Just a few weeks after announcing $2 rate increases on most tiers of the company’s broadband service, Rogers Communications has announced speed upgrades and tiny increases in usage allowances for certain customers:

• Express: download speeds will increase from up to 12Mbps to up to 18Mbps and data allowance will increase from 60GB to 70GB.
• Extreme: download speeds will increase from up to 24Mbps to up to 28Mbps and data allowance will increase from 100GB to 120GB.

These enhancements apply to customers utilizing Rogers DOCSIS 3.0 capabilities. Rogers will start rolling out the faster speeds to existing Express tier customers currently receiving download speeds of up to 12 Mbps starting January 26^th and will continue over the following weeks. New customers will experience faster speeds beginning February 21^st. All new and existing customers will benefit from higher data allowances starting March 8^th.

Rogers has played repeatedly with their usage allowances, particularly for its Extreme tier, which has seen increases and decreases over the past few years:

Rogers Extreme Tier Usage Cap History

• 2009: 95GB per month
• 2010: Reduced to 80GB per month (-15GB)
• 2011: Increased to 100GB per month (+20GB)
• 2012: Increased to 120GB per month (+20GB)

Rogers’ Express service gets just a 10GB monthly bump, making the speed upgrade less valuable because customers are restrained from using the service.

Rogers says the incremental upgrades are a result of Canadians using the Internet more than ever.

“Rogers customers are increasingly watching movies on Rogers on Demand Online, working from home and using multiple devices like tablets and laptops connected by Wi-Fi to the internet,” said John Boynton, executive vice-president and chief marketing officer at Rogers Communications. “The ways Canadians are using the internet are changing dramatically and we are constantly reviewing our plans and policies to ensure they deliver the best possible customer experience that lines up with evolving needs and usage patterns.”

Apparently those living in western Canada use the Internet even more, because Shaw Communications’ comparable broadband tiers are much more generous:

Shaw Communications Usage Allowances

• High Speed 10Mbps: 125GB per month
• High Speed 20Mbps: 200GB per month
• Broadband 50Mbps: 400GB per month

Ex-CEO Jim Shaw earns even more not working for the cable company his father founded.

The ex-CEO of Shaw Communications is a charter member of the 1% Club, raking in more than $25 million from a golden parachute retirement package cable customers are paying as part of their ever-increasing monthly cable bills.

Jim Shaw earned $1.2 million in 2011 from his duties as chief executive.  But when the 53-year old decided early retirement was right for him, the company that shares his name provided a generous $25.5 million parting gift.  That’s a golden parachute package equivalent to what more than 2,000 lower-middle class Canadians earn each year.

What makes Jim Shaw worth that much?  Company officials claim the departing CEO helped the company earn new revenue.  But Shaw subscribers know the recipe for higher revenue is easy to make — annual rate increases and overpriced products and services.

Shaw didn’t have much of a fight justifying his departing pay package.  Not with his father J.R. Shaw holding 79 percent of the cable company’s Class A voting stock.  The Shaw family has been especially generous with themselves in 2011.  Brother Brad pocketed $15.8 million this year for himself.

The Shaw Executive Money Party has grown so large, the company’s top six paid officers collectively walked away with compensation of $82.2 million in 2011, $1.5 million more than Shaw Communications earned in the entire fourth quarter of 2010.  Imagine one-quarter of your company’s earnings headed straight into the pockets of a half-dozen employees, often immediate family members of the CEO or company founder.

Even those sums are dwarfed by the $330 million the company has now set aside to guarantee executive pensions, even as Shaw’s lower level employees (and most of their customers) see their incomes continue to stagnate, if not outright decline.

That three Shaw family members collectively grabbed $58.6 million from the company accounts is not welcome news for shareholders.  Jim Shaw’s exit package in particular proved galling for some, particularly because he effectively sabotaged his own standing with image-damaging public comments and an abrasive management style.

“There was a lot of institutional backlash over the pension given to Jim on his departure because it was rather monstrous,” one pension fund adviser was reported as saying in the Edmonton Journal. “This is just another piece that will get everybody upset.”

Shareholders are also unimpressed with the value of their Class B Shaw stock, which has remained lackluster since 2006.

While top management earned big, Shaw has alienated customers with legendary call holding times that can extend for hours, annual rate increases for cable service, and less-than-impressive customer satisfaction scores.

Shaw is western Canada’s dominant cable operator.

(Courtesy: Glasbergen)

Shaw Cable customers in Langley and Aldergrove, B.C., waited as long as four hours on hold to speak to a customer service representative trying to learn when their cable and broadband service would be restored after vandals cut a fiber line.

