia offerings which includes their Internet unfortunately, but let's say Bell offers Fibre without Internet requirement as they have said they would, another option becomes Bell Fibre and Vmedia, or Tech Savy, or any other Internet service over the Rogers' lines, and once the pricing model is established, Rogers will have to allow the smaller companies and any new ones that come into play, to use their connections to my door (just confirmed that I have up to gig available in my neighbourhood - surprising they haven't tried to market it to my area yet, but I am happy with 60 at the moment, and would have no problems with 50 from other companies - we are low demand Internet users, us retired folks).  We have a life outside of TV and Internet that we have found now that we have more time at home and realize that TV and Internet were actually distractions from job and the world for us.

Options seem to be coming our way - just will take time to roll out and see what they will be.

Bruce

[User14]

---

@BS wrote:

So I guess what becomes the next question, is can companies technologically provision for delivery of say the Vmedia simple package over a open Internet (not Vmedia Internet), and provide for payment of all rights and meeting the requirements of the media provision company (like Bell).

So I guess the question becomes, is the issue that the current model does not restrict the over the air signals to a geographic area, that Bell isn't willing to issue the rights to use their signals using the Vmedia model, or is there a technological issue in that the only way to restrict access is via provisioning over the dedicated stream of data over the same companies' Internet networks.

Bruce

---

I am having a tough time following this discussion without definitions for the acronyms, so I had to look some up:

Fiber to the node (FTTN) is one of several options for providing cable telecommunications services to multiple destinations. Fiber to the node helps to provide broadband connection and other data services through a common network box, which is often called a node.

An Internet service provider (ISP) is a company that provides customers with Internet access. Data may be transmitted using several technologies, including dial-up, DSL, cable modem, wireless or dedicated high-speed interconnects.

A multiple-system operator (MSO) is an operator of multiple cable or direct broadcast satellite television systems. Though in the strictest sense any cable company that serves multiple communities is an MSO, the term today is usually reserved for companies that own a large number of cable systems such as Rogers, Shaw and Videotron.

In broadcasting, over-the-top content (OTT) is the delivery of audio, video, and other media over the Internet without the involvement of a multiple-system operator (big telco ISP) in the control or distribution of the content.

A virtual private network (VPN) is a network that is constructed using public wires — usually the Internet — to connect to a private network, such as a company's internal network. There are a number of systems that enable you to create networks using the Internet as the medium for transporting data.

IPTV (Internet Protocol television) is the delivery of programming by video stream encoded as a series of IP packets. IPTV is distributed by a service provider and can be free or fee-based and can deliver either live TV or stored video.

Regarding your question, I remember reading a Forbes magazine article about the future of cable TV last year. The jist of it was that the existing cable box ensures cable companies can remain the gatekeeper with their licence agreements with broadcasters.  But the writer gave examples (Disney, Bloomberg) where you are allowed to download an app so you could stream the movie, sports or TV show using your existing infrastructure just with an access code to the cloud.  The writer figured the cable business as we know it will become a thing of the past. The ISPs could still use their valuable infrastructure to lease it for new services like home security or whatever. 

The bottom line was that the current business model is not sustainable because of the OTT reasons you stated. Anyone can now download a third party app to their laptop or ipad and stream whatever they want, whenever they want at a cheaper cost. I would have to find the article to see what MSOs do this and what services you get. I am fairly sure you need FTTN and a minimum speed. I have also noted that when the gatekeeper ISPs give you a cable box for Internet data, they also control the speed you get with the box. I think it is a physical limitation. 

To get higher speeds you have to buy more internet data! The software updates for these third party applications should not cost you GB's of data, but I am sure it will. 

[Pauly]

Since we are on the whole discussion of Big Telcos, let me offer my 5 cents.  In the past, I made a prediction that the set top box will eventually disappear and our Television will be delivered in a NetFlix like way via apps on our smart tv or smart devices but the box wont go away all together.  There are still parts of canada where Internet is still slow and very limited and places in Canada only serviced by Satellite or other legacy technologies.

