FCC Rejects Blackout Rules

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @06:52AM from the now-ban-them-altogether-please dept.

Today the Federal Communications Commission eliminated its sport blackout rules, which prevented cable and satellite television providers from showing sporting events that were blacked out on a local station. It's common practice in the NFL to black out football games locally if the stadium didn't sell enough tickets. The ruling now removes government protections for the NFL's policies (the NFL can continue to black out local broadcasts). The FCC's decision is based on "significant changes" to the industry over the 40 years since the rules were adopted. Television has replaced ticket sales as the primary source of revenue, and the NFL is incredibly popular. They also don't think there's any chance the NFL will move its games to pay-per-view.

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I sincerely hope that they go cable only like the NFL threatened to do. The only thing that can stop the NFL and the misplaced US hero worship is their own greed.
1. Re:Going Cable! by GTRacer · 2014-09-30 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  Look, I enjoy a good football game. It's something my parents and I have done from time to time, usually as the playoffs get closer. I also live in an NFL city, home to a lousy team which had to resort to trickery to get their stadium seating numbers to a point where they could sell / give away / foist tickets on people enough to lift the blackouts, plural.
  
  Help me out here - those of you who live where /good/ teams are, don't you normally avoid blackouts because your team is worth watching? Wouldn't it be the stinkers that have to be propped up by rules like this?
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
2. Re:Going Cable! by tiberus · 2014-09-30 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Is it a question of worth watching or of worth watching in a stadium for $XXX? I'll never understand why someone pays that kind of money to sit in bad seats in the cold, wet etc. when they should be able to watch it from home. It's hard to fathom that ticket sales are worth more than TV rights any more. IMHO, all blackouts do is punish the fans who weren't going to buy a ticket anyway.
3. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of teams have trouble selling out games. The Bengals are considered the "best team" in the NFL right now and they face a blackout every home game unless the Steelers are in town.
  The Packers had a lot of games blacked out last year, and so did some other popular teams. I think there are a lot of factors weighing in on as to why NFL games don't sell out, not just having a good/bad team. The Browns sell out nearly every game and they haven't had a winning season in ever.
4. Re:Going Cable! by Serenissima · 2014-09-30 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I really, really, don't give a shit about football and never go out of my way to keep up on teams or try to watch games. I like football just fine; if a friend is watching a game, I'll watch it with them and go to their Super Bowl party. For me, this story doesn't matter at all - it won't affect the number of football games I watch this year at all. But considering how people are moving away from Cable, I wonder if actual football fans are anything like me.
  I like NOT paying for cable MORE than I like any given show. If there was a show I was watching over the air that I absolutely loved, and it moved to cable, I would not watch that show anymore. There's so much other content out there and I'm not going to pay for cable to watch one thing. Do football fans feel that same way?
  
  --
  Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
5. Re:Going Cable! by David_Hart · 2014-09-30 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is it a question of worth watching or of worth watching in a stadium for $XXX? I'll never understand why someone pays that kind of money to sit in bad seats in the cold, wet etc. when they should be able to watch it from home. It's hard to fathom that ticket sales are worth more than TV rights any more. IMHO, all blackouts do is punish the fans who weren't going to buy a ticket anyway.
  People spend $$$ because it's a social event for most people who enjoy sports. Getting there early, setting up the BBQ, handing out with existing or new friends, talking about the sport team, etc... On top of that, it's a much more engaging when you are actually experiencing the event. Much like a live concert is a completely different experience than listening to it on Palladium.
6. Re:Going Cable! by ShanghaiBill · 2014-09-30 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it be the stinkers that have to be propped up by rules like this?
  The stinkers need to earn money to buy better players to become non-stinkers. So policies that hurt the stinkers, mean they will stink even more, and the NFL will become less competitive. Personally, I couldn't care less about the competitiveness of the NFL. The government should not be propping up their business model.
7. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure what you're talking about. Green Bay has sold out every home game since 1959. There was one playoff game that looked like it may not possibly sell out because the temperature was well below zero ... but it did.
8. Re:Going Cable! by cayenne8 · 2014-09-30 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Help me out here - those of you who live where /good/ teams are, don't you normally avoid blackouts because your team is worth watching? Wouldn't it be the stinkers that have to be propped up by rules like this?
  I live in New Orleans...and it has only been in recent years (not this year apparently) that the Saints were anything but a losing team.
  For decades...fans filled the stands, wearing bags over their heads, but still..they were loyal and came to see the games. I know some games were blacked out in the past, but I don't remember *that* many.
  Granted, we have a dome and don't have to sit outside in the sweltering heat and humidity (which lasts usually till about the end of Oct), but even so...I think it depends on the community you live in as much as how the team is doing. I mean down here, we're looking for any excuse to get together for a party, hell we even have parades for funerals.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
9. Re:Going Cable! by Morpeth · 2014-09-30 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I live in a city with a good team with a decent fan base -- BUT we usually hear on the local news about the looming blackout threat most weekends.
  Personally, