Price Dispute Means 800k Customers Lose TV Channels In Sweden (telecompaper.com) 164
Z00L00K writes: Due to a conflict between the cable operators and the channel providers, 800,000 to 900,000 customers will lose some of the most-viewed TV channels in Sweden, among them Eurosport, Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. Additional customers in Norway will also lose channels. This is caused by a considerable hike in price for the channels from the provider Discovery Networks. However the amount of money involved is still kept secret for negotiation and business reasons. "Telenor Broadcast arm Canal Digital said Discovery Networks has told it that it will withdraw its channels from Canal Digital Sweden and sister company Bredbandsbolaget from 01 February. This follows Discovery's attempts to raise prices and pay for a number of channels that viewers had not chosen. This will affect their approximately 800,000 customers while a new contract is negotiated. Telenor Sweden customers will not able to watch Kanal 5 or the other Discovery channels until a deal is reached." Considering that Sweden has a population of almost 10 million the impact is noticeable.
More serious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm one of the affected Norwegian customers, and frankly couldn't care less that some channels are gone. What -I- want to know, is why I cannot buy broadband without having to pay for a lot of nonsense TV content. No one in my family watches TV anymore, and the consumer authorities have already pointed out repeatedly that this bundling practice needs to stop.
Re:More serious problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Iceland and I'm wondering if I'm going to be affected; I think our channels are based on yours (at the very least, the commercials on them are in Norwegian).
I like to use some of those channels as "background noise" while I'm working on a project. Nothing so interesting as to draw too much of my attention, nothing so annoying as to make me angry at it (describes most of the stuff on History these days), but also nothing so tediously mundane as to not give me the benefit of "background". Discovery Science commonly suits the bill, sometimes NatGeo, sometimes BBC, etc.
Re:More serious problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Try listening to the radio.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the affected Norwegian customers
I live in Iceland and I'm wondering if I'm going to be affected
I live on a rock in the middle of the North Atlantic that's only above water about half the time. I think I might be affected, but I'm still waiting for the seawater to drain out of my TV so I can check.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bundling reduces prices. Your cable/TV company sell you to advertisers. It's as simple as that. It's the same all over the world. If you don't like it, stop kidding yourself the ISP is only what you pay. Cancel everything to do with TV, the STD/DVR etc, and pay the price for online only. It sucks, I know. But we've been doing it for over four years now, and it's just the way things are, and it'll probably never change because there's too much money involved.
That lack of competition doesn't really help us. C
Re: (Score:2)
Bundling does NOT reduce prices. The extra income from bundling is used to subsidize channels that nobody watches, creating make-work jobs for friends and family. And no, it's NOT the same all over the world. Change is coming [theglobeandmail.com].
And who is still watching Animal Planet?
Re: (Score:2)
What really astonishes me about that is that (a) this is a corrupt practice, (b) it has to do with TV, and (c) I can't blame it on the cable company. I'm not used to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Minneapolis, they bundled in TV reception that's very expensive and won't even let me watch Minnesota Twins games (the local Major League Baseball team is about the only reason I'd want TV). Fortunately, they do allow cancellation.
Re: More serious problem (Score:2)
I don't know how Discovery is in Norway, but here in Canada the increasing frequency of the commercials and the show format killed it for me. Previously a show would feel like it had content, now it feels like 20% of the show time being real content, with the other 80% being commercials, announcing what is coming up after the breaks and what came before the breaks.
The History Channel is no better and worse when I got a DVD from the channel for my father, the format was kept - ugh.
Affects about 1 000 000 viewers in Norway too (Score:4, Informative)
The issue is even bigger here in Norway, where it affects almost 1 000 000 customers. Since our population is about 1/2 of that of Sweden, it means that almost 20% of Norwegian TV customers are currently missing all of DIscovery Networks channels, including several national ones.
Re: Affects about 1 000 000 viewers in Norway too (Score:1)
Lol, what good is all your oil and money if you can't watch ghost stories and crappy reality shows on Discovery?