Days later, hundreds of customers were still without service… and answers.

“When I called [Shaw], I was told there was a four-hour wait to talk to customer service,” area resident Candace Hopkins told CBC News.

That four hour hold time was hardly an isolated case.  Several CBC viewers reported similar experiences, and many simply gave up calling even though their cable service was out for days.

Shaw Cable suspects the vandals were would-be copper thieves, unhappy to discover their efforts would only net them fiber optic cables which have almost no resale value.  But customers suspect the cable cuts have not been a priority for Shaw, leaving customers in the dark about when service would be restored.

CBC News called Shaw customer service and only managed to get a recording, which said nothing about how large the problem was or when it would be fixed, saying only that some service was restored and crews were working on the rest.

Other calls to Shaw’s media relations department from CBC News have not been returned.

Shaw customers are not amused, invading the company’s Twitter account with repeated complaints. Other outages have left customers with similar experiences.  One customer on the Outer Gulf Islands told he’d be waiting up to four hours for help managed to leave his number for a call back.

“The kicker is that after about four hours we received a call from something approximating Shaw,” the customer explains. “I believe that it was a call center in India. To add insult to injury, the voice on the other end of the phone line told me that everything was fine with my line. And, it was. Service had been restored 10 minutes before the call back. When I tried to explain this and asked what the earlier service disruption was about, the voice on the line simply kept repeating that everything was fine on my line.”

Shaw’s hold times are infamous in western Canada.  It is not uncommon to wait at least an hour to speak to a customer service representative as we reported back in September.  Some customers find it quicker to drive to the nearest cable office to arrange for service calls or manage their accounts.  So far, Canadian regulators have done little to pressure Shaw into making improvements.

When service was restored, some customers were brave enough to call Shaw to request outage credits.  “A big mistake,” shares one of our readers.

“The automated voice said there was a two hour hold time and when I finally got through, I was told I couldn’t get a credit because I didn’t report the outage during the outage,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jules who shared this story over his restored Internet service in Aldergrove.

“They didn’t seem to have a good answer when I suggested how difficult that would have been since it took out my Shaw telephone line as well. I got my credit.”

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

Julia Chastin is old enough to know that life sometimes makes you wait, but three hours is ridiculous.

Chastin (her maiden name, to protect her privacy), is a customer of Shaw Cable in Fort Macleod, Alb.  Her Internet service went down last weekend when the neighbor’s overzealous application of a “weed whacker” went awry and damaged her cable connection.  Chastin called Shaw Cable to report the problem, and there began her life in call queue hell.

“Usually companies who make you wait will tell you if their lines are especially busy, which is fine because I can just set the telephone on the speakerphone and go about my business until someone answers, but this turned a phone call into an afternoon adventure,” Chastin says.

In total, it was two hours, fifty-three minutes before a human being finally came on the phone, but only briefly.

“I heard this fumbling sound like someone’s headset was coming off, some mumbling and laughter, and then the line disconnected,” Chastin reports.  ”I was furious.”

Chastin is not alone.

“Shaw’s hold times are legendary here in the west,” says Rob Kelvey, a Shaw customer near Vancouver.  ”You can easily wait on hold an hour or two before someone answers, and that is day or night.”

Kelvey reports Shaw teases customers with an option inviting customers to accept a call back from a Shaw representative instead of waiting on hold, but it doesn’t work.

“I have used this option at least three times in the past year or so and it has never worked once.”

The problem isn’t just noticed by customers.  A recent polite editorial in the Grand Forks (B.C.) Gazette called out Shaw’s ridiculous hold times and poor customer service:

There are probably many people out there who have had to call the cable company when a TV or Internet-related problem arises only to be put on hold and not just recently.

It is not unusual to be put in a phone queue, especially when it comes to customer service, but the sometimes extraordinarily long wait times can even test those with the greatest of patience.

“Three hours isn’t patience, it’s perseverance,” retorts Chastin.

Customer Service Scoreboard bottom-rated Shaw, based on several hundred responses from customers.  More than 300 were critical of Shaw; only 17 people shared positive experiences with the company’s representatives.   The website rated Shaw Cable a dismal 29 out of 200, putting them firmly in the “terrible” category.

“Sometimes it really is faster to walk to a local Shaw Cable office to report problems instead of calling them on the phone, an ironic fact for a telecommunications company,” says Kelvey.

