Home » Competition » Recent Articles:

Canadian Netflix Rate Increase: Up $3 to $13.99/Month for Standard Plan

Phillip Dampier November 29, 2018 Canada, Competition, Consumer News, Online Video No Comments

Canadian Netflix subscribers will pay up to $3 more a month in the coming weeks for streaming video as the company raises prices to produce more original Canadian content.

The latest rate increase is the largest ever for the service in Canada.

New Rates for Netflix Canada

  • Netflix Basic increases $1 to $9.99 a month. No 4K video and one-stream only
  • Netflix Standard increases $3 to $13.99 a month. No 4K video and up to two streams at a time viewing
  • Netflix Premium increases $3 to $16.99 a month. Includes 4K ultra HD video and up to four streams at a time viewing

The new rates take effect today for new customers. Existing customers will be notified by e-mail about the rate increase and when exactly it will be applied to their account.

Netflix Canada has taken over distribution of the long running mockumentary filmed in Nova Scotia.

The last rate increase in 2016 raised the price of Netflix by $1.

Netflix Canada spent $3.3 billion on original content in 2017. That is more than any of Canada’s English language commercial networks or broadcasters spent on scripted productions. Netflix also films many of its original productions in Canada, which is less expensive than many American filming locations.

Netflix Canada appears to have found a formula that works for the streaming service: participating in co-productions with entities like the CBC (at least for English productions) and asking subscribers to pay more to cover the company’s costs. This has spared Netflix from having its service subject to the federal GST, which would come out of subscribers’ pockets.

The company has had a much more difficult time dealing with the provincial government in Quebec, which protested loudly that Netflix Canada failed to make specific French language content commitments. As a result, Quebec has slapped its 9.975% sales tax on Netflix and all other streaming services.

Canada is gradually catching up to the United States in cord-cutting options. Netflix Canada’s offering is just a few hundred titles behind Netflix’s catalogs in the United States and Japan.

Other services have entered Canada in the last year or so, including CBS’ All Access, Acorn TV, and BritBox.

In response, Canadian broadcasters and telecom companies are beefing up their own services, which include CTV Movies/CTV Vault and Citytv Now/FX Now (which are only for authenticated cable/satellite subscribers) and Bell’s Crave TV (which just launched CraveTV+, offering more movies and original HBO shows).

Wireless Companies Bid $336 Million and Counting for 28 GHz 5G/Small Cell Spectrum

Forty companies, including hedge funds, phone companies, and wireless carriers have collectively bid $336,265,480 so far for about 2,500 28 GHz licenses (out of 3,072 available) that will be a part of the buildout of 5G millimeter wave wireless service.

The FCC is currently auctioning off spectrum in the 27.5–28.35 GHz (28 GHz) band — a very large chunk of frequencies which can offer bidders the opportunity to launch a wide bandwidth cellular data service capable of very fast internet speed. But because the frequencies involved are line-of-sight, the winning bidders will have to invest in large networks of small cell antennas that will be required to reach customers.

Citigroup analysts reviewing the auction results so far told clients they suspect there are “two outsized bidders” winning many of the available licenses, including Verizon. This is not a surprise, considering Verizon already has significant spectrum holdings in the 28 GHz band. Verizon’s current 5G service relies on this millimeter wave spectrum, but is available so far only in a handful of markets. The identity of the second major bidder remains a mystery. The spectrum licenses getting no bids are mostly in rural areas with low population density.

All the other major wireless operators — AT&T, T-Mobile, and U.S. Cellular — are also bidders. Only Sprint, currently in a merger deal with T-Mobile, is missing. AT&T has not shown much interest in offering its customers millimeter wave 5G service, and T-Mobile is planning to use 5G’s technology upgrade to bolster its existing network with more capacity and speed. Dish Network, which already controls a substantial portfolio of unused spectrum, is also a bidder and could be seeking to stockpile 5G spectrum for a future venture or sales deal with one of the other wireless companies.

