Bell tells staff to downplay new $25 basic TV package ordered by CRTC

[Acura604]

Bell tells staff to downplay new $25 basic TV package ordered by CRTC - Business - CBC News

Bell Canada is directing sales staff not to promote its new basic $24.95 "Starter" TV package, according to a recent internal training document obtained by CBC News.


The "Starter" pack will be unveiled Sunday, the document indicates. By March 1, to comply with new CRTC rules, all TV service providers must offer a "skinny" basic package costing no more than $25 a month, plus additional pick-and-pay channel options.


The Bell document also shows that add-ons to the basic "Starter" pack can become so costly that what was supposed to be a good deal for Canadians could wind up, in some cases, costing more than their current cable bill.


One Bell employee who has seen the document told CBC News he believes that Bell's aim is to make the basic "Starter" package as unattractive as possible. He claims that's because the company wants customers investing in pricier deals.



"They're making the skinny basic package simply unbuyable," he said. "What's been explained to me is that maybe one per cent of people would be interested in getting it."

The Bell worker asked to remain anonymous, because he fears retribution from the company.

Downplay the 'Starter' pack


The Bell training document states: "Do not promote the Starter TV package. There will be no advertising, and this package should only be discussed if the customer initiates the conversation."


It also shows that costs for the Fibe TV "Starter" pack can go much higher than the initial $24.95 monthly fee. The plan comes with about 20 mandatory Canadian channels. Customers can then add individual pick-and-pay channels priced at either $4 or $7.


As with other packages, people will also have to shell out extra monthly fees for the TV receiver or box rental and high definition programming. In addition, according to the document, to get Fibe TV, customers must subscribe to a Bell internet package.


On top of that, according to another apparent Bell training document posted online, the company will not offer any deals to "Starter" customers.

The document said there will be no bundle discounts, no hardware or PVR deals, and "no TV sweetener offers" with the package.



Fibe is Bell's high-speed fibre optic network. It also offers separate plans for satellite TV.


The Bell document obtained by CBC News lays out the pricing for the Fibe "Starter" with some add-ons.

Combined with ultra-high-speed internet, a couple of $7 pick-and-pay channels and the TV box rental, according to Bell's own calculations, a customer would pay a total of $130.35.


That's more than five times the initial price of the basic package.


CBC News reached out to the CRTC and asked if Bell could require customers to buy Bell internet when signing up for the "Starter" basic pack, as indicated in the company document.


Soon after, we heard from a Bell employee who told us that "Starter TV no longer has to be linked with internet. [Bell] just backed off."


CBC News asked the company for a response to this story. "Sorry I wouldn't comment on anonymous claims or documents you are finding," Bell spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said in an email.


She also wouldn't confirm any details about the "Starter" pack. "We wouldn't pre-announce pricing," she said. "It's a competitive business."


Michelis added: "We will follow all CRTC rules, we always do."


Keep it on the down low?


The CRTC regulations mandating a $25 basic "skinny" TV pack and added pick-and-pay channels were designed to give viewers more choice. The rules were created in response to customer complaints that they were paying too much for big bundles of channels just to get the ones they want.





Industry analysts have speculated that providers are not eager to promote the basic package, because it could inspire customers to pare down their TV plans.

"They`re not making any profit off of this package and what they`re doing is, they`re downplaying the idea of this being a benefit to customers," said Daniel Bader, senior editor with the tech site Mobile Nations.


Just days before the final March 1 deadline, major TV providers Bell, Telus and Rogers have yet to publicly release the details of their new offerings.


Like the Bell employee, a Rogers worker has also told CBC News that the cable provider had instructed staff to downplay its $24.99 "Starter" pack that will be unveiled March 1.


Rogers denied this, claiming the company instead told employees to make it clear to customers that the downsized deal wouldn't be the right fit for everyone.



Obligated to advertise


The CRTC has told CBC News that TV providers are obligated to advertise the new "skinny" basic pack and pick-and-pay options.


"[We] will certainly be following through on ensuring that they promote this package and these opportunities as well as they promote their other packages," Scott Hutton, the CRTC's executive director of broadcasting, said several days ago.

But that doesn't mean much, journalist Greg O'Brien, who closely covers the Canadian TV industry, told CBC News. He writes for the online publication Cartt.ca.