Shaw officials will occasionally tweet apologies for extended hold times and suggest customers use their online chat customer support feature or their Facebook page for assistance.  But some customers found Shaw’s online chat had “hold times” as well, sometimes as long as 40 minutes.

“Fort Macleod doesn’t offer a lot of options for Internet access, so waiting for Shaw is unfortunately the best option, but when I finally did manage to get someone on the phone, they heard from me good and I received a $20 service credit as an olive branch, which I appreciated,” Chastin says.

“I’d appreciate more not having to wait my life away on hold for hours even more.”

Canada’s transition to digital television was supposed to be a non-event for cable and satellite customers, because those providers will continue to service analog televisions for sometime to come.  But Shaw Communications found a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of some of their subscribers anyway.

While Canadian broadcasters were discontinuing analog over-the-air television, many Shaw Cable service areas were also dumping an increasing number of analog channels in favor of digital.  In Kamloops, B.C., Cheryl Whiting discovered that conversion was going to cost her plenty.  Although Shaw provides one digital set top box for free, each additional box rents for $2.95 per month, and Whiting will need four of them if she wants to continue watching cable stations above channel 13 throughout her home.

“I may as well sign my paycheque over to them,” Whiting told The Daily News.

Shaw’s ongoing “digital upgrade” is clearing away much of the analog cable dial to make room for additional digital television signals and faster broadband, but that transition comes at a price to customers who now need a set top box on most of their televisions.

Many customers were upgraded during the month of August, with most of the rest scheduled for conversion during September.

Shaw tells customers it is moving all of their cable channels above “broadcast basic” to a digital platform, requiring customers to place digital set top boxes on all of their televisions.  (1 minute)

Two years after Americans dumped analog television in favor of digital over the air broadcasting, in just over two weeks many Canadians will discover their favorite free-TV signals gone from the analog airwaves forever.

Canada’s transition to digital TV will take a substantial step forward on Aug. 31st when many Canadian local television stations cease broadcasting in analog.  Canada’s pay television providers are taking full advantage of the transition, trying to persuade Canadians who watch their television signals over-the-air for free they will be better off paying for those signals going forward.

Part of the problem is that digital television signals, while “snow-free,” are not pixel-free in many areas distant from the transmitter.  As Americans in suburban locations discovered, those trusty indoor rabbit ears may be insufficient to receive an annoyance-free picture.

Digital television signals are not the nirvana some suggest.  The same passing vehicles and aircraft that caused wavy analog pictures or other interference can turn a digital picture into a frightfest of frozen picture blocks, digital raining pixels, and other effects that can make watching a difficult signal near impossible.

For Americans who thought the days of the external rooftop antenna were behind them, digital television changed all that, especially in more rural areas that could live with a slightly snowy analog picture, but found sub-optimal digital signals unwatchable.

Canada’s vast expanse, and its accompanying large network of low powered television repeater stations rebroadcasting signals from major stations in provincial capitals and large Canadian cities may prove to be an even greater reception challenge, especially in the Canadian Rockies and hilly terrain in eastern Canada.

Some Canadians experimenting with digital-to-analog converter boxes have found reception less practical than they originally thought.

Peter, a Stop the Cap! reader who lives near Oshawa, Ontario delivers some difficult news:

“Reception of digital signals from Toronto’s CN Tower has proved to be a lot more difficult in Oshawa than the existing analog signals,” Peter writes.  “We have no trouble getting truly local signals like CHEX-TV, which has a transmitter in analog serving Oshawa, but watching digital signals from Toronto really requires an outside antenna for good reception.”

Snow may be a thing of the past, but bad digital reception like this may be here to stay for many Canadian viewers.

Peter’s decision to erect a rooftop antenna opened the door to reception of analog and digital signals from Toronto and across Lake Ontario, where he can receive digital signals from some stations in Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y.  But it was an expense of several hundred dollars to get the work done.

“Cable and satellite companies are taking full advantage of the digital switch to try and get free-TV viewers to ‘upgrade’ to pay television, and they don’t hesitate to mention the expense and hassle of erecting rooftop antennas to guarantee good digital reception,” Peter says.

Peter can only imagine what digital reception will be like in the Canadian Rockies, where large networks of analog, mostly low-powered UHF transmitters deliver basic reception to important networks, especially CBC, outside of major cities.

“If you visit western Alberta or eastern B.C., good luck to you — we could barely watch over the air signals in most of the mountain towns,” Peter says. “Most people either have cable or satellite already.”

