> I think Doug's original question still stands unanswered: How did the > original rule ever serve the public interest? Similarly, how does getting > rid of the rule serve the public interest?
I doubt the original rule had anything to do with the viewing public's interest. It's about making sure that entities that buy "exclusive" rights to show sporting events don't have to compete with other entities, which serves the broadcaster and team/league that sells them the rights.. > It seems like the idea is that the rule serves the public interest by > making sure that cable operators do not have an unfair advantage vs over > the air broadcasters; this ensures that sports programing will continue to > be available over the air. As Joe Hass has pointed more than once, these rules do no such thing. Many (non-football) teams have no non-cable deal for local broadcasts, so that the only games available over the air are national network games. > Reminds me that a Dodger fan friend of mine who lives in Hawaii is blacked > out of all West Coast games (Pads, Dodgers, Angels, Giants, A's, and > Mariners). I assume MLB wants to encourage him to climb onto a plane and > fly six hours if he wants to see a Dodger broadcast. Unless your friend can get his senator(s) and/or representative to question this system publicly, it's unlikely to change. The only people it doesn't work for are fans. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
