Well, if you disagree with that wording, let's amend it to say it almost certainly won't happen here. With their near monopolistic stranglehold on cable and sports ownership, I can't possibly envision a time something similar would ever take place in this market - or this country.

The chance of Bell/Rogers going out of business or going bankrupt is, sadly, at zero. (Although I, for one, would love to see it!)

They would never let such valuable properties slip out of their grasps as long as there's any way to monetize them. If one side of their business ever started to slip, they would simply raise prices to squeeze it out of their poor subscribers on another end to make up the difference. It's an endless loop, and we have a lack of proper government regulations to thank.

There's no way companies that so tightly control cable should be able to own so many TV stations, that have a virtual monopoly on cell phones should be allowed to buy up any would-be competitors to maintain that control, that run streaming services should have such a stranglehold on Internet access, or own virtually every major league sports team in the country. It's clearly not in the public interest, but for years, the feds (of both major parties) have looked the other way.

This would never be allowed to happen to such an extent in the U.S. without anti-trust laws kicking in. But not Canada, where Bell and Rogers are allowed to own almost everything, stifling competition and contributing to some of the highest prices in the world. What could go wrong? 

Wow, I thought you were all about freedom.  Now you want the government to control what Rogers and Bell can own?  Isn't that what Russia and North Korea do??  By the way neither Rogers or Bell own "virtually every professional sports team in the country" not even close.   They own a lot in Toronto but Toronto isn't the country RA.  Of the seven NHL teams the gruesome twosome own one. 

paterson1 wrote:

Wow, I thought you were all about freedom.  Now you want the government to control what Rogers and Bell can own?  Isn't that what Russia and North Korea do??  By the way neither Rogers or Bell own "virtually every professional sports team in the country" not even close.   They own a lot in Toronto but Toronto isn't the country RA.  Of the seven NHL teams the gruesome twosome own one. 

That's what is frustrating about this place.  Many of the posters here who have worked in senior positions newsrooms and should know better, inject hyperbole or inaccurate opinion into an incredible number of posts.  Any time I see something that sounds hard to believe I search it out and it's often a flat out lie.  Can we commit to not doing that anymore?  It's really bothersome. "Virtually every" and "four" are vastly different.  

Last edited by Tomas Barlow (April 30, 2023 4:46 pm)

paterson1 wrote:

Wow, I thought you were all about freedom.  Now you want the government to control what Rogers and Bell can own?  Isn't that what Russia and North Korea do?

No, the outlets that Bell & Rogers control are not government owned - although the CRTC, under former ex-telco lobbyist Chair Ian Scott did little that I can see to restrain either of them. We can only hope the new head honcho, Vicky Eatrides, is a lot better at protecting the public interest than he was. 

But there is a similarity in what you posit, even if it's not government. Bell & Rogers exercise way too much power in all aspects of Canadian life. So in that sense, yes, they are like those dictatorships you referenced. If you're into sports, they have complete control over your viewing choices, and you're not free to go anywhere else to get it. Sounds like something Mr. Putin would admire and encourage. And yes, that's admittedly a bit extreme but their rigid control of so many properties makes it at least somewhat comparable.  

paterson1 wrote:

They own a lot in Toronto but Toronto isn't the country RA.  Of the seven NHL teams the gruesome twosome own one. 

So let me amend my statement, in that I didn't catch that error. What I was referring to is that Bell & Rogers own (not virtually but factually) every single broadcast outlet for the country's major league teams - not to mention the teams themselves. Rogers has the rights to all the NHL games and they all end up on Sportsnet or their owned TV stations (with the anomaly of CBC on Saturday nights), along with the Jays. Bell has TSN, which takes everything else that isn't nailed down, including hockey and basketball games.

As for their ownership, my reference was meant to be for the major sports franchises in Toronto, the biggest market in Canada and not the whole country. They literally own or co-own every major sports team in this city. The list is almost ridiculous:

Co-owned with Rogers and Bell:
-The Leafs,
-The Raptors,
-The Argos,
-Toronto FC,
-Raptors 905,
-The Marlies.

Rogers alone:
-The Jays.

In fact, to my knowledge, only the Toronto Rock lacrosse team is free of their influence. 

I'm hard pressed to think of another situation anywhere in the modern world where the broadcasters also own all the teams they show. Surely this cannot be good for the fans, who have to pay through the nose to see their favourite athletes in action, both live and on TV.  One or two companies controlling so many properties is a recipe for gouging. And week after week, they both serve up that exact meal. If you don't believe me, look at your next cable or phone bill. 

You can call me crazy (which you have) or over the top. But at least I don't put my money where their greedy maws are. I adhere to the old "War Games" credo: "the only way to win is not to play." As a result, I don't subscribe to any of their services. And I sleep a lot better at night knowing that, while I can't do much to battle these excessively avaricious a-holes for whom enough is never enough, at least they're not getting anything from me, except criticism. And that, at least for the moment, is free.

paterson1 wrote:

Your last post still reads like Bell and Rogers control and own all professional teams in Canada.  They own 1 of the 7 Canadian NHL teams, 1 of 9 CFL teams, and own the only Canadian teams in MLB and NBA.  So this is hardly a quasi dictatorship of ownership as you imply. 

Yes and I corrected the record on that, indicating what I meant to say were the teams in Toronto, the biggest and wealthiest market in Canada. There is no question that they control almost every major league franchise in this city either collectively or separately. That is just an undeniable fact. 

My point was that doesn't happen in any other market and it allows them free reign to gouge sports fans, of which I'm really not one. When you own everything in a certain category and there's no competition - and you're dealing with greed mongers like Bell & Rogers - taking advantage of the consumer is almost inevitable.  
 

paterson1 wrote:

Are the Leaf fans gouged on prices for tickets by Bell and Rogers?  That depends.  The Leafs have sold out every game since WW2, and many are season ticket holders.  You can make a case that yes the fans are being ripped off for tickets prices, considering the quality of the team (UP UNTIL NOW..GO LEAFS!!).  However previous owners before Maple Leaf Sports were also accused of ripping off the fans with prices that were too high for a mediocre team.  Harold Ballard was the classic, with whatever the market would bear.  All Pal Hal saw were sold out games.

I cannot account for the insanity (sorry Leaf fans) of this franchise's supporters, but maybe if they didn't keep selling out games for losing teams all those years, the range of owners would have spent the money to vastly improve things a long time ago. Maybe that's why it's 50 years and counting since Lord Stanley was last hoisted here. Sadly, the fans gave them no reason to up the ante so they didn't.   

paterson1 wrote:

Broadcasting- Yes almost all of the NHL games are on Rogers owned Sportsnet, however CBC has a significant chunk of the schedule including up to 5 games on the weekend and a big piece of the playoffs including the Stanley Cup.  These OTA broadcasts are available nation wide and include additional regional games that aren't broadcast nationally. The agreement with Rogers and CBC originally only for 5 years was extended for the full 12 years that Rogers signed with the NHL..

 
CBC may show some games, but Rogers reaps the money. So it really doesn't matter who has them. I think there would honestly be a mini-riot if they ever tried to take the Leafs off free TV for good.  

paterson1 wrote:

For the Blue Jays it really shouldn't be a surprise that Sportsnet would broadcast the schedule and the playoffs. No Canadian OTA network covers pro baseball, but it would be doubtful that Global, or CTV would be interested in running any non Jays games.  In terms of Rogers gouging fans to go see the Jays, tickets start at $21 and you can also see the game from one of the new restaurant/bars for $20.  These prices are not out of line.

I have no real quibble with this point, other than Rogers robbed the City of Toronto blind when they bought the SkyDome for a relative pittance. But that's more the politicians' fault than Rogers.  

paterson1 wrote:

The Raptors broadcasts are split between Sportsnet and TSN which again shouldn't be a big shock.  Like MLB, it would be doubtful that any OTA network in Canada would be that interested in running much or any non Raptor NBA games.  Both SN and TSN being sports networks do run other teams and games which is logical.  Raptor tickets start at $8.    Again very reasonable.

