1 of 1- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline 
What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
It was one of the original cable stations in the U.S. and it was wildly successful. Canadians might not be familiar with QVC, a home shopping network that was on every cable system in the U.S. for decades. It made so much money, its owner was able to absorb The Home Shopping Network, another stalwart of early cable TV down south.
Its success of selling everything from clothing to furniture over the air via a 1-800 number even allowed the owner to buy some TV stations and broadcast the ware hawking channel OTA.
But in a sign of how just how much times have changed, the once mighty cable channel has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as viewers cut the cord and stop watching over-the-air TV, going online instead. It remains on the air down south (there are a few Buffalo subcarriers that still carry it) and the station will continue the big sell - at least for now.
All of which makes me wonder if the same fate might befall Rogers' TSC here. The Shopping Channel has been a staple of Big Red since it launched on Jan. 1, 1987. Thirty-nine years later, is anyone still watching? Or even more importantly, still buying?
QVC was one of those freebie stations I got on my old 10' C-Band satellite dish back in the day. It's been around that long. The difference is it wasn't owned by a huge corporation like Rogers. I doubt it costs them much to run. But given changing technology, will it suffer the same fate as its U.S. counterpart?
And honestly, has anyone here ever watched it or bought anything off of it? To me, it was like watching paint dry and frankly, I'm surprised either has lasted so long.
QVC Is Filing for Bankruptcy After 40 Years on the Air—Is This the End of Home Shopping?
- Shorty Wave
- Member
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
Over ten years ago while I was working for Rogers they were concerned with TSC losing business to internet shopping, especially Amazon. I’m surprised that it’s still around although I had heard that there was an attempt to sell it, as well as Citytv, but who’s buying TV channels is this day and age?
- ig
- Iain Grant
Online!
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
(I just read this back, and if I had only thrown 'beloved' in 4 times and not mentioned the name of the channel till the last paragraph, this would qualify as a BlogTO article 
. )
I was watching January 1987 as the Home Shopping Network hit the Canadian airwaves from a satellite dish mounted on a pickup truck in the parking lot, in all its Capodimonte, Offer Shlomi's Sham Wow! and miraculous cubic zirconia glory.
It had to launch as a digital channel, though, so no 'moving' images were allowed, just fromage video animation and still images. It was like trying to watch a live TV show today on Rogers during a storm in Newfoundland .
8 years later, after it launched, Rogers purchased it, and with their pull, a live TV channel was born. John Goldberg started it all (United Leasing) and sold it to Rogers. It was a social thing, though, names people recognized, and every host had a gimmick. Bargain Bill Allison (RIP Bill!) and his wife Betty Jean, Rosemary Frasier doing her pinky in the air china cups thing, Hugh Wilson and tons of others I forget. One of the issues they had was that all the folksy, friendly hosts caused the demo to skew into the stratosphere, meanwhile manglement wanted younger. At that point, you didn’t tune in for the product. You tuned in for the people, then accidentally bought something.
Any doubt that it might work through was erased in 1993, when they hit their first $1-million sales day, courtesy of demand for memorabilia following the Blue Jays' second straight World Series win
Remember Joan Rivers hosting a show on there?
SW is right, Rogers did try to sell it off, but by that point, the internet had started to really hurt it. I heard the price they were asking was ludicrous for what it was.
A friend told me she auditioned for a gig there in the late 80's, the bit part of the audition was being handed an object, a couple of minutes to read fact points, and then having to talk about it for 11-12 minutes non stop. Surprisingly, she didn't get the gig. I figured she was a natural .
I miss it. It lost all its personality when it was consulted to death and into the shell it is now.
Betty Jean Chillin' with Larry Magen (Larry was kind of what you'd expect if you took David Bronstein, Frank D'Angelo, schmooshed them together, and introduced them to Professor Henry Higgins.)
First time I saw him I wondered how the hell Rob Cormier got a gig on TSC
Here's a gem.. Sandi Hall the first host with Larry Dawidowitz.
and more
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
I will never understand why the CRTC mandated that the shopping channel in Canada had to be non-full motion. It never made any sense when it started and it was still senseless until they finally removed it. Does anyone know why they made such a ridiculous rule in the first place?
- •
Thread Starter- Aytononline
- Member
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
I checked out the Rogers owned Shopping Channel website, it looks like they are very focused on there online business and the tv side is still there for now. There must be enough sales coming from cable to cover the cost, when this changes I am sure they will ask the CRTC to remove the channel and very few will notice.
- AspectRatio
- Member
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
RadioActive wrote:
I will never understand why the CRTC mandated that the shopping channel in Canada had to be non-full motion. It never made any sense when it started and it was still senseless until they finally removed it. Does anyone know why they made such a ridiculous rule in the first place?
I did find some old newspaper articles from the late 1980s regarding the channel's license being "alphanumeric", the fact they were pushing the boundaries of that license (very rapid still pictures, as well as callers' audio being broadcast), and finally getting that revised license. A CRTC decision at was referenced.
But like you, I wondered about the background of the license application. Google Gemini synthesized the following answer - allow some AI hallucination, potentially, so should not be taken 100%.
The reason The Shopping Channel (originally launched as the Canadian Home Shopping Network or CHSN) was first categorized as an "alphanumeric service" comes down to a clever bit of regulatory maneuvering to bypass strict broadcasting laws of the 1980s.
In the mid-'80s, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) had very rigid rules about what constituted a "television program." Under the Broadcasting Act, any service that aired "programming" (full-motion video meant to inform or entertain) required a formal license, which came with heavy burdens like Canadian Content (CanCon) quotas and restrictions on "all-advertising" channels.
The "Alphanumeric" Loophole
To get on the air without a formal broadcast license, the channel launched using a format that technically disqualified it from being "television" in the eyes of the law
*Still Images Only: Under CRTC rules at the time, "alphanumeric services" (like the scrolling text channels for weather, news headlines, or TV listings) did not require a license.
*The Format: To fit this definition, the early Shopping Channel could not show full-motion video of hosts or products. Instead, they broadcast a series of still photographs of items (like jewelry or electronics) accompanied by a live audio voiceover.
*Text & Graphics: The screen was dominated by prices, item numbers, and descriptions in a text format, which helped maintain its status as an "information" service rather than a "programming" service.
The Conflict and Evolution
This "catatonic" format (as a dissenting CRTC commissioner once called it) was a way to prove there was a market for home shopping without waiting years for a policy change. However, it led to a famous regulatory battle:
* CRTC Crackdown (1988): The CRTC eventually ruled that the channel was pushing the limits too far. They noted the hosts were engaging in "repetitious banter" and "extraneous topics" (like the weather), which made it feel more like a radio show with pictures—shifting it dangerously close to the definition of a "program."
* The Failed License (1989): Rogers (which owned CHSN) applied for a full specialty license to allow full-motion video, but the CRTC initially denied it. They feared an all-advertising channel would set a precedent that undermined the "public service" nature of Canadian TV.
* The Exemption (1994): It wasn’t until 1994 that the CRTC created a specific Exemption Order for teleshopping. They realized that if they didn't allow Canadian shopping channels to use full-motion video, Canadians would simply watch American shopping channels via satellite.
By shifting from an "alphanumeric" status to an "exempted" status, the channel was finally allowed to show video of hosts moving around and demonstrating products, eventually becoming the version of The Shopping Channel (TSC) (now Today's Shopping Choice) that people recognize today.
- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
Very interesting info. But how typical CRTC-thinking, which, to me, way too often makes no sense in the first place.
- •
Thread Starter- Radiowiz
- Member
Offline
Re: What Does This Chapter 11 Move In The U.S. Bode For Rogers' TSC?
I checked out the Rogers owned Shopping Channel website, it looks like they are very focused on there online business and the tv side is still there for now. There must be enough sales coming from cable to cover the cost, when this changes I am sure they will ask the CRTC to remove the channel and very few will notice.
I miss their shopping channel clearance centre. That was a great store. I it used to be on Rogers road...coincidence or not. 