CFL TV ratings on TSN

It's now the Safeway/Sobeys, kickoff return to win. CFL fans could win a million bucks if two kickoffs are returned for a touchdown in one game.


not if the refs have anything to say about it. :wink:


Also back to the CFL ratings - next week I will renew my TSN subscription. 1,3,4&5 will cost me $15 or $20 month. I would pay that for the old Canadian Football Network (CFN) if they had it


Is that on top of your basic cable/satellite bill? would that be the sports package where you get Sportsnet too?

yes on top of the cable package. You can see how much money is generated by the subscriber for Bell. That's why its not on CTV and never will be. I would think the CFL subscriptions are more money then what the advertisers pay. Add them together and it is far more then the CFL gets in TV revenue. As Bell is 40% owners of the Argos it more then covers any losses. Don't understand the comments that the Argos lose money when you look at the big picture. They don't


I thought that if you subscribed to Bell satellite/cable, TSN was included.
I know that if you subscribe to Rogers, they include Sportsnet and TSN is extra.
I cut the cord and only stream.

1 Like

its all in the packages.

if you "cut the cord" but pay for an internet from rogers or bell, you didn't cut any cord.


Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. Some will argue, "but it's WiFi!"

Okay, on your phones, but for big-screen viewing with unlimited data, well now you are still on a modem that has a cord.

I'm still waiting for the paid streaming experience to match my DVR performance on cable, and I'll keep waiting very cheaply until it does because with various streaming packages, for either I am not saving anything or paying for more for so much I generally don't watch like movies in general instead of various sports, documentaries, and series.

I cut the cord from DirecTV and my internet provider is BlueStream


atta boy!

My sister in law works for rogers. they actually WANT people to cut the cord - really. It cost a lot to keep up the "cable" infrastructure. The cost for them to upgrade their networks for Ignite TV was huge. They already know people are willing to pay $$$$ for access to media.

So if they could limit their offering to internet only, and keep the price rising, that'll mean more profit.

The kids that "cut the cord" but continue to purchase internet from Bell or Rogers are actually feeding into their directive.


Wow where do you live? A fibre-optic connection to WiFi? I found this site for the US and they are in South Florida but that's it.

20 years ago, when I was working with an "internet TV" software company, there were those adamant we would have fibre to the home en masse.

Well, we do, sort of, via Verizon in some markets but it is not great service with cable speeds higher.

We have a home in South Gulf Cove (Port Charlotte) and Blue Stream installed fibre optic last December. Very fast and up to 1gig. I use a firestick for Netflix, Amazon, Huluu put an antenna in the attic and get all the local channels.
Use a vpn for watching TSN (use my daughters acct) but with the CFL starting up again I may subscribe to ESPN+, will watch the non-ESPN+ games on one of the unofficial sites like "firstrow"


I hear what you are saying. I have to force myself NOT to buy a Firestick or go to websites that stream channels for free (with possible spyware/viruses intruding on your computer) that everyone else who isn't savy has to pay for a subscription. It's probably legal but that doesn't mean it's ethical.

I feel guilty doing it whenever Ohio State plays and it's not on network TV. More often than not I watch a game being streamed online for free on Saturdays on to get my football fix.


Use a chrome book and an ad blocker and you can't get a virus.


This is what I do when the game is not on ESPN2.

If ESPN simply kept things on ESPN3, we'd be all good, but no, ESPN+ with less functionality than I have is their solution let alone of course the more frequent interruption via the malfunctioning app on your device versus a regular cable channel.

And I would be more sympathetic to paying if cable made it easy, but they don't and I'm not signing up for 5 different services so I can catch what I already get with one service.


You're missing the point. It's unethical. You're basically stealing whether some law says it's legal or not.

1 Like

There was a great clip in "Breaking Bad" about this point too.

But I don't agree with you at all that such, given massive public subsidy, is entirely 100% the right of the cable companies et al given their legal monopoly turned oligopoly depending on where one lives.

For example when they throttle your usage (and you are not an abuser) or when they shift or restrict the channels for your lineup and you are on contract, they often steal from you.

If it's significant enough, there is breach of contract on their part.

Of course this is all an argument into economics and beyond for another place I reckon.

1 Like

Just like what NBC did with their own sports channels, merging in their peacock streaming service.

It's a wonder the NHL and EPL were upset.


Yes could be unethical and we all feel bad stealing from companies like Rogers and Bell or Disney to watch the occasional game on an unofficial site.

1 Like