Not every television transmitter is scheduled to switch off analog service at the end of August.  Many rural areas are expected to retain analog signals for some time, in part because of the expense of digital conversion and concerns about reception quality.  But some areas, particularly near the U.S. border, are scheduled to drop analog signals regardless, potentially causing disruptions for plenty of free-TV viewers.  Ottawa is anxious to auction off the vacated frequencies for cell phone, Wi-Fi and wireless broadband use for an estimated $4 billion, and the demand is highest in cities along the U.S. border.

“As many as 1.4 million English-language viewers and 700,000 Francophone viewers may be left without a CBC signal,” Ian Morrison, spokesman for the non-profit Friends of Public Broadcasting, which monitors the CBC and promotes Canadian content on TV and radio told the Toronto Star. “For the most part, these are poorer and older people on fixed incomes who are of no interest to advertisers, but who rely for their news and connection to the community on the CBC, the nearest thing we have in this country to a public broadcaster.”

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission runs a website regarding the transition and includes a list of impacted television stations.  Canadian consumers who elect to purchase converter boxes for their analog televisions will pay full price for them — Ottawa has not followed Washington’s lead subsidizing their purchase with a coupon program.

Meanwhile, many pay television providers are running “digital TV upgrade” specials trying to get Canadians to walk away from free TV in favor of paid video packages:

Shaw Direct: Shaw’s direct to home satellite service has developed the best offer around for qualifying residents in 20 Canadian cities set to lose analog television: free service.

“The Local Television Satellite Solution is [for] households in 20 designated cities that have been receiving their television services over-the-air, and will lose over-the-air access to their local broadcaster because the analog transmitter is being shut down and will not be replaced by a digital transmitter,” a Shaw spokesperson told the Toronto Star. “Shaw will provide a household in a qualifying area with a free satellite receiver and dish that is authorized to receive a package of local and regionally relevant signals from Shaw Direct. There are no monthly programming fees provided that a household qualifies to participate in the program.”

The qualifying cities:

For everyone else, Shaw Direct’s least expensive package is their Bronze – English Essentials tier which runs $41.99 a month.

Rogers Cable: Rogers is marketing a special package called Rogers Digital TV which offers up to 85 channels for $10.14 a month, which includes all fees.  Many of the channels are included for the first year as a teaser.  After that, customers are left with mostly local stations and filler (including — we’re not kidding — the Aquarium Channel, which shows exactly what you think it does.  Remember, this is the same cable company that brought you the Swiss Chalet Rotisserie Channel.)

“It’s a fine way to get people used to paying for television, and Rogers introductory price is sure to increase at some point,” suspects Peter.  “Maybe you can save a few dollars using those Swiss Chalet meal coupons, though.”

Telus: Western Canada’s largest phone company doesn’t offer much, in comparison.  A basic package of Telus IPTV over your phone line — Optik TV — starts at $41 a month for the first six months.  Telus Satellite TV starts at $38.27 a month, for the first half of a year.  Prices run higher after that.  The most Telus will toss in is a $50 credit for a customer referral from a friend or family member.

Look on the bright side: When you pay for Rogers Cable, you can finally get to watch The Rotisserie Channel. The spinning chickens are waiting for you, in digital clarity, 24 hours a day on Ch. 208.

Bell: Another phone company with not a whole lot on offer.  Bell’s basic service, which includes TV stations from the U.S. and Canada, starts at $33.50 a month.

Videotron: Quebec’s largest cable company is pitching a combo mini-pack with basic service for $21.29 a month and a required extra channel package starting at $11.17 a month.  That’s around $33 a month.

Can you watch online?  The CRTC says you may find many of your favorite shows available online for free viewing, but includes the important caveat: most Canadian ISP’s engage in classic Internet Overcharging schemes that include a monthly usage allowance that will curtail substantial online viewing.  It should come as little surprise most of the providers in the pay television business in Canada also happen to be the largest Internet Service Providers as well.

About 93 percent of Canadians currently receive television from some form of pay television provider — cable, telco TV, or satellite, according to the CBC.  But some of the 7 percent who do not are at risk of losing Canada’s public broadcaster after the conversion.  While CBC owns most of the stations and transmitters it broadcasts from, it also affiliates with private stations in certain cities where it does have its own presence.

Come Sept. 1, no over-the-air CBC signals of any kind will be transmitted from London and Kitchener-Waterloo in Ontario; Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières in Quebec; Saint John and Moncton in New Brunswick; Saskatoon, Sask., and Lethbridge, Alta.  These are all cities where private stations provided CBC service.  Viewers in these areas will need a pay television subscription, or simply go without.