He predicts TV providers will give the new cheap package some obligatory attention, but that it will be limited.

"No one sells basic cable. So, skinny basic will be there, but it's not going to be on top," says O'Brien.

[underscore]

It sounds like Bell are too busy trying to gouge people for every cent they can to bother considering they would make a bunch of money by not being the massive cunts that they are and actually providing what people want for a reasonable rate.

All I want is 3-5 channels in decent quality, so until I can do that for a decent price the cable companies will continue to get nothing from me, and last I checked anything is more than $0/month.

[Ronin]

I'm on Bell. Will be downgrading my TV package soon.

[Mr.HappySilp]

LOl you guys think only bell will be doing this? I am sure other providers will be doing the same. You really think Shaw will allow you to get the skinny basic and includes a PVR for free? Or allow you to add extra channels for $2 per channel.

I said this before and I say it now with pay per channel you will most likely end up paying more if you were to get a bundle. Want HBO only? sure it will cost you $15 for that channel only vs getting the movie central package for $18.

[6793026]

If I was a Bell rep, even if it wasn't a corp. initiative, I would also down play this as well.

Reps are paid on commission, if i was to sell someone a 28 dollar package earning $2 commission, versus $75 package, making $7 dollar commission, i would outright try to sell the $75 dollar package.

Just common sense, of course you want to upsell to earn more commission.

[kkthind]

people still watch TV these days?

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by 6793026

If I was a Bell rep, even if it wasn't a corp. initiative, I would also down play this as well.

Reps are paid on commission, if i was to sell someone a 28 dollar package earning $2 commission, versus $75 package, making $7 dollar commission, i would outright try to sell the $75 dollar package.

Just common sense, of course you want to upsell to earn more commission.

One trick I always use is always get customer to get some extra channels. Which package your prefer Movie central or movie central plus? In customer's mind they are giving an option but both options cost them money and in the end over 60% of the ppl will pick one of those paid options I give them.

[Manic!]

You can check bell pricing here. It's a total rip.

[Bell] New Television Pricing (a la carte) - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

[Jmac]

Telus still says Optik is unavailable in my area, despite upgrades being completed in the fall. I get a discount via work, so I'd love to get away from the current gouging of Shaw, but looks like I'll just be downgrading my TV package in a few days.

[nabs]

Originally Posted by underscore

It sounds like Bell are too busy trying to gouge people for every cent they can to bother considering they would make a bunch of money by not being the massive cunts that they are and actually providing what people want for a reasonable rate.

All I want is 3-5 channels in decent quality, so until I can do that for a decent price the cable companies will continue to get nothing from me, and last I checked anything is more than $0/month.

BINGO! I remember when the whole thing with cell phone "Monthly Service Fees" and then again with the "3 year contracts" debacles. The suits at Bell actually said at the hearing with the CRTC that "there is nothing wrong with what we are doing, the customers are agreeing with their wallets"

[nabs]

Originally Posted by 6793026

If I was a Bell rep, even if it wasn't a corp. initiative, I would also down play this as well.

Reps are paid on commission, if i was to sell someone a 28 dollar package earning $2 commission, versus $75 package, making $7 dollar commission, i would outright try to sell the $75 dollar package.

Just common sense, of course you want to upsell to earn more commission.

Off-topic kind of, but Bell reps get paid a lot more than that. And it's standardized, they don't get paid more depending on which package the customer chooses, they get paid the same amount regardless of the tier chosen.

However... they do get paid extra for add ons, so signing a customer for the 25 dollar package would prove beneficial to the rep, as then they can upsell and get more money per channel for the deal.


edit for clarification: my info of this is from 2008 to 2011ish. It may have changed since then.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by nabs

BINGO! I remember when the whole thing with cell phone "Monthly Service Fees" and then again with the "3 year contracts" debacles. The suits at Bell actually said at the hearing with the CRTC that "there is nothing wrong with what we are doing, the customers are agreeing with their wallets"

Don't forget that gongshow when Bell wanted to start charging everyone out the ass for internet usage. There was an interview out there where that slimeball Kevin O'leary was congratulating the Bell rep for trying to screw their customers out of every cent they could and the guy from Bell just sat there with this greasy grin the whole time.

