You are incorrect. I’m going to assume you are not Canadian? Every Canadian knows that Rogers is an ISP, and so is Bell. Heck Rogers and Bell even have stakes in professional sports!

They are the 2 major telcos of Canada that all Canadians love to complain about.

I really don’t understand your last paragraph.

> Heck Rogers and Bell even have stakes in professional sports!

Rogers and Bell own two of the most popular (if not the two most popular) teams in Canada -- Rogers owns the Leafs, Bell owns the Canadiens.

Might be a quibble but Rogers doesn't own the leafs. They own the jays. MLSE owns the leafs. Rogers has a partial ownership of the MLSE. Not sure stake but its not large

True, Rogers indirectly owns part of the Leafs. But, when it's time for the team to make a decision on media, that'll generally be enough to swap that decision.

Was curious about ownership stake and it's much larger than I remember. So I stand corrected on that aspect. Looks like BCE and RCI basically co-own the leafs at 37.5% respectively [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Sports_%26_Entertai...

You're right about the first part. I actually am Canadian, though haven't lived in Canada for over a decade. Absolute brain fart on my part. If you asked me outside the context of this article what Rogers does, I would've listed cable, Internet, telephone provider before any of its media/publishing stuff, but got tunnel vision in the context of this article.

I forgot about the degree to which Rogers is vertically integrated (ISP, cable provider, landline and cell provider, TV stations, radio, partial ownership in all major sports teams, etc.) and the degree to which this is a duopoly with Bell in Canada. But it's no wonder they can get the courts to issues these orders against themselves (and their smaller competitors) to legitimize actions that protect their broader interests.

Weirder still is that Rogers has apparently sub-licensed the English-language broadcast of NHL in Canada to the state-owned broadcaster, CBC: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/deal-gives-rogers-rights...

One hand washes the other.

It's all good. You should come back and visit :) You will definitely not find a shortage of people that do not like how Rogers operates. You then probably missed out on the whole Rogers fiasco where Edward Rogers was infighting with his own family in trying to regain control. It just turned everybody off.

Rogers and Bell are the two ISPs that between them control the Canadian ISP market. They also own the content publishers (the streaming services and networks) that send bytes over those cables, wires, and allocated public radio spectrum provided by the ISPs. They also own many of the Canadian sports teams that provide the content streamed by those bytes. The NHL is owned by the teams, hence controlled by Bell and Rogers.

What's going on is that the vertically-integrated entertainment/communications cartel is refining its regulatory capture through the judicial branch of of the Canadian government in order to launder artificial restrictions on competition at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. It's how they pay me my big fat dividend checks so I can contribute their massive quarterly profits through my taxes, since I don't watch sports.

Rogers itself is an ISP. This order is Bell(also and ISP) targeting all other ISPs in the country.

Finally, I don’t get what purpose your final paragraph adds to the conversation? This is a court order. It has nothing to do with executive action from the government, rather a judge ruling that the ISPs must block pirated sports.

Let's not be naiive here. The courts and the government are not totally disconnected. Everyone has at some point observed court rulings that they thought to have been impacted by political discourse. Instead of indulging myself into a loquacious sesquipedalian treatise on the nature of ethics and origin of judicial and political systems, I will, paraphrasing Hemingway, let go of my dick and just tell you what is there. The system is man-made and man controls every aspect of it. It is corrupt and everything is connected. This is obvious to anyone willing to step away from their ivory tower and just apply common sense.

I believe that last paragraph to be an observation that is obvious to most people.

No one is naive here.

The person made a false assumption in their first paragraph, and then linked that false information to his second that is really not that relevant here.

If you read the article, it even states:

6. That didn't stop Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor, who went straight to the Federal Court in 2019, asking for an order against themselves to block a streaming service called GoldTV. They also asked the court to order other ISPs to do the same, including TekSavvy.

In addition, they have tried this twice before, through the Federal Government, and it didn't work:

2. For years, media companies in Canada have asked the government to use Internet filtering—or "site blocking"—to help enforce copyrights. In 2017, through a coalition called FairPlay, they asked the CRTC to create a site-blocking regime. They lost. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-384.htm

3. They made a similar pitch to the federal government committee reviewing the Copyright Act in 2018. I was there to oppose it. In its report, the INDU committee recommended studying a limited, copyright-specific injunction that balanced interests. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports...

So to write that ALL IS CORRUPT and the Government is the baddie is unnecessary. These corporate people, and I certainly am not on their side, are just trying the numbers game. They will keep asking their lawyers to keep trying in order to restrict their product/service so they "make more money". I certainly don't agree with Rogers and Bell, but let's not mislead people here.

Where is the misleading? Are you saying its misleading to say that government, by definition is corrupt?

I'm saying that the entire original comment was misleading since it was based on a false assumption which lead to a false conclusion. The government has said No to this twice already! I do not believe the person who made the comments is malicious, it's just a simple error and I hold nothing against the person. But then another commenter jumped on board and continued on that false premise.

At this point, we are going off topic.

> loquacious sesquipedalian treatise

This sounds like a species of fish.

I went fishing for marlin but we accidentally caught an endangered _loquacious sesquipedalian treatise_ and had to throw it back before the fish and game officer saw it

> Canada skews towards greater trust of government, with more broad and intense irrational trust in government in the last few years than I’d ever noticed in the decades prior.

I mean didn't they just decide that the constitution not applies and start freezing bank accounts and detaining people for political speech the government didn't like?