The qualified bidders:

8538 Green Street LLC MetaLINK Technologies, Inc.
Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative NEIT Services, LLC
Aries Wireless LLC Nemont Communications, Inc.
AT&T Spectrum Frontiers LLC Northern Valley Communications, LLC
BDCIH Wireless, LLC Nsight Spectrum, LLC
Beyerle, David E Nuvera Communications, Inc.
BroadBand One of the Midwest, Inc Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Pine Belt Cellular, Inc.
Central Broadband 24/28 GHz Consortium Rock Port Telephone Company
Cityfront Wireless LLC SANN Consortium
Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. T-Mobile License LLC
Crestone Wireless L.L.C. TelAlaska Cellular, Inc.
Day Management Corporation Townes 5G, LLC
Frontier Communications Corporation Trace Fiber Networks, LLC
FTC Management Group, Inc. Tradewinds Wireless Holdings, LLC
High Band License Co LLC Union Telephone Company
Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. United States Cellular Corporation
Inland Cellular LLC Universal Electrical Contractors
LICT Wireless Broadband Company, LLC Western Independent Networks, Inc
Mark Twain Communications Company Windstream Services, LLC

Bidding starts at $200 per available county, and many rural licenses could be won for precisely that amount, with only one interested bidder offering the minimum bid.

The highest bids are just over $10,000,000 each for two licenses in the Honolulu, Hawaii market. Bids in excess of $2 million are currently on the table in these counties:

California: Kern
Colorado: El Paso
Florida: Volusia
Illinois: Winnebago
Iowa: Linn
Louisiana: East Baton Rouge
Maine: Cumberland
Missouri: Greene
Nebraska: Lancaster
Nevada: Washoe
Oregon: Jackson
Pennsylvania: Lancaster, Berks, York, Lehigh, Luzerne, Northampton, Dauphin
Texas: Cameron, Hidalgo
Wisconsin: Dane

Charter Expanding Service Areas in South Carolina; Town of Lamar Getting Spectrum in 2019

Phillip Dampier November 28, 2018 Charter Spectrum, Competition, Consumer News 3 Comments

Population growth in South Carolina has opened up new opportunities for Charter Communications to extend cable service into areas that were formerly too unprofitable to serve. On Tuesday, the company announced a $1 million construction project to bring Spectrum cable broadband service to the town of Lamar in Darlington County.

Urban sprawl around the city of Florence, to the east of Lamar, and Columbia to the west, has made connecting the town of around 1,000 more economical.

The cable company plans to break growing in late spring of 2019 to launch residential and commercial internet access. At present, Frontier Communications is the only internet option for the community.

“Internet is obviously a necessity, it’s not a luxury anymore,” said Ben Breazeale, senior director of government affairs for Charter Communications. “Rural communities all over our country are struggling to try to retain young people and internet is a must. Access to our communications systems is a must for our youth.”

As part of the announcement, the cable company donated three Apple iPads to the Lamar Library and presented a $5,000 check to the Lamar Rescue Squad.

Lamar is a community located a short distance away from both I-95 and I-20.

Charter promises to make additional announcements about future expansion in early 2019.

Spectrum Complains Competitors Taking Advantage of Its Troubles in New York

“Charter Spectrum has been kicked out of the state of New York and has a 60 day transition period to allow those customers time to find a new provider,” a sales representative told a Charter customer in New York recently. “[She] would love to be the first to put together a proposal.”

That sales pitch was part of two exhibits offered by Charter Communications to back its claims it is being treated unfairly in New York because regulators have asked the company to make preparations to leave the state and competitors are taking full advantage.

“Although highly sophisticated entities familiar with regulatory litigation may understand that there will be legal proceedings regarding the Revocation Order and that it may ultimately never take effect, the potential for confusion among other current and prospective customers who lack such experience with the legal and regulatory process is significant,” company officials argued. “Charter’s competitors have already attempted to take advantage of the Revocation Order. For example, Verizon has already begun reaching out to several of Charter’s significant customers, including residential management companies in New York City. Verizon representatives have asserted that Charter will no longer be permitted to operate in New York State as a result of the Revocation Order, and have offered Verizon’s services as a substitute.”

Charter also claimed Verizon representatives were suggesting Charter was leaving the New York market and that customers had to (falsely) disconnect their Charter service.

“Such exploitation by Charter’s competitors is likely to increase and be amplified if Charter is required to file a public wind-down plan for exiting the state,” the company added.

Several States Rubber-Stamping Approval of T-Mobile/Sprint Merger; N.Y. Isn’t One of Them

A dispute is emerging in New York between Sprint and T-Mobile and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and pro-consumer group the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) over the wireless companies’ attempt to argue for their merger deal in a partly secretive filing not open to review by the public.