Re:Affects about 1 000 000 viewers in Norway too (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't say they're "missing" them Bob.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is even bigger here in Norway, where it affects almost 1 000 000 customers. Since our population is about 1/2 of that of Sweden, it means that almost 20% of Norwegian TV customers are currently missing all of DIscovery Networks channels, including several national ones.
One customer is one household, it affects approximately half of the households in Norway - not just 20%. That said, the networks wanting to increase their pricing with a couple of hundred million NOK for "mandatory" channels that mostly funded by advertising is rather unreasonable. If they want their channels to have subscriber income, charge it directly to those customers who want them.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is even bigger here in Norway, where it affects almost 1 000 000 customers. Since our population is about 1/2 of that of Sweden, it means that almost 20% of Norwegian TV customers are currently missing all of DIscovery Networks channels, including several national ones.
Yes, this story submission is slanted towards this primarily being a Swedish problem. It isn't. It's primarily a Norwegian problem (Telenor is a Norwegian company), with fallout also in Sweden.
Discovery Networks got greedy, and Telenor refuses to play ball.
This will only lead more people to cut cable, which Telenor already is planning for, long-term. As one of the largest ISPs, and largest holder of the IP infrastructure, they are not blind to this.
Re: (Score:1)
Losing Channels (Score:1)
Same in the United States where there is a dispute between COX Communications and Nexstar Broadcasting. As of Jan 29th, all CBS, NBC, MyTV, and many
other stations have been dropped by COX. Show me the Money!
Discovery Channel is all BS reality TV now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the WW2 obsession as well.
Next up:
"How the destruction of the Axis Hidden Rubber Factories of Java and Zimbabwe turned the tides of Global War"
"How the Secret Bridge Game between Stalin, Hitler, Churhill and Roosevelt turned the tides of Global War"
"Amazing Cornbread Recipes of American POWs in Germany: How our POWs secretly culinary arts turned the tides of Global War"
Re: (Score:1)
True. The reality-tv crap has taken over the Discovery channel too. Do people really pay cable subscription to get all those shows about auctions, motorcycle builds and "documents" about aliens? To add the insult, the Discovery has now commercial breaks just as the free channels do.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm sure as hell would rather cancel the TV entirely and subscribe to Netflix and Crunchyroll for 20$/mo than pay 70$ for this crap that I barely watch.
This seems to be the way a great number of people are headed over here across the pond, and it has recently become more tempting since you can order HBO on its own (at least in the US).
It remains to be be seen what the Netflix/Amazon/etc. subscription prices will be if packaged cable goes the way of the land line.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Frontline is one of the few American documentaries worth watching. A lot of the crap on Netflix or Amazon Prime is just repetitive bullshit that keeps asking the same question over and over again, plays the same footage on a loop, and keeps you waiting to the end of the show for the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Gen-Xer, personally despise anything with hype, melodrama, and electric guitar riffs in a DOCUMENTARY!
As a fellow Xer, and a fan of PBS/Nova/Frontline, I agree completely. However, we have to be fair here and acknowledge that those things you describe started when Xers started getting into their 30s and watching programs like that.
Re: (Score:2)
At least PBS has quality content still, honestly. Nova has gone down hill a bit in presentation, but that's a generational culture thing. As a Gen-Xer, personally despise anything with hype, melodrama, and electric guitar riffs in a DOCUMENTARY! Frontline OTOH, still golden; probably the best non-biased documentary series out there.
I never saw a PBS documentary before I got Netflix, I can see why no Australian TV station would buy one and it's not just because we've got better alternatives from the BBC and other British and Australian production companies. The PBS documentaries were terrible in quality. Ignoring the fact they start off with electronic panhandling, the presentation was lacking and the narration was lacklustre.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All channels are going downhill these days. Look at MTV, etc.
Huh? (Score:3)
Price Dispute Means 800k Customers Lose TV Channels In Sweden
Slow down, Mr Headline. They haven't lost them yet.
This follows Discovery's attempts to raise prices and pay for a number of channels that viewers had not chosen.
