The country’s television regulators took a potentially big step in that direction on Friday — and it could reverberate in the U.S. where Big Media companies are determined to keep their lucrative pay TV packages intact. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission said that Bell Media — the country’s largest owner of cable and satellite channels — has the right to unbundle its services: A household’s payments for each channel can be pegged to the number ordered. (For example, those who want just a few channels would pay more for each one than would someone else who orders lots of services.) The ruling doesn’t require pay TV distributors to break-apart their bundles, although that’s something the regulators clearly want. Bell Media President Kevin Crull acknowledged that the ruling could result in higher prices per channel. But he says the change — which would free consumers from having to pay for channels that they don’t want — will help Canada ”maintain its position as a world leader in providing consumers with both a wide array of programming choices as well as packaging flexibility, all at affordable rates.” All eyes will be on Canada’s experience: Programmers here vigorously oppose a la carte pricing. They say it could result in consumers paying more than they do now while potentially dozens of channels — especially those appealing to niche audiences — go out of business. A change also could trash the earnings of network owners that depend on collecting consumer payments for little-watched channels. The CRTC “said we want to see things move in this direction,” says George Mason University Law School Prof. Jeffrey Eisenach, who specializes in broadcast regulation. He says it’s just a matter of time before bundles become obsolete. With the advent of VOD services such as Netflix “the market is being fundamentally transformed.”
Related: Netflix CEO Says Monthly Viewing Exceeded 1B Hours In June


Let’s hope so, as that would mean US customers may soon be able to do that same, and I can say goodbye for all the worthless channels I never watch yet still pay for. Viacom: I’m looking right at you.
If I could pick the channels I wanted and didn’t have to take unwanted channels with them, I would buy more and watch more. But the way it is, I have the cheapest, most basic cable possible – just enough to get local channels and PBS clearly. The other two dozen channels go unwatched.
You smell that? Yep. That’s the future.
Then the next thing is being able to watch the New York & Los Angeles network programming. My original method of time shifting from my 12 foot dish days.
Ha! K Band lives on in memory and on oil rigs.
I recently cancelled all my cable services. Watched probably 12 channels if that, but paid for a gazillion.
Would love to pay per channel.
It’s a no-brainer that a la carte is on its way to the U.S. in the next three to four years. How many English speakers would eagerly part with all the spanish language, and other non-English channels on their systems. (Raise your hand). Same with sports. Let the jocks pay 5 gazillion dollars for ESPN, GOLF, etc. I don’t want any of it!
Three to four years is way too soon. It may eventually happen, but it is going to take a while because of the greed, corruption, and current contracts.
^ THIS !
+ 1,000,000
Easily 120 such channels in LA that I want nothing to do with.
Bell is synonymous in Canada with screwing their customers at every opportunity. Their policies and practices are well-documented as being anti-competitive. Whether it be Cable, Telephony, or Internet, they maximize profits to the detriment of technology in each of those industries and to the country itself. They are a big part of why Canada has overpriced, slow internet speeds (my WiFi in LA is considerably faster than my ethernet in Toronto) and among the highest prices for wireless services anywhere in the world.
If Bell is for it, you can bet that no matter how it shakes out, it’ll end poorly for the consumer. I say this as someone who is in favor of breaking up Cable packages. Knowing Bell’s pushing for it means something’s wrong and my opinion must be reconsidered.
well said!
I’m a Bell customer and i have nothing but concerns about future.
The Corporate States of America will fight this tooth and nail. Lobbyists are parachuting into Washington DC as we speak.
If the niche served is too small to survive as a cable or broadcast channel, it should either go out of business or the business model needs to be altered (distributed via YouTube or some other streaming service).
Really tired of paying for MTV. I stopped watching it back in the 80′s. I would like to see how much of a cash cow ESPN would be for ABC/Disney if people actually had to choose it as part of a sports package or opt in ala carte. I wouldn’t pay for it, but I think plenty of people will buy it.
I pay over 225 CDN a month for my cable and internet, why so much, because I have to take on bundles, bundles I never ever watch, all I want are my 20 or so HD channels with the time shifting feature. Why pay for channels I never watch? As I’ve said before, I would gladly pay for each show I watch, as long as there are not logos, commercials and the like, the studios make their money, and I get what I want a TV show with no distractions.
I think most people want a la carte ONLY if it will be less expensive. It reminds me of whats going on int he cell phone industry where VZ introduces shared data and it ends up costing most folks a lot more. I only watch a small handful of the channels and I was thinking of canceling. Does anybody just have the basic cable with no HD and wondering what do you pay? My Direct TV includes the lowest tier package, 1 dvr, and 2 tvs and its 69.50…but then Comcasts charges me an additional $15 for internet service cuz I don’t use them so it probably ends up being fairly even.
Will never work in the US. The greedy cable companies would just make individual channels prohibitively expensive. To the point you might as well just buy a bundle of channels. And then of course you have to ask about network channels. They are free to air but cable companies pay to rebroadcast them. Would they try to charge you for those as well if you didn’t want to use an antenna to get them?
Bundles are already obsolete for me. I’m ditching cable in favor of Netflix/Roku. Cable and satellite had better wake up before their customers are gone, especially the younger ones who never had cable or satellite to begin with.
Imagine going to the store to buy milk and being forced to buy 100 rolls of paper towels with it. That’s how absurd bundling is.
Ir would be great to pay for the individual channels we want in Canada then it might lead to better programs being shown.
My two cents,
CRTC get off your ass and do something about this cable company joke of television pricing, and packaging that goes on in Canada. Major overhaul is what is needed. If I ran my company like these cable companies do, I wouldn’t be in business, and neither should these cable companies. Expensive product for what you get, lousy customer service, and being force fed television programming crap that you shouldn’t have to pay for.
Where are the companies that can give you the option to pay for what you want to watch? Give me a break if you think Bell is the answer!! There’s a company that would take advantage of charging a premium if you got to choose what you wanted! Oh, but how I would love to be proven wrong.