For some of those already subscribing to cable, Sept. 1 also signals the end of some of their favorite stations, as CRTC requires cable providers to prioritize local stations over more distant ones.  In southeastern Ontario, for example, a number of viewers will lose access to CBLT, Toronto’s CBC station, and CFTO, Toronto’s CTV affiliate, in favor of “more local” stations in Kingston, Ottawa, and Peterborough.

While Netflix has grown like wildfire across Canada, providing unlimited streamed video entertainment for $8 a month, a few cable operators at risk of premium channel cord-cutting have responded with their own movie streaming services, at least one that temporarily found itself the subject of controversy when it was introduced a few weeks ago.

Shaw Communications’ Movie Club is that cable company’s answer to Netflix — offering a flat rate streaming service available over broadband or through your Shaw set top cable box for $17 a month ($12 if you forgo HD movies).  For that, Shaw promises unlimited viewing, without any usage caps so long as you stream movies from your cable box and not from your home computer.

But is it worth it?

With the assistance of one of our readers in Calgary, we were able to give Shaw’s Movie Club a trial run.

Availability

Evidently, Shaw Movie Club works best if you live in Calgary or Edmonton, where Shaw has been testing their new “Gateway” system, which is a combination home video terminal/DVR designed to compete with phone company DVR boxes which can record 4-6 shows simultaneously and deliver recordings to multiple sets in the home.  A number of Shaw customers on less-advanced, older cable systems may find the service a lot less convenient to use.  Outside of urban Alberta and in British Columbia, we found instances where customers could request to view Shaw Movie Club titles, but they had to be watched on your cable set top box.  For now, the most aggressive marketing for the service seems to be in Calgary and Edmonton, perhaps for this reason.

The Selection

When we sampled the service, we found about 150 titles available for viewing — hardly a wide selection.  Although many popular, semi-recent movies were available for viewing, the selection was comparable to what one would find from one or two premium movie channels.  Existing premium subscribers may find more than enough to watch from Super Channel or Movie Central On Demand, which are included with your subscription to one or both networks.  In the States, HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime all offer their own virtual “on-demand” channels that let viewers select most of the titles shown on each respective network for instant, on-demand viewing.  Shaw Movie Club felt very much like one of these channels, based on the limited selection.

In comparison, Netflix does not make it easy to count the actual number of streamed movies they have on offer at any one time, but the selection was clearly more substantial on Netflix, with a much deeper catalog.  But Canadians are also punished by Netflix because the service does not yet have agreements in place with studios to stream the same titles to both American and Canadian audiences.  Americans have a much larger selection of titles to stream.  Shaw’s agreements with studios clearly emphasize more current titles, and there are titles available on Shaw’s service that are not available from Netflix.

Winner: Netflix – You have a better chance of finding something to watch on Netflix.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – But the service may have access to movies you wish Netflix provided.

Shaw's biggest competitor

The Value

At up to $17 a month, Shaw Movie Club is expensive.  In fact, it’s a lot more expensive if you do not subscribe to Shaw’s cable television.  It’s required to sign up for the streaming service.  That seems counter-intuitive to provide video streaming but deny broadband-only customers the opportunity to buy, but not when you consider such services are designed to prevent cable-TV cord cutting, not enable it.  Shaw charges nearly $40 in Alberta for basic cable service, so that’s a steep entry fee to pay before handing over another $12-17 just to stream movies.

For those uncomfortable video streaming on home computers, Shaw’s set top box solution lets you watch shows on-demand directly on your television.

Shaw initially found itself mired in controversy when it appeared they would exempt their video streaming service from their own usage caps — a clear anti-competitive move against Netflix, which does count against your cap.  But Shaw quickly clarified their position to state only set top box viewing was exempt from their caps.  We’re not certain exactly what distinction Shaw is trying to make beyond the political, because data is data — it all arrives on the same cable.  Shaw would argue their video may travel over their “television” bandwidth when delivered to set top boxes and their broadband network when delivered over the Internet.  But Time Warner Cable has shown it can deliver video over its Apple iPad app to cable subscribers over Time Warner’s internal network, which means it costs next to nothing to provide.  We suspect there is nothing technically precluding Shaw from exempting all of its Movie Club viewing from usage caps, beyond the political implications of doing so.

Winner: Netflix – $7.99 a month is an afterthought when you consider how much you can watch.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – Up to $17 a month is a very steep price to pay for fewer than 200 movie titles to watch.