Huh? Discovery wants to pay for some extra channels?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Based on the limited information given, sounds like they want to subsidize less popular channels by raising prices on more popular channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were shut off today. I am one of the affected customers.
Time to give the consumer total choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to give the consumer total choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the land rush for decent, original content by Netflix and Amazon and a few cable channels that haven't given in to "reality" shows featuring has-been B-listers screaming at each other, I'm surprised that this would be a business priority for Discovery.
I would think they would rather invest in decent content while they can still compete for it so they will have something to show. Jacking up the price on junk content sounds to me like the way to become irrelevant faster than they already were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to give the consumer total choice (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that Netflix is a bundler as well, right? You can't go to Netflix and say "I just want to get Beasts of No Nation, Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards." You have to buy the entire service.
Re:Time to give the consumer total choice (Score:4, Informative)
1) has no commercials
2) wide variety of content all on demand
3) costs less than any other channel available a la carte
4) offers multiple stream plans
you can always go pure a la carte but that's oddly more expensive in the form of buying just what you want from amazon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it would be trivial for consumers to be able to pick the channels they want individually on a website and then pay for them for them individually
It'd also be trivial to dissuade subscribers from doing so. "You can have our 50-channel bundle for $50 per month or individual channels at $10 per month each." Which will most people choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know anyone who has Internet only for Netflix? Because that's like saying having a computer costs hundreds or thousands of dollars per month because you include the price of your rent/mortgage.
It's almost as if... (Score:3)
Sweden, home of The Piratebay (Score:1)
They should know how to deal with unwilling braodcasters there. Just pirate what you want to see and drop TV completely.
Who knows what a summary is anyway. (Score:3)
The quote in the summary is literally the entire article. The added text around the quote actually makes the summary quite a bit longer than the linked article.
Re: (Score:2)
And as usual timothy screwed up the submission.
Re:Who knows what a summary is anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Give timothy some slack right now - he appears to be the only one left.
Unless, of course, it's the new owners that submit using timothy's account.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's far more logical to assume that Timothy's the only one left and that he hasn't slept for the last few days. Because before the new overlords, there wasn't any typos or mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said yesterday, the new owners promised that they weren't going to make drastic changes right off. This means that they're not just going to shut off the dupes, unimportant stories that few nerds care about, bad summaries, and other editorial errors. They're going to continue them for a bit while considering whether they're what Slashdot is all about.
Happens all the time (Score:2)
Finland also hit (Score:2)
This has also happened in Finland. Apparently the cable companies were not allowed to warn customers beforehand because of some sort of NDA.
Re: (Score:2)
Denmark as well. I'm guessing all of Scandinavia is serviced by Canal Digital.
Supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is obvious: we need more middlemen.
Eurosport (Score:1)
Eurosport here in Austria Eurosport has lost some of its cable providers already. They wanted to enforce an Analog transmission for the upcoming years while literally all local cable providers cut the analog cable transmission by this year to make way for more HDTV channels and GBIT Cable Internet. So the result was that Eurosport was kicked out from the local providers due to corporate stupidity from Eurosports side.
Cut the cord (Score:5, Insightful)
People are sick of these perpetual price increases. Cable is the only product I can think of that is constantly decreasing in value yet always increasing in price, well above the rate of inflation.
Enough is enough.
I cut the cord back in July, and I've not missed it. And better yet, my dollars are no longer fund channels like MSLSD or CNN.
Re: (Score:2)
People are sick of these perpetual price increases. Cable is the only product I can think of that is constantly decreasing in value yet always increasing in price, well above the rate of inflation.
Politicians are costing the average joe more and more every year to give more and more to their 0.01% overlords.
Package sizes are shrinking to hide that you're paying more for less.
How's that university degree holding up, cost/benefit-wise? Ask any grad waiting tables or working at Wallyworld.
About the only ones getting increasing value for decreasing price are employers who treat their employees as replaceable cogs who live in fear of losing what little they have.
Cord Cut, no regrets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really owe it to yourself (literally) to check TV Fool and see if you can get OTA TV.
