GM cares about a few thousand hard core fans? I doubt it. IF they did, they'd already fund nationwide coverage. Ultimately (75 years from now? 100?) all television will be delivered via broadband, but at a heck of a lot higher bandwidth than today, given the needs of HDTV. Companies like Connexion are already demonstrating that it can be done (via satellite, and with a finite number of users). I don't expect USATF to fund ANYTHING. If a web enterprise wants to webcast a meet, the door is open. (Dr. K- have at it!) At the Olympics, cameras from many nations are allowed side by side, why not webcast and broadcast side by side? Do Political Party Conventions grant broadcast coverage rights to a single network? Of course not. It's in their interest to broaden the coverage as much as possible. (these days, of course, networks are not as interested as they used to be). There's not enough overlap to worry about 'stealing anybody's audience'.
The whole coverage model is wrong right now. USATF should stop trying to follow the lead of the IOC. RT On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 05:54:49 -0800 ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:53:09 -0800 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jabbour is the future: > was Letter...NYC mara... coverage > > > > The answer is BOTH- > > put it on the net. > > And allow any station who wants to provide > over-the-air > > coverage to do so as well. > > Relegate the exclusive contracts to the > dustbin of history.>> > > Who wrote that business plan, Homer Simpson? > > Let's see if I've got this right: first, USTAF > should spend income it > probably doesnąt have to fund a web setup for > the country's few thousand > hardcore fans. Then it should go to GM and try > to sell a sponsorship > package, while noting "oh, by the way, we've > already cut out the heart of > your audience because we're giving away a more > complete product elsewhere." > > Yeah, that oughta fly. > > Gh > > >