And again it just shows what happens when two Goliaths own every big team in town. Of course, they'll showcase them on their own channels.I would, too. But imagine if there were other owners of just a few of these teams. I'd love to see what would happen in the face of real competition and who would get those rights.   

paterson1 wrote:

In terms of Maple Leaf Sports (Rogers and Bell) owning Toronto FC, Marlies and Raptor 905, don't really see the issue here.

Again, one (or two) mega-giants owning everything does not make it good for consumers. Competition is what makes every team and every business better. These guys don't have much of either, so while they own these teams, trust me, you're paying for it in your cell phone fees (amongst the highest in the world), your Internet charges (ditto) and your cable bill (the trifecta.) If you're happy leaving them in charge and shelling out for never ending escalating fees for everything, I'm glad you're doing so well in your bank accounts. Imagine if there were others competing in the same space and you had a real choice to go somewhere else. 

paterson1 wrote:

So your heading, which is typical anti Canadian broadcasting jibber jabber "It Couldn't Happen Here" is both misleading and wrong. Also smacks of bitterness since you miss out on so much not having cable. This is likely the real root of your constant distain for Bell and Rogers.  You made the choice.  Glad you sleep at night saving all this money, but sadly never seeing a TV broadcast of the Jays.

And with this final statement I not only take great offence but great umbrage. There is no bitterness at all. I do not, repeat, do not "miss" not subscribing to cable, and not having to pay these monsters the money they demand. And I never have. Not for a single moment.

This is not the root of my "constant disdain for Bell & Rogers," and you have absolutely not a single shred of evidence that's the case. In essence, you're making that up.

My disdain for them is the way they operate, the way they gouge even their loyal customers, and even on occasion, how they do business with high pressure tactics. (Remember the CBC Go Public stories of how they sold a senior citizen Internet service, despite knowing she didn't even know how to use it - and didn't have a computer in any case? If not, you can refresh your memory about that case - and too many shameful others - here:

'I wasn't telling them the whole truth': former sales rep for Bell says he was trained to mislead

That's not what I call responsible corporate citizens. And THAT is one of many reasons why they're to be despised. As for not having cable, I can honestly say not a single day goes by that I miss it or regret it - only that they're ripping off customers using it as a lure. 

mace wrote:

P1: You are certainly correct about choice when it comes to the NFL. If you reside in Western New York all you get is three games in the 1pm and 4:25pm time slots. Here in Canada with TSN, CTV and CTV2 plus time shifting, one could have access to as many as five 1pm games and three or four late games. Time shifting would never be permitted in the U.S. Local stations would go on spin cycle if out of market affilliates were beamed in. The folks at WGRZ wouldn't be pleased if viewers were watching Chicago Med on KING instead of their local 11pm newscast.

I might be incorrect but I seem to remember being in a hotel room in New York City a couple of years ago and being shocked to find the Los Angeles feeds of the four major networks.  They were a long way up the dial but I think they were there.  It was only LA, no other time shifting feeds..

paterson1 wrote:

I was worried you would be offended by my last paragraph and that wasn't really my intent.  I don't know if you realize how negative you are always about broadcasting and media in this country. Or possibly you are aware and doing this intentionally.

This indicates an axe to grind, chip on the shoulder or bitterness, take your pick.  I didn't make anything up, just read your posts above or overly negative and misleading headlines and comments in the past about Canadian media.  There is a lot to pick. 

So because of all the dislike and hatred for Bell, Rogers, CBC etc. your posts tend to be tainted with personal bias and not big on facts. Just cherry picking some that fit your argument and ignoring others.

US media is also often the focus and almost never in a negative light or with more factual opinion or comment.

If I seem negative on Canadian media, it's because I know it can be done a lot better. But the companies that control most of the big stations only seem interested in doing everything as cheaply as possible. This was always a problem with Canadian-made shows when I was growing up and it has never left me. So perhaps there is a bias against them there because of that. Yet despite all the progress in technology, there is still a look to shows made for Canadians that simply does not have the quality I see in their American counterparts. And yes, that does bother me. 