I too am quite surprised that the lines between a Cable TV provider and a digital streaming provider are getting very blurry and may become one in the same down the road. I just want the Best for Canadians what ever happens.

If they take channels away then please Dont take away channels or shows that I actually enjoy watching and don't force me to binge watch stuff that I have no interest in just because every body else is interested. that is all I ask.

I get it times are changing, but im starting to get annoyed when people are telling me I can cancel Cable TV and buy their device and watch an unlimited amount of garbage movies or shows I dont have an interest in. What about the showa I like to watch? how dare somebody try and brainwash me to stop watching the things I actually enjoy just to save a couple bux every month.  No Thanks.

[User14]

I found the Forbes article I mentioned earlier. It is probably very old news now.   Can Cable Survive?

And judging from the US election, prognostication seems to be a dying capability as well.

I was not aware that "every major manufacturer now offers “smart TV’s” that can access the internet directly".  

A smart TV is a digital television that is, essentially, an Internet-connected, storage-aware computer specialized for entertainment. Smart TVs are available as stand-alone products but regular televisions can also be made “smart” through set-top boxes that enable advanced functions.

When you connect your internet directly to your TV, assuming you have a smart TV, do the manufacturers give you a selection menu to cruise the internet?  I don't have Netflix/HBO but it sounds worthwhile if you can download apps and get on-demand Canadian and US channels directly on your TV. The two negatives seem to be that without your PVR (cable box), you can't record anything to keep, and you still need unlimited data and speed from your internet service provider.  Where is a good site that explains how this works for a Canadian customer?

[Gdkitty]

Thats exactly it Pauly.

I have quite a few friends who have cord cut.
about 1/2 are 100% legal in how they get it.. the other 1/2 not so much.

The legal ones.. i have asked.. and they are much like you said.  Sure i dont get X, Y, Z, but i get all this other stuff.
Well what if i am not interested in that other stuff??

Sure then, you can go the more 'illegal' route.. but then well its not really legal than either.

Do i like having other options.. yes.  really pay MORE in the end, as i pay for netflix AND cable, etc... but i get enjoyment of different things, out of each of them.


Other than basic internet, for access to information, etc..
What really bothers me, is the number of people that are pretty much on the "these services should be next to nothing $$ wise" that they should be given away almost.. that they can not afford them, etc.
Ok, they could be a little cheaper.
But in the end.. again other than BASIC internet... are all EXTRAS.
Watching TV, gaming on the internet, watching TV on the internet, etc.  These are all EXTRAS.  They are a form of entertainment.
If you can not afford them??  Dont get them.  There are other things that you can do.  Read a book, go for a walk, paint a picture.

[Pauly]

Well Said Gdkitty.

I also want to mention another thing. I dont have Bell Fibe but a relative of mine does, they have a restart feature basically you can watch a show after it past, etc.  this is all cloud based technology and I feel we really wont need to rely that much on PVR in the future as I think most providers will launch cloud based PVR/DVR solutions in the future and that will eliminate the problems we have now of losing your recordings when your pvr is defective or swapped out, etc.

I also want to mention something about the whole Vmedia thing. Yes they are an IPTV provider, but the main difference between Vmedia and a company like Rogers is that if you have a problem with your cable tv or internet, Rogers will fix what ever is causing the problem. If you are with Vmedia and you are suffering from quality issues, Vmedia can only do so much, you also have to deal with your ISP if its a internet line issue, and becuse you are dealing with 2 companies, the IPTV and the Internet, it might be a little more challenging to figure out which one is causing your issue, you might also get the blame game where your internet provider says, your internet is fine talk to your iptv provider and you might get the same push back from your iptv provider who also may say, your iptv service is fine, check with your internet provider.  This is one of the fallbacks of having a system where you can operate on any internet provider, you can not have such guarentees to get 100% crystal clear picture quality at all times becuse you are operating on a network that the iptv provider has no control over.   Where if you were with Rogers, Rogers has to make sure the signal is working 100% all the way down the pipe from the head end all the way to your set top box, This costs a bit more money so thats why you pay a little more for cable,

[BS]

Thanks @Pauly, @User14 and @Gdkitty for all this discussion and input -

I would like to give a summary of a cold call I made to Bell just to enquire about options.