[Soundy]

This whole story falls under the category of "BIG FUCKIN DEAL".

[6793026]

[QUOTE=nabs;8732113]Off-topic kind of, but Bell reps get paid a lot more than that. And it's standardized, they don't get paid more depending on which package the customer chooses, they get paid the same amount regardless of the tier chosen.
/QUOTE]

Oh for sure they get paid more. mine was just an example on their commission.

[DJ Milk]

I just switched to the Starter package and the USA networks are included but not listed on the website. I almost signed up with Shaw because I thought the 4+1 wasn't included. But the new Good 2 package which cost $3 more then the old Good package seems to include a lot more channels including SportsNet and TSN.

[Mr.HappySilp]

LOL the new skinny basic package is going to screw a lot of ppl.

[Acura604]

$25 'skinny' TV packages called a 'ripoff' as industry 'stares down' CRTC - Business - CBC News

March 1 was supposed to be the dawn of "a new era of choice for TV viewers," in the words of the CRTC.

Customers can now purchase a $25 basic TV package. They can also top it up with individual pick-and-pay or small bundles of their favourite channels — essentially paying only for the ones they want.

The era of being forced to pay big bucks for hundreds of channels customers never watch is supposedly over.

But it's not. So far, the new CRTC regulations appear to be rather toothless — definitely not the game-changing legislation TV customers were hoping for.


"Looked into all of them yesterday," commented a CBC reader, referring to the TV service providers' CRTC-mandated deals. And what was the person's conclusion? "It is still a ripoff."


That's because many cable and satellite companies are making the new offerings at least as pricey as their other packages, once you add up all the fees.


And the federal broadcast regulator hasn't taken any action. The CRTC tells CBC News that at this point it is "monitoring" the situation.


Meanwhile, many Canadians searching for better TV deals are feeling let down, wondering what exactly was the point of the new CRTC rules.


"Thanks for nothing CRTC," commented a CBC reader on one of our stories on the issue.

A grand idea that didn't pan out?


The CRTC mandated that by March 1 service providers had to offer a "skinny" basic TV package for $25 or less that included mandatory Canadian channels. They also had to provide individual or small bundle channel options.


"These changes will ensure Canadians have the ability to choose the television content that meets their unique needs, budgets and realities," the CRTC told CBC News in a statement.


TV service providers didn't exactly embrace the new rules from the start. And why should they? What for-profit company wants to shop around a pared-down, cheap TV package?


Now that the regulations have taken effect, it appears many providers are going out of their way to make the basic plan and added pick-and-pay channels as unattractive as possible.

"They're making the skinny basic package simply unbuyable," a Bell employee told CBC News. He asked to remain anonymous because he fears retribution from Bell.


"The company is just sort of giving the CRTC the finger," he adds.


Often, the new TV plans come with none of the deals typically offered, such as discounts for customers getting multiple services. So subscribers find themselves stuck paying full price for everything including necessities like PVR rental and installation costs.


In Bell's case, customers getting its $24.95 Fibe Starter pack also have to shell out money for Bell internet service.


Pick-and-pay channels and theme pack prices are extra charges on top of all the fees. For example, Rogers is only offering added small channel packages at this point, which can run as high as $18 each.

Has the CRTC lost control?


Many customers who have crunched the numbers are not happy with the results.


"Checked out the 'skinny' being offered by Rogers. Just as I suspected, getting less and paying more," commented one CBC reader.
"I checked my account with Bell and discovered I'd be paying more for less!" concluded someone else about the company's new offerings.


So who's at fault? TV providers run for-profit businesses and will do what they can to make money.


"That's just a competitive market, the different companies trying to get you to buy as much from them as you can, and I don't blame them," says Mario Mota with the Ottawa-based Boon Dog Professional Services.


It's up to the CRTC to ensure that consumers are getting a fair deal. CBC News laid out how some of the providers are pricing the new options and asked the regulator what it plans to do.


"The CRTC will be watching how service providers implement these changes," responded spokeswoman Patricia Valladao. She added that the commission "will not hesitate to act" if it sees companies disregarding the spirit of the rules.


So far, the CRTC hasn't seen reason to act.


