Dear Editor,
I have been watching with much interest the broadcast war that has been taking place between Flow and Digicel, and to be honest, as a customer, I just want my channels. I am not too interested in who has the rights or not, but as long as you are providing what I am paying for I am good.
I have a major concern right now as it relates to Flow and its channel offerings. They have already lost the rights to broadcast the NBA plus a number of other shows. Does this mean that customers will be charged less for less or the same for less?
I decided to browse Flow's website to see if they had a policy regarding their channel offerings and, lo and behold, I read with much dismay that, according to Flow's policy, the company "may from time to time and without prior notice alter, replace or reduce the number of channels provided". Interestingly, this policy applies even when these channels were previously advertised as part of its packages. I read with even more displeasure another line in their policy which states that "any such amendment shall in no way affect the fees payable by the customer to the company for the services. For the avoidance of doubt, the fees charged for its cable television service are not calculated on a per channel basis as some channels are provided on a complimentary basis and such fees are charged based on the package(s) of channels selected by the customer".
Clearly they could afford to provide "complimentary" channels in their packages since they weren't paying for the rights to broadcast them. But now that Flow is losing these channels (19 and counting), does this mean that I will still have to pay the same amount for that package as if I had them since they don't charge "on a per channel basis"? What is the plan as it relates to a reorganisation of their prices for their packages? These are questions that need to be addressed by Flow, lest we find the burden of paying for package with half the channels missing too hard to bear.
Orville Taylor
orvilletaylor4@gmail.com
We're paying more for less, not less for less
-->
I have been watching with much interest the broadcast war that has been taking place between Flow and Digicel, and to be honest, as a customer, I just want my channels. I am not too interested in who has the rights or not, but as long as you are providing what I am paying for I am good.
I have a major concern right now as it relates to Flow and its channel offerings. They have already lost the rights to broadcast the NBA plus a number of other shows. Does this mean that customers will be charged less for less or the same for less?
I decided to browse Flow's website to see if they had a policy regarding their channel offerings and, lo and behold, I read with much dismay that, according to Flow's policy, the company "may from time to time and without prior notice alter, replace or reduce the number of channels provided". Interestingly, this policy applies even when these channels were previously advertised as part of its packages. I read with even more displeasure another line in their policy which states that "any such amendment shall in no way affect the fees payable by the customer to the company for the services. For the avoidance of doubt, the fees charged for its cable television service are not calculated on a per channel basis as some channels are provided on a complimentary basis and such fees are charged based on the package(s) of channels selected by the customer".
Clearly they could afford to provide "complimentary" channels in their packages since they weren't paying for the rights to broadcast them. But now that Flow is losing these channels (19 and counting), does this mean that I will still have to pay the same amount for that package as if I had them since they don't charge "on a per channel basis"? What is the plan as it relates to a reorganisation of their prices for their packages? These are questions that need to be addressed by Flow, lest we find the burden of paying for package with half the channels missing too hard to bear.
Orville Taylor
orvilletaylor4@gmail.com
We're paying more for less, not less for less
-->