In a joint letter signed by Richard Brodsky, on behalf of the CWA and Richard Berkley, on behalf of PULP, the two groups argue Sprint’s initial summer filing promoting its merger did not come close to meeting the state’s burden of proof that allowing the two companies to join forces would be good for New York consumers. But even worse, the two wireless companies are now trying to introduce new arguments in favor of their merger, while redacting them from public view and comment.

“The use of the public comment process to recast the Petition, to attempt to repair the fatal defects in the Petition, and to insulate this new information from public comment is fundamentally unfair,” the two men wrote. “This maneuver deprives Parties of the opportunity to respond to the full set of arguments and assertions made by the Joint Applicants; it undermines the usefulness and value of the public comment policies so fundamental to the Commissions’ history and values and the proper conduct of a rulemaking proceeding; it is not contemplated by Commission rules; and it sets a precedent for future misuse of comments to short-circuit full public analysis.”

The companies filed what they called “comments” on Nov. 16. Detailed information about how the merger will impact on New York consumers was left redacted:

Sprint and T-Mobile’s arguments regarding the consumer benefits of its merger for New Yorkers remain a public mystery. The companies redacted this submission to keep the prying eyes of average consumers from reading it.

The CWA and PULP are asking the Commission for an order that:

1) Requires the Joint Applicants to provide unredacted submissions or to withdraw any document relying on redactions; and/or
2) Convenes an evidentiary hearing permitting examination and testimony relating to the Petition and the submission; and/or
3) Grants our previous request for a formal Public Hearing on the Petition and the submission; and/or
4) Removes from the record the Joint Applicants’ November 16 submission from the record; and/or
5) Extends the deadline for Notice and Comment in the October 19 Order to December 15, 2018; and/or such other relief as the Commission may order.

The merger of the two wireless companies requires state and federal approval. Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and the District of Columbia have already essentially “rubber-stamped” approval of the merger deal with little comment. Pennsylvania regulators submitted a series of questions that the two companies answered earlier this week.

Sprint and T-Mobile are having a tougher time dealing with regulators in New York and New Jersey, however — the two most likely to either deny approval or impose significant deal conditions in approving the transaction. A review is pending in California, which routinely asks a lot of questions but rarely opposes telecommunications company mergers. Hawaii and Mississippi will also examine the merger in the near future, but neither are expected to oppose it.

New York regulators are likely to consider the impact of the merger on the availability of affordable cellphone plans, the Lifeline program that offers discounted phone service for the poor, and how the transaction will affect rural wireless service in upstate New York.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Dylan: Look at their prices. Absolutely ludicrous compared to many companies, especially Charter Spectrum. I pay $60 a month for 100/10 with unlimited data. ...
  • Paul Houle: For a long time communities have been frustrated in that they don't have any power to negotiate with cable companies. This town refused to enter into...
  • Ian S Littman: To be fair, you aren't wrong. Spectrum likely knows it won't have any competition for years in Lamar, so they'll quickly get take rates of >70% (re...
  • Ian S Littman: Are you in an area that can even get Spectrum service? Because in areas where they actually have to compete, they're actually pretty decent now. Yes,...
  • Ian S Littman: A more odd entry in that list is Chattanooga. The entire area has FTTH via EPB. Yet apparently folks can't swing the $57/mo starting price for 100 Mbp...
  • Ian S Littman: The issue here is that the NY PSC's threats have no teeth because, well, who will take over the cable systems if Spectrum is forced to sell? Either Al...
  • Bill Callahan: Phil, National Digital Inclusion Alliance just published interactive Census tract maps for the entire US based on the same ACS data. Two datapoints a...
  • Carl Moore: The idiots that run the cable companies must be also using drugs...a lot of people are cutting their cable services because of the higher rate and inc...
  • EJ: This will require a New Deal approach. Municipals need the ability to either be granted money or loaned money for broadband expansion. Until this is d...
  • Bob: I also got $1 increase for my 100/10 internet from Spectrum. A rep said it's for the speed increase that's coming in 2019. I complained that I was pro...
  • EJ: It makes sense to focus on wireless considering the government contract they have. The strange thing is they referenced fixed wireless in this article...
  • nick: Interesting how they conveniently leave out (Spectrum TV Choice) streaming service which is also $30/mo ($25/mo for the first 2 years)....

Your Account: