On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, <d...@flids.net> wrote: > > I'd like to hear even one example (even a far-fetched one) of how the > blackout rules have ever been "in the public interest." >
I'd say the initial idea when the rule was creating: that prohibiting blacking out home games in their own market allowed fans of all types to be able to see the games, even if they couldn't afford the tickets. Given the amount of money that communities give towards the building of these facilities*, they become de facto in the public interest. Even Dollar Bill Wirtz would let the very-rare sold-out Blackhawks games air. That said, the rule is now utterly obsolete. Now the question becomes "does the FCC consider OTA broadcasts part of being in the public interest, especially in markets (as discussed in these parts earlier) that do not have any non-network or cable OTA broadcasts?" That's where the battle between free markets and public interests comes back into play. * I'm aware this fact could launch into its own discussion that could raise my blood pressure, for which I will simply state this fact and continue. -- -- 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 tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
