It’s a common complaint from cable television subscribers: Why do I have to pay for all these channels I don’t want?

The federal Conservatives, keen to position themselves as protectors of consumer rights, are expected to outline in Wednesday’s throne speech new “pick and pay” options that must be made available for cable and satellite TV subscribers.

Under the current system, consumers pay for a basic package of about 20 channels. If they want a particular channel that isn’t in that basic package, such as CNN, the Food Network or TSN, they must sign up for a theme pack, which may include channels they don’t want.

“This is low-hanging fruit for the Conservatives. Who doesn’t want their telly cheaper?” said Dwayne Winseck, a journalism professor at Carleton University.

Four big companies — Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Quebecor — own a majority of the 200 or so channels in Canada, raising the potential for price hikes on individual channels. However, the current competitive landscape, especially from Netflix, as well as political pressure reduce the chances of dramatic overall price increases, Winseck said.

“The bottom line is the ‘a la carte’ model will cost you more piece by piece, channel by channel,” Winseck said, but most people won’t sign up for 200 channels.

He argues that research in the U.S. shows most people spend an inordinate amount of time with just five channels. Popular channels like TSN and HBO would likely cost more, but if prices for such channels are raised too high, Winseck believes regulators and the Competition Bureau would step in.

But the popularity of Netflix, which is filled with a library of downloadable content for a monthly fee of $8, will also keep prices in check, ensuring subscribers don’t cut their cable altogether.

Winseck sees the “pick and pay” model as a natural evolution of today’s media, world where consumers get information from a variety of sources including television, iTunes, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

“I call this the Lego model of the world. You pick and choose and snap together the digital media universe that you want. It’s hyper-mass-self-customization,” he added.

But the ripple effects of such a policy change could have implications for everyone from content production companies to small digital specialty channels that may not attract the subscription base if not for bundled packages.

“I think it’s a bigger deal than the industry will tell you,” said Dvai Ghose, an analyst with Canaccord Genuity. “The industry will tell you, ‘It won’t make any difference because if you go a la carte, the cost per channel goes up so much, it offsets any lost revenue from fewer channels.’ ”

But Ghose believes that’s an unrealistic assumption: If there’s no impact of unbundling, then why have cable companies not voluntarily introduced it, given that it’s what consumers want?

That’s because there is an impact on revenue, he argued, citing data from Quebec, where Videotron, which offers a la carte pricing, has much lower average revenue per cable user — $40 versus $70 with Rogers.

The idea for a pick and choose model is not new. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission urged cable and satellite companies in 2011 to adopt more flexible pricing.

Rogers said it supports packaging flexibility.

“We think it’s a good thing for the customer and a good thing for the industry,” said Dave Purdy, senior vice-president of content for Rogers. “We think the industry has to evolve in order to meet the changing needs and tastes of customers.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

But Purdy said Rogers hasn’t moved on a la carte pricing because of regulatory hurdles from the CRTC as well as contractual obligations with broadcasters in Canada and overseas.

“These contractual and regulatory restrictions have shackled our ability to do some of things we would like to do,” Purdy said. “You can’t force pick packs without looking at Canadian content, linkage rules, regulatory restrictions and what broadcasters can charge distributors.”

Bell declined to comment on flexible pricing.

Other smaller companies have moved to pick-and-pay models. In August, Eastlink, whose operations are centred in the Maritimes but serve parts of Ontario, introduced Personal Picks, where subscribers get a basic package and then make personal picks such as Nickelodeon and NHL Network. One channel costs $2.95, 12 channels cost $15 and 20 channels for $20 a month.

Eastlink spokeswoman Jill Laing said the company does not disclose signup rates, but said the reaction has been “overwhelmingly positive.”

Similarly, Telus, which operates Optik TV in Alberta and British Columbia, offers a small smattering of specialty channels such as Action, DejaView or BBC Kids at $4 per channel.

“We support expanding customer choice, but if the government seeks to unbundle content and allow customers to pick and pay for broadcasting services, it will have to create a policy which targets the real roadblocks to more choice,” said Telus spokesman Chris Gerritsen.

“The real roadblocks are the large broadcasting groups which own the content and set the terms,” Gerritsen said, arguing many content owners require contracts that force distributors to deliver their content to the largest group of subscribers, even if those subscribers don’t want that content.

Unbundling cable content could have other repercussions. According to a study published this summer by Needham Insights, Laura Martin and Dan Medina argued that half of the U.S. cable industry’s revenue — about $70 billion (U.S.) — would disappear if people weren’t forced to pay for bundled television.

“It’s a huge value destroyer to unbundle the TV ecosystem. I recommend your government not to do it,” said Martin in an interview, estimating unbundling U.S. sports channels alone would result in $13 billion in losses.

Martin estimates that only 20 channels would survive from unbundling in the United States because smaller channels would not generate enough viewership for the necessary ad revenue.

Read more about: