n Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:57 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.. > > Well, I think that is the point. The FCC was implying that the rule was originally in the public interest, but that seems clearly to be a joke.
> 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. > But the rule does not apply only to the NFL - it applies to any sporting even that is locally blacked out, even if it is just by contractual agreement. -- -- 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.