That doesn't help when popular sports are exclusive to traditional multichannel pay TV. I don't know about the Swedish TV market, but in the United States, most of the NHL (ice hockey) playoffs are on NBCSN, and the NCAA division 1 men's basketball playoffs (branded as March Madness) are on TBS this year.
meh (Score:5, Funny)
Eventually it will get resolved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I've heard the Swedish Chef was in charge of the negotiations, so it could take a while.
I wonder... (Score:2)
again? (Score:3)
again?
Last year, same issue, different channels:
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/kultur--nojen/700-000-hushall-kan-mista-tv-kanaler/
Maybe I'm Stating the Obvious But... (Score:1)
Who really cares? The programming on cable TV has been abysmal for over a decade now.
Let cable TV die.
It NEEDS to die to free up those resources and political strength for emerging technologies that are far more interesting to our long term media consumption needs and wants.
Re: (Score:3)
You're stating what's obvious to nerds and people who are aware of alternatives, but for the rest of the world, things like Netflix are just words they hear a few times per year.
So yes, the more the old telecom powers lose their grips on their markets by asking for more money instead of less, the more alternatives are getting known by necessity.
800K customers lose TV (Score:2)
Urge to kill... rising...
Can Sweden Survive This Catastrophe? (Score:5, Funny)
So a few thousand Swedes might lose access to Shark Century, Ice Road Fuckwits and Cannibal Hillbillies of Alaska?
Oh, the humanity!
People still watch TV? (Score:2, Interesting)
The mother of invention (Score:3)
Coming soon to computers in your area: a more consumer-friendly, untraceable Torrent interface.
TV DIED with LONG paid for ads by the consumers. (Score:5, Informative)
Advertisement revenue on traditional TV has been on a downhill run - the short term solution puts the FINAL nail in the coffin for TV, and that is the
In Sweden (or Norway, Denmark etc.) we pay for 3 licenses:
1) The National TV license. This one is MANDATORY if you have a television. It's roughly 300$ a year, and you can't opt out unless you have NO TV or RADIO.
2) The second license is the one you pay for your subscription channels, that is...if you want something BESIDES the NATIONAL "we-will-kill-you-with-culture" channels.
3) The THIRD license is the forced Advertisement which consists of pretty exactly 5 minutes of ADS (30-50% Casino/Gambling ads) and 2.5 minutes of ADS and SPONSORS for the TV channels next tv programs, which they will repeat over and over until you're a dumb monkey salivating as you try to reach the remote, now that finger pressing is just a body-twitch.
The worst part is that you PAY for all of the other stuff and STILL get forced to watch those horrible repetitive Casino-this-gamble-that ads.
I rarely watch "broadcast" television anymore, I usually spend my time on the internet, and/or watch PAID for documentaries and movies on Netflix and other services where I can TURN off the goddamn ads!
Re: (Score:2)
In Denmark the TV license is mandatory if you have any device that can watch national TV. Since national TV provides streaming with support for phone, tablets, and computers, there are very few households who do not have to pay the license.
Re: (Score:2)
In Sweden, it is the existence of a receiver within the household that counts. If have a TV or a DVD player that contains a receiver (my DVD player is also a DVR) then you would have to pay a license. There is a max of one license per household though in case you would have multiple devices.
A year ago, the mandatory TV license applied also to PCs because they could be connected to the Internet and so it was reasoned that they could receive TV over the Internet that way. ... Except that not all PCs were abl
Re: (Score:2)
In Norway though, it's similar in that it's the presence of a receiver that counts, BUT you can have your receiver disabled and not have to pay the TV-license. Which you can't in Sweden. There's nothing stopping you from using a screen without a receiver and just watch Netflix etc. though (radios fortunately no longer count).
And it wasn't actually common sense in in the TV-licensing authorities that changed their interpretation of the law. It was the court clarifying the interpretation for them. The licensi
Post - Apocalyptic (Score:2)
Some decisions have huge effects (Score:3)
Re: And nothing of value was lost. (Score:5, Informative)
I was somewhat amazed by the claim that Eurosport was one of the most viewed channels here. So for fun I went to mms.se to check how they did yesterday. Three of their shows climbed above 5000 viewers, with one peaking at 35000. Most were in the 1000-2000 range.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there.