The bumpy road ahead


It's complicated, says Dwayne Winseck, a professor at Carleton University's School of Journalism and Communication.


He says the CRTC has already allowed a concentration of ownership where a small number of service providers dominate the marketplace.


Now, he says, the CRTC is attempting the tricky task of trying to control TV providers' "behaviour" in order to provide better deals for consumers.


"So far it's not panning out. The companies are really trying to stare down the CRTC on this one," he says.


But Winseck says that if the CRTC wants to usher in a new era of choice for TV viewers, it's going to have to take charge.


"The CRTC is really going to have to steel its spine and the government is going to have to line up behind it," he says.


Until then, the marketplace will rule. Which means many cable TV providers will continue to push their bigger TV packages and convince consumers the $25 basic plus pick-and-pay deal is not such a good deal after all.


It seems that, at least for now, the new era of TV choice isn't much different from the old one.

[Soundy]

I fucking called it. I KNEW this is how it would end up. OpenMedia and their ilk got everyone all worked up over phone contracts and we got fucked over on that... now thanks to these same assclowns that can't see the world beyond their own noses, everyone is gonna get fucked over again with TV services.

All these wannabe consumer-activists need to just shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down before they make a mess of something else in the name of "consumer protection". They need to learn that the market WILL look after itself and if you force the providers to give up one revenue stream, they'll just make up the difference somewhere else... and probably make it cost more overall just out of spite.

[bcrdukes]

On a similar topic, these consumer-activists screwed people over by encouraging mandated domestic roaming for wireless, giving an advantage to smaller carriers like Wind and Mobilicity (at the time.)

Because of this, carriers are no longer providing subsidies on handsets and more so, they have no reason to further build and expand their network infrastructure, because why put in the capital investment when you can use your competitor's sites? So much for Canadian growth and innovation.

A big thanks for nothing to consumer-activists and the CRTC.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by bcrdukes

A big thanks for nothing to consumer-activists and the CRTC.

Hey now, the CRTC are just giving the people what they demand. Problem is, "the people" don't pause long enough to think out the consequences of the changes they ask for.

They get told we pay the highest cell rates in the world, they flip out, they're continually fed BS until they make enough noise to get something done... and now we pay more... but hey, we got rid of the three-year contracts!

Hey look, things are so much better in the US, we're getting screwed on our TV/internet, we should be more like them! Look, unlimited internet for $20/month! Yeah... except that when you hit some ridiculously low traffic cap, they just throttle you down to a trickle. "Yeah, but it's so much cheaper now!" That's great, and my actual high-bandwidth, high-speed connection now costs me twice as much. STFU.

[John]

I think some of you are missing the point or have gone off topic.The CRTC $25 TV package may not have been effective, but we are no worse off than before. The same TV packages that were available last week are still available today. There has been nothing lost.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by John

I think some of you are missing the point or have gone off topic.The CRTC $25 TV package may not have been effective, but we are no worse off than before. The same TV packages that were available last week are still available today. There has been nothing lost.

Maybe you missed the part where it will now cost more to get the same thing you have now?

The Bell document obtained by CBC News lays out the pricing for the Fibe "Starter" with some add-ons.

Combined with ultra-high-speed internet, a couple of $7 pick-and-pay channels and the TV box rental, according to Bell's own calculations, a customer would pay a total of $130.35.


That's more than five times the initial price of the basic package.

So yeah, nothing lost... except a lot more cash.

[Jmac]

The PST exemption also only applies to the least expensive option offered, so if you previously had Basic and didn't switch to the $25 option, you're now paying PST on your existing Basic cable.

[tiger_handheld]

just downgraded with Shaw to Limited pkg with 3 add ons for $22. Saving about $40 from the cable bill. No TSN/SNP though... kind of shitty, but I'll catch the locals when it's actually worth watching the game.... maybe 2016/2017 season.

[vitaminG]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Maybe you missed the part where it will now cost more to get the same thing you have now?



So yeah, nothing lost... except a lot more cash.

it only costs more if you pick and play instead of going with an existing bundle. all the packages that were there before are still there. nobody is any worse off than they were before.

we've seen this before, the government cant just legislate lower prices. businesses will try to make it up elsewhere.