I started off by saying, I wanted lowest end Internet which for them in my area is their 15 plan, and I wanted a better IPTV plan - I said, that is all I am interested in.

Well, as we have all been through with any of the big companies, he immediately put out their "best value" package, which was home phone (lite), their 50 plan, unlimited, and the better plan.

I indicated that if I were to keep home phone - he asked who my providers were, and my phone number, I wouldn't give to him - wasn't needed, just my postal code, he wanted my address, again, no, just the postal code.  He confirmed what was available.

I indicated that for a home phone I needed long distance, canada and us, and I already had this solution in place and wouldn't tell him who with. I also indicated I wanted TMN package with HBO.  I was just curious what the wonderful value offer would be.

End of the discussion - 2 year contract on tv, not on home phone and Internet - we went back and forth on that one, while I confirmed that I had to keep Internet to have tv, so I finally said, so that is nothing but a marketing pictch, I am contracted to keep both Internet and TV - so just say that. He tried to dispute it, clarified with him that if I cancelled the Internet, I couldn't receive the TV, so I said, so I can't cancell TV and keep TV, so contract applies to both. He disputed, I said, "whatever", move on.

Well price outcome was 169.00 for 2 months, 196.00 for 6 months, 214 for 6-12 and 269 plus tax for second year.

Good thin i was on chat, I was killing myself laughing by then.  Told him, ok, now that you have tried to sell me your definition of value for things I never asked for, let's get back to the 15 and better cable - well, you know you can get a bundled package with phone, but it will be good the lower end tv package.

I told him, again, I asked for Internet and Cable, I have already said, I am not interested in your home phone - he tried to convince me that their options are the best and safetest (you know because they have direct 911 and no power outages over extended periods of time). I responded, debatable, but I am not interested in debating - price please.

169.00 because I wasn't interested in bundle, lower price with the bundle, but it crawls its way back to 169 and higher with the HBO included - and oh yeh, I get HBO free for one month.

Thanked him for the time, said, I would think about it, but that their prices weren't worth it, and that there was no value for a person like myself that just wants basics and said, your pricing strategy is used to convince us off the lower packages and then we end up paying more at the end of the day.

So, my challenge remains, pros and cons, like Vmedia and issues of multiple providers and responsibility for poor performance, Vmedia is now up in the range of everyone else now anyway.  What I would love is Bell TV I love the feature set, and have seen the performance in my daughter's place on their GB fibre provisioning in their apartment - and same on their Internet speed - great package to get as many users in the building on Bell.

I would also like rogers Internet - like the speed available, although it still is overkill, but pricing is similiar to better speed and performance I trust.

So at the end of the day, Rogers still wins out for me, until the end of the contract, and at that time, I will think seriously how I can get what I want for the best price, and if I have to have a few extra pieces of useless service to me, I will take it from whomever. 

But the pricing and bundling packages have been carefully developed by all the companies in order to drive us to higher end bundles - we still have the full implementation of pick and pay to come, the rollout of ISP's over the full fibre networks for all companies, Bell's decision to seperate requirement of Internet and TV, whatever that will look like.  For now, there really has not been much choice provided, except things like Roku and Apple boxes are poking their face into the market and I am sure the CRTC is not done with watching closely how they all roll this out.

I am running out of things to say - for now, we have what we have, I have no choice but to cut back due to financial reasons, so I may go back to my childhood and have over the air TV off my roof, and what I can find over Internet and an Internet package that best meets my needs.

Bruce