Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

CRTC should approve new sports channels

WILLIAM HOUSTON

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:26 PM EST 14/06/08

CBC, COC grappling over which side will be allowed to launch an amateur sports channel ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Good Lord...

    The CBC cannot even competently function with one channel...

    And now, Scott Moore wants another one...

    Somebody put this network out of its misery, please.
  2. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: ROFLMAO!

    Any network that says it will "improve physical fitness and health" is full of shinola...

    What are they going to encourage viewers to run to the fridge to get that beer and pizza between periods?
  3. Jeff O from Canada writes: The cable TV scam continues.

    If "the public is very supportive" of either of these ventures, let the public show it by choosing whether to pay for them.

    But that's not how it works in cable wonderland. It's not about serving consumers. It's about propping up garbage channels by selling them in "bundles."

    "discretionary or optional carriage" means cable companies force a channel down your throat as part of a package. You buy the package because it has one network you want, but you have to take all the other crap as part of the deal.

    "mandatory carriage" means they force it down your throat the first time you let the cable guy in your house.

    This isn't broadcasting. It's charity.
  4. Bob Blasko from Perkinsfield, ON, writes: I have said it before, and I will continue to say it. There is absolutely no reason why ESPN and HBO should not be available to Canadian viewers.
  5. Sean O'Reilly from Kitchener, Canada writes: Great! Another useless channel to pay for.

    Imagine if we were allowed the choice to decide what we want, how many useless channels would fall?

    Oh the pleasant thought!
  6. Ziggy . from Canada writes: " Peter Loubardias, who has been calling junior hockey for Sportsnet, will take over as the network's Calgary Flames voice next season."
    Condolences to the great fans of Calgary
  7. JEFF S from Canada writes: Ziggy......took the words right out of my mouth.
  8. Chris Eaton from Fredericton, writes: The last thing Canadians need is yet another corporate welfare channel that would never survive without the government forcing people to pay for it.

    The COC channel would never survive without it being forced on people. The market should decide what channels survive, not the government.
  9. JIm Smith from Canada writes: Well said Ziggy.

    My worst fear when Jim Hughston left Sportsnet was that the suits in Toronto would have tried to pawn Lombardious off on us in Vancouver.

    Looks good on you Calgary. hahahhahahhahahahahaha. enjoy.
  10. Josh O'Donnell from Canada writes: I would hate to have to pay for the COC channel. On the other hand the CBC channel might not be that bad. I like some amateur sports anyway. I would rather have Alpine Skiing live on this channel than have it on bold because I'd never pay for bold. The biggest problem is that this channel comes a few years too late. They have already lost the Olympics, Curling and CFL to CTV/TSN because CBC didn't have a cable channel to help carry these events.
  11. Charlie R from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: If having this new channel means lots of junior hockey coverage, then I'm not interested at all. It would be like having another Speed Channel, where most of the time all you see is NASCRAP.

    How about some Golden League Track & Field? How about some Pro Beach Volleyball? How about regular coverage World Cup Cross Country Skiing? World Cup Swimming?

    I'm sick and tired of having Sportsnet East, Central and West all showing the same Blue Jays game. Or worse, GOLF! THERE IS A GOLF CHANNEL!!! Show golf on that.
  12. D. J. Murray from Richmond BC, Canada writes: Both channels should be approved, but only is the COC is offered on a discretionary basis. Canadians should not be forced to pay for a channel most of us will never, ever watch. At least the CBC is offering the potential of something different from TSN, Sportsnet, and the Score, with Canadian programming - and yet still interesting enough to gain some viewers.
  13. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: D.J. Murray from Richmond BC, Canada writes:

    "Canadians should not be forced to pay for a channel most of us will never, ever watch."

    Spot on!

    Now, where is my tax refund for my share of funding to the Cherry Blathering Constantly (CBC) network ?

    Cheers.
  14. Radio Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: Poor Flames fans.

    Skeeeee yooooooooooors!

    The radio ratings just went up.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top