Video Quality

Both services delivered high quality video, even over a remote connection we used to sample Shaw Movie Club.  Shaw’s HD streaming performed with absolutely no technical flaws, evidence they are paying careful attention to deliver video from networks as close to their customers as possible.  Shaw’s HD streaming was often better than Netflix’s online streaming, but Netflix’s network consumes a lot less bandwidth, an important distinction if you have a large family piling on your broadband connection at the same time.  Shaw’s video is a bandwidth piggy, and will eat into your usage allowance fast if you use it over the Internet.

We recommend watching Shaw’s service over your existing set top box whenever possible.  It’s convenient and won’t count against your usage allowance.

A Tie: Netflix and Shaw Movie Club both deliver excellent quality video with no technical flaws experienced.  Shaw Movie Club has a larger selection of HD movies, but that is tempered by the fact watching them will rapidly erode your usage allowance if watching online.

Unless Canada deregulates the media industry further, a “technological storm” by “audiovisual Wal-Marts” will harm or destroy Canada’s media companies.  No doubt looking directly at Netflix, those were the views of Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau at the outset of hearings held this week by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on media ownership and vertical integration issues.

Canada’s media landscape is rapidly consolidating at a rate that will allow even ordinary Canadians with a passing interest in the issue to recognize the handful of remaining media moguls and identify them by name.  Phone companies that own major Canadian television networks, cable operators that own cell phone companies, and mergers among the dwindling pack have left consumers soaking in Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor — whether they flip on their televisions, make a cell phone call, read a newspaper, or download something from the Internet.  Talk about vertical integration!  Now the supersized are back for more deregulation so they can trade programming rights between themselves, fend off the devil — Netflix, and of course continue to buy each other out.

There is one exception, of course.  Allowing party crashers.  While all of the incumbent players want the rules loosened up on their respective media and telecommunications operations, they are hellbent on keeping foreign competition out of Canada — the only real deep pockets sufficient to break up a convenient cartel of phone and cable companies.  Rogers and Shaw stay on their respective sides of a line dividing eastern Canada’s turf for Rogers and western Canada’s territory for Shaw.  Bell and Telus do much the same.  Quebecor provides cable for Quebec, and a handful of much smaller players fight for any remaining crumbs.

For Americans, it would be the equivalent of turning over your telephone, broadband, cable, television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations to Rupert Murdoch or ex-media baron Ted Turner.

For Canadians, these hearings come just a tad too late.  Shaw Communications is absorbing their latest buyout — Canwest Media’s TV assets, which are hardly meager.  Shaw will run more than two dozen local broadcast TV outlets, 30 cable and satellite networks, and Global — a major broadcast network.  Bell is still popping Rolaids over its digestion of the enormous CTV and smaller upstart A-Channel network.  When it’s finished, “A” will become “CTV Two.”

The Globe and Mail notes between them, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Quebecor control:

• 86 per cent of cable and satellite distribution;
• 70 per cent of wireless revenues;
• 63 per cent of the wired telephone market;
• 49 per cent of Internet Service Provider revenues;
• 42 per cent of radio;
• 40 per cent of the television universe;
• 19 per cent of the newspaper and magazine markets;
• 60 per cent of total revenues from all of the above media sectors combined.

As far as growth goes, as Alan Keyes used to proclaim, “that’s geometric!”

But it’s still not enough now that Netflix has arrived in Canada.  Despite the fact the operation has been challenged by punitive usage caps restricting viewing (or lowering its video quality), Netflix and new technology companies like it are the 21st century boogeymen for these multi-billion dollar media corporations.  The only way to defend against it?  Deregulate to allow them to trade viewing rights, grow larger, and charge whatever they like.  Somehow that seems to miss the point: Netflix is popular because it costs less, allows people to stream the shows they actually want to watch at a time of their choosing, and let’s families drop some overpriced premium channels and video rental fees along the way.

Bell’s dollar-a-holler researcher expanded on why large media conglomerates miss the point, even if he did so unintentionally.

According to University of Alberta economics professor, Jeffrey Church, “vertical integration is beneficial for consumers.” Sit down as you read why:

• it reflects efficiencies, spurs competitive innovation and is a global trend;
• telecom, media and Internet markets in Canada are “highly competitive;”
• our ‘small media economy’ needs a few deep-pocketed national champions to compete globally and invest heavily in innovation at home;
• instances of harm are mostly imaginary and few and far between;
• it helps keep “consumers . . . within the regulated system” (Shaw’s submission, p. 4).

Like cattle.