[Guest]

Rogers is trying to ram this station down all of our throats. Rogers wants us to pay another $1 or so a month to watch the same programming we used to get on existing Sportsnet stations.

I have no problem if they create a new station of soccer and other programming but now they are just splitting up programming across multiple stations forcing you to describe to a never ending number of Sportsnet stations.

 

[Guest]

This is ridiculous! The Jays finally have a following after 15 years and they decide to alienate those of us who don’t have the option to pay Rogers for Sportsnet 1????? I’m on Cogeco and refuse to go to satellite.

What about me?

You JERKS!

 

[Guest]

IF YOU READ THIS DONT SUBSCRIBE TO ROGERS STICK WITH THE OTHERS IM STICKING WIT SHAW

 

[jayyy91]

Don't most people get the 4 Sportsnet channels by now? I know the idea originally was to have 4 Sportsnet channels and each area (East, West, etc.) gets to see their own channel but now that most people have digital cable or satellite most people see all 4 Sportsnet channels anyway. So why not just make them Sportsnet 1, 2, 3 and 4? Or get rid of 2 of them and make the remaining Sportsnet 1 and 2? Like TSN and TSN2. When TSN added a second channel it made sense, but Sportsnet adding a FIFTH channel does not. They should've just modified their existing 4 channels. But, of course, it's all about the money and I'm sure Rogers will be making lots of it with this new channel.

 

[LEAKY ROOF]

Is John Tory back at Rogers? This seems eerily similar to his negative option billing fiasco in 1995, I guess if at first you don't succeed - gouge, gouge again.

Didn't these sports channels just apply and get granted by our heroes at the CRTC the right to show sports related movies because they didn't have enough "live" programing? I wish the Jays well but I'm not going to play this game anymore, I think I'll dump the whole lot and dust off the radio.

 

[KD]

Since we have StarChoice, no Jay's games for us I guess.

 

[Mike18]

Another genius marketing idea from Rogers for the Jays, who are struggling with a fanbase. Let's just drive out what fans we have left, what a joke.

 

[stephen1]

will bell tv be picking up sportsnet one?

 

[Mike_Reid]

Isn't this kind of crazy. Rogers owns the Blue Jays, but are making them less accessible to non cable subscriber fans? If I live in the country without access to cable i am now screwed. So in effect, Rogers is losing fan exposure for their baseball team in order to make a bit of money with their new channel? Like Jay said above. This is overkill to the extreme. We don't need another Sportsnet channel when there are already 4 available.

 

[Guest]

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[cc1]

Why is sportsnet one not on all TV carriers? Are the fans here in the west any less fantic and loyal than the ones in Ontario? I would go to most of the games if I could, but I live in Alberta. Not my fault, have to make a living. I have already had to obtain the other sportsnet channels from Shaw at an extra cost to view most of the games and still didn't get to see them all and now they are taking more away from us out west. We should get more than Ontario since they are able to travel to the games a lot easiet than us out west. And yes I have made it to Ontario quite frequently to see a Jays game. Even went so far as to spend my 50th there. I might even be willing to pay the extra dollar, but I don't seem to have the option.

 

[Melissa_W.]

At this rate, nobody in BC will be able to watch the 13 games that are scheduled for Sportsnet One. What a bunch of money grabbers.

 

[Guest]

With shaw, only vancouver customers gets all sportsnet channels for free

 

[Zod1]

This could work out for us in Alberta. Shaw only carries Sportsnet West in HD. I think theres about 20-25 Jays games that air on Sportsnet Ontario and Sportsnet Pacific that we don't get on Sportsnet West. I guess it would be different if shaw bothered to offer the other ones in HD, but they don't. So for me the creation of this channel might force shaw to offer some of the alternate sportsnet stuff in HD.

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately our household has to have Rogers Cable due to our location,however given a choice they certainly would not be number one choice. We pay far too much for the selection available. Packages have to be taken which include channels that could be called "fillers",and not what we want. e.g foreign language programmes etc. Service is not always reliable with some stations being off air for some time,with no explanation and no monetary compensation for this from Rogers. Try to telephone to speak with someone concerning servis... GOOD LUCK they must have the best "homeland Security" system for deflecting calls. I deplore their their new "Station" idea,and of course it is another way to force us to pay more for their inferior service.

 

[K4]

Toronto Blue Jays - the summer version of the Toronto Maple leafs

Like who really cares about these low class - so called "sports teams". The only winners here are the owners.

Toronto - home of the losers as voted by ESPN viewers last month - I have a different take on this "Toronto sports fans - get a life or at least pick teams from other cities who actually try to win."

 

[Rick3]

Rogers needs to be taught a lesson and a bouykot of there other services like phone,internet,mobile will get there attention;we need to talk it up now to get there attention as there are alot of us who can not either get Rogers in our area or are on a different service;this is nothing but corparate greed.

 

[John11]

Lets hope that when this channel does become available to the other providers they do not bundle it with a bunch of crap and try and charge $15.00 amonth for it, I'll becom a Yankees fan, Kidding