I realize we can't compete with them on the scale they have, although I think overall we do as well as possible. So if it seems negative it's only because I know it can be done so much better if only the penurious penny-pinchers weren't running everything. The CRTC mandates CanCon, which I hate but have learned to live with. If they're going to do something, do it right, not just cheap. Unfortunately, in my experience that's rarely the case.   
 

paterson1 wrote:

The beginning of this was your editorializing statement of how "it couldn't happen here" which was just  a chance for you to rail on about Bell and Rogers. And naturally your endless comparisons on how they do it in the states and not here.  Your comment that "CBC may show some games but Rogers makes the money so it doesn't matter who has them" makes no sense.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to me. Rogers never, ever, ever does anything that doesn't benefit Rogers. I suspect it would not allow the CBC to carry games it owns without making most of the money on it. That, in the end, is all this odious corporation really cares about. I've witnessed it over and over and over.

As for "it couldn't happen here," I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. There is no way in the current situation that Bell or Rogers will ever give up the rights to any of their sports properties. They're simply worth too much money. That's why it will never happen here. I invite you to call me on it when it does. I feel pretty confident in saying it will be a long time, before that call comes.  

paterson1 wrote:

First off who gets the money isn't what we were talking about, so poor attempt to change the subject.  We were talking about professional sports available on OTA    CBC shows a lot more than "some games." The  attempt to trivialize or minimize this says a lot. Hockey still rules and that's why CBC showing a lot of games and playoffs is still a big deal.

The money is what Rogers ALWAYS talks or cares about. That's their main reason for existing. So to say it's not about money is either naive or wishful thinking. CBC shows the games because that was part of the agreement. I'm quite sure if they could, Rogers would love to have it taken off free TV for good (or only on City) and make people pay to watch it on cable. Their track record pretty much proves this. This is not trivializing anything. It's a fact that they own the rights. And it's a pretty good guess that they're not going to be relinquishing them anytime soon, unless something completely extraordinary happens that no one can foresee. Hence my statement that I don't believe it could happen here.
 

paterson1 wrote:

We have also determined that Bell offers a bigger variety and number of NFL games OTA and on cable than fans see in the US.   But since it is Bell, guess that doesn't count?

I made no comment about the NFL, nor do I care about football. I'm not sure what that has to do with Toronto teams, which is what I was referring to. I sincerely hope you enjoy the games. I find all they do is interrupt my Sunday night schedule and I'm always happy when the season is finally over. (Except now it's golf that's going extra time and driving my DVR insane!)
  

paterson1 wrote:

It feels strange sticking up for big blue and red, and yes I wish my Bell rates were lower, who doesn't? Someday I will read the riot act to them and they will lower my rate.  I have issues with them as well, but mostly more radio oriented than cable or TV.

However to make blanket statements like they are gouging fans on tickets simply because they own the team is not really accurate or at least debatable.  The only gouging argument could be made about Leaf tickets, but these same complaints have been made for decades and with other owners.  

Well at least you acknowledge that they're not your favourite people in the world. I don't think I ever stated that they were gouging fans on ticket prices, although these will never go down. I did state they are gouging on the services that help fill out their bottom line so they can keep these teams running, and that's where you and those like you pay the costs - cable, cell phone and Internet. Studies have definitively shown time and again that Canadians pay amongst the highest rates in the world. And guess who's providing those ever more expensive services, which have now become as vital as electricity and flush toilets, to the point where most of us could not live without them?

Listen, everybody hates their cable company, no matter what country you're in. But at least in the U.S., there are a lot more providers, meaning you get a better deal in the long run. Here, it's Rogers or Bell, Rogers or Bell, Rogers or Bell. And neither offer much that's truly different in the end. It's their fault for never being happy with huge profits. I've been in meetings with companies like this. And it's always about more, more, more! It's never enough.

That's the government's fault for not reigning them in a long time ago and letting them become de facto monopolies, which own most of the TV, radio and cable stations, Internet access and Toronto sports teams. How is that possibly healthy for consumers? I fear it's too late to stop them now, unless the new CRTC chair truly does care about competition as she claims and decides to intervene and protect consumers. But I'll believe it when I see it. So far, I haven't.

In the end, my problem isn't really Canadian shows. I've worked in Canadian media for decades, all of it in Toronto, and I'm proud of the shows that we've turned out, both in radio and TV. It's the companies that program them and begrudge every thin dime that I have a problem with. And unless they change, I always will. 