Re:Oh my God (Score:5, Funny)
Logarithmic TV FTW !
Re: (Score:2)
Logarithmic TV FTW !
I'll see your logarithmic and raise you an exponential TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on there. We haven't got to power series yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Levels of depression are plummeting.
Re: (Score:2)
Eurosport
Or at least it would be if I still watched linear TV
Even if you don't watch sports, a lot of other people do. Is anything other than linear TV efficient for sports?
Season tickets cost more than cable (Score:2)
Season tickets cost more than cable [slashdot.org], and you miss away games and the post-season. And if the team that you follow is not the team in your city, airfare alone makes it impractical to attend any match. This could be the team associated with the university from which you graduated or which your child attends, the professional team in the city in which you grew up, the professional team to which your favorite player was traded, or a major league team if you live in a city not big enough for a major league team.
Re: (Score:2)
News for nerds who share a home with jocks.
Re: (Score:2)
News for people interested in digital services, the markets they operate in, the trends in those markets and the people impacted by them.
Or news for people that don't fit your narrow facile binary segregation of the population.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't make a deal. Tell them and the rest of the cable industry to **** off. Sick of having to pay a higher price because I have to get sports channels and other garbage bundled with what I actually want to see. Until a la carte comes along, cable can suck it.
A la carte won't change anything. They'll just make you pay 1 or 2 channels as much as the 50 (2 good channels + 48 garbage ones) channels you're watching right now.
What needs to happen is price reduction across the board and it ain't happening. So the only alternative is for customers to ditch cable and to use something like Netflix or spend the money to rent the 2-3 good tv series that come out each year.
The only people that are truly fucked either way are those adicted to live sports channels. For these
Re: (Score:2)
So the only alternative is for customers to ditch cable and to use something like Netflix or spend the money to rent the 2-3 good tv series that come out each year.
"Rent"? Since when do video rental stores exist in most markets? I thought Blockbuster closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should send Mr. Spock [youtube.com] to these negotiations.
Yes, I know... RIP, Mr. Nimoy.
Re: (Score:2)
The loser culture of the nerd is being expunged from society
Really? You must be from Planet Geek. Mostly neither respected nor listened to by your bosses, seen as a replaceable cog - the sooner the better, and boring as all hell for the rest of society to talk to.
Why? Too narrow focus. Look at the negative reaction to posting stories that aren't immediately nerdy-geeky, like this one. Cable companies in Sweden still wanting to bundle channels so that people have to pay for shows they don't want. Do YOU like to pay for something you don't want? Or bait-and-switc
Re: (Score:2)
Cable companies in Sweden still wanting to bundle channels so that people have to pay for shows they don't want. Do YOU like to pay for something you don't want?
This demonstrates two misunderstandings of the system. First, what makes you think prices would go down if you got only the channels that you wanted to watch? They wouldn't. There are fixed costs that everyone has to cover. Add in the cost of changing the billing system to deal with ala carte, and the number of customer support people who would have to be hired to deal with billing errors and churn.
Second, everyone gets channels they don't watch in this system, so while you think you are paying to subsidi
Re: (Score:2)
Their fixed costs would be lower because they wouldn't be spending money on producing or buying shows that don't have enough viewers to justify it. Supply and demand 101.
I've been 100% OTA for decades. I don't *need* to watch any particular show.
Re: (Score:2)
Their fixed costs would be lower because they wouldn't be spending money on producing or buying shows that don't have enough viewers to justify it. Supply and demand 101.
Failure number 3: just because you don't want to watch a certain channel doesn't mean nobody else wants to watch it. Cable companies buy product, so they don't save in production; they still have to pay the producers. Their costs don't go away just because you don't order a channel ala carte.
I've been 100% OTA for decades. I don't *need* to watch any particular show.
That's nice. You're now part of the group that pops up every time cable programming is discussed who tells us that we should just drop cable because you personally get by without it just fine. We're all glad that you ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)