Article content continued

In a message provided to its business customers about the changes scheduled for May 1, Bell provided the following explanation for why it is charging extra for its sports channels: “The new rates are designed to more accurately reflect the commercial use of the sports channels and the value that these channels represent to commercial establishments,” it says. “We believe that sports programming is a powerful attractor for bar and restaurant patrons, and that the investment to continue to receive these channels is a good business decision for most establishments.”

Or, put another way: Why are we doing this? Because we can.

Just like a viewer might not want to pay for a suite of channels he never watches — this was the argument behind the CRTC’s forced unbundling of channel packages — the broadcasters have apparently decided that they don’t want to treat their sports channels as having the same value to a bar as, say, the History Channel or HGTV.

Bell and Rogers are placing a bet that restaurants and bars will be willing to eat the new fees because the alternative would be to tell sports-minded patrons that no, the game is not on here, but can I interest you in a particularly spicy episode of Love It or List It? (I think they might list it!)

While the bar owners of the country are understandably displeased by this development — people as a rule do not like it when their fees are increased — it will be interesting to see if many dislike it so much that they won’t go along. Would some bars simply turn off the TVs rather than pay a large increase for TSN and Sportsnet? Would they turn around and increase prices for their beer, hoppy or otherwise?