What's really odious about these U.S. cable disputes is what sometimes happens when affected viewers try to find a way to watch the shows they're missing during a fiscal fight between the two parties.

If a consumer gets their programming and their internet from a single provider, as many here do with Bell or Rogers, that American cable company sometimes cuts them off from being able to reach the network's online site in order to ensure they can't watch their program. It's a high-pressure tactic designed to get people to complain to the specific local affiliate to settle the stand-off.

I'm not even sure how it's legal but it's happened. (Likely less, now that streaming services carry some of those same shows.)  And it's an absolute disgrace that some got away with it. I'm no fan of Canadian cable, but at least they never resort to this tactic. 

For their part, the stations often tell viewers to buy a cheap antenna so they can watch them off the air. It's a messy nightmare and it rarely ends well, with consumers pissed off at both of them.

Dish Network in the U.S. is especially prone to this, since they play extreme hardball with these constant fee increase demands - and it's cost them a lot of fed-up subscribers, who go elsewhere and never return. So if everyone loses, you have to wonder - why do they do it? 

Thanks mace and RA for the discussion and comments.  I am not really up on US cable and how it really works but I know it is radically different than here.  I also know that many people dislike their cable companies down there as well. I was surprised that they also have must carry channels like here and they often package similar to what we have for sports or comedy but have more.

The US overall is a much larger market and most areas  have more choice between cable operators than here.  I did work for a small local cable company as a teen in my home town, and cable is not a cheap business to be in. The local owners eventually sold out to Cogeco but my understanding was they wanted out. 

I realize that you didn't mention the NFL RA, but what I was trying to explain was the fact that a lot of NFL games are on OTA TV in Canada as is NHL hockey.  The gist of the post was the lack of OTA here for professional sports since Bell and Rogers force people to watch on their sports channels on cable.

However for two of the most popular leagues, along with PGA golf and a few others this is not the case.  Disney and ABC push most sports onto ESPN, and I can't really fault them for that since it is a sports specialty network and ABC is not. Same with TSN and SN.. sports is what they do. 

Didn't follow the points about the NHL and CBC.  For any company it is always all about the money.  That's how they stay in business.  Rogers bought the NHL rights for $5.2 billion, CBC paid $0.  CBC's production costs for the broadcasts also $0.

CBC benefits from strong ratings which brings up their average rating,  they schedule a big chunk of the season mostly Canadian teams, they inherit much of the playoffs and Stanley Cup final.  Also CBC receives valuable exposure and promo for their programming on Sportsnet and Rogers channels.  True CBC doesn't benefit from ad revenue, but they inherit hundreds of hours of top sports programming for free.  

Finally, and you can have the last word.  I am critical of Canadian TV programming and have said so many times here.  Also if something is done well, or an honest effort I will say so. I try very hard not to let my personal viewpoint cloud a program or service. I watch the show and don't concern myself with the network or if it was from Bell, Rogers, CTV etc.
 
The fact is there is much more Canadian programming than ever before and a lot is being sold and viewed around the world.  This didn't happen much in the 60's,70's and 80's.  The most popular Canadian shows internationally are often set in Canada with Canadian themes and this is significant.  With Bell, some of their specialty channels and Crave have original dramas, comedy and reality programming that doesn't land on CTV and CTV2.  CBC Gem and Explore also have original programs exclusive to them and aren't on the main network.

Thanks for the chat. 

Last edited by paterson1 (May 2, 2023 10:37 am)

And I well remember when WNLO was owned by Channel 17 and aired non-commercial shows from PBS. It was kind of a secondary Public Broadcasting Station. and its calls were WNEQ. But Buffalo couldn't support two such stations, so the place was eventually sold. But not until the FCC agreed to remove its 'educational only' status.

It was a UPN outlet until it merged with the WB to become what it is now - The CW. 

A few years later, Nexstar took it over and in a major cost cutting move, will institute a plethora of cheaper reality series next season - whenever that comes, thanks to the writers' strike. 

An entry on Wikipedia indicates WNEQ-TV signed on at 4 PM every day and broadcast for about six or seven hours.