McCain to end sports blackouts?

[Brad]

Ha!

 

I actually posted my opinion that if a channel can't stand a la carte, it should fail.

 

Then I thought that might be too insensitive for my former Mad Cow pals so I erased it. 

 

 

[charsibb]

Oops, are we not in the 'cow? I hadn't noticed. My bad.

[Gismo]

When I googled this topic it appears the cable providers choose to offer these bundles as their business model. Forcing them to offer A la carte I think is more government regulation than needed. Let the customers decide if they want to pay for a bundle or do without. There is already a lot of pressure from customers for pay for channel, just look at the success of netflix and amazon. 

[charsibb]

When I googled this topic it appears the cable providers choose to offer these bundles as their business model. Forcing them to offer A la carte I think is more government regulation than needed. Let the customers decide if they want to pay for a bundle or do without. There is already a lot of pressure from customers for pay for channel, just look at the success of netflix and amazon. 

 

Yes and no.

 

The problem you run into with cable companies is the monopoly issue. Until we get "fiber to the home" where you could then conceivably switch providers at will, the "last mile" is going to be a monopoly situation.

 

ANY firm with monopoly power will abuse it if not restrained.

[Brad]

Oops, are we not in the 'cow? I hadn't noticed. My bad.

Prior to Algor selling Current TV for a massive profit, it would have been one of the channels to go belly up with current bundling. He would have needed a govt bailout.

[smazza]

if it is good for you u love government intervention

 

 

i really get a kick out of the you guys

Edited May 19, 2013 by smazza

[Markeymark]

I don't know - at first blush this seems heavy handed. (I'm just catching up to this thread!)

 

I can't help but think the local governments who allow the teams to come in and set up these sweetheart deals should know what they're getting into.

 

I remember when Hillsborough County voted to fund RayJay (ie "Community Investment Tax Stadium") and thinking how badly Glazer was bending them over a barrel. I was against it and if I wasn't living in Pinellas at the time, I would have voted against it.

[charsibb]

I don't know - at first blush this seems heavy handed. (I'm just catching up to this thread!)

 

I can't help but think the local governments who allow the teams to come in and set up these sweetheart deals should know what they're getting into.

 

I remember when Hillsborough County voted to fund RayJay (ie "Community Investment Tax Stadium") and thinking how badly Glazer was bending them over a barrel. I was against it and if I wasn't living in Pinellas at the time, I would have voted against it.

 

Agree with this too.

 

Devolution of decision-making responsibilty to the locallist level possible is a good thing, so the voters can more easily hold them responsible.

 

But they are also more susceptible to fast-talking con artists (NFL owners) and more likely to cave to pressure (sign bad deals to keep teams in town)

 

Now they can have it both ways.

 

Local officials can play good cop to the feds bad cop. "we'd really love to help you, but we just got overridden"

 

Not sure how I feel about that, but taxpayer-funded stadiums should be creating jobs and economic growth. so that there's a proven or provable ROI on the investment.

 

Blackouts help that ROI by encouraging people to buy tickets rather than watch it on TV.

 

I think I can make a case either way, not sure which is the stronger.

 

So we're back to first principles. Keep the feds out and make the decisions locally.

 

q.e.d.?

[JTrue]

I don't know - at first blush this seems heavy handed. (I'm just catching up to this thread!)

I can't help but think the local governments who allow the teams to come in and set up these sweetheart deals should know what they're getting into.

I remember when Hillsborough County voted to fund RayJay (ie "Community Investment Tax Stadium") and thinking how badly Glazer was bending them over a barrel. I was against it and if I wasn't living in Pinellas at the time, I would have voted against it.

Agree with this too.

Devolution of decision-making responsibilty to the locallist level possible is a good thing, so the voters can more easily hold them responsible.

But they are also more susceptible to fast-talking con artists (NFL owners) and more likely to cave to pressure (sign bad deals to keep teams in town)

Now they can have it both ways.

Local officials can play good cop to the feds bad cop. "we'd really love to help you, but we just got overridden"

Not sure how I feel about that, but taxpayer-funded stadiums should be creating jobs and economic growth. so that there's a proven or provable ROI on the investment.

Blackouts help that ROI by encouraging people to buy tickets rather than watch it on TV.

I think I can make a case either way, not sure which is the stronger.

So we're back to first principles. Keep the feds out and make the decisions locally.

q.e.d.?

Has it ever been proven that blackouts increase attendance?

[charsibb]

Has it ever been proven that blackouts increase attendance?

 

 

Anecdotally. Back in the day, sometimes a local business would step up and buy the remainder so the Bucs could be televised.

 

Maybe it didn't increase attendance, but it did increase ticket sales (which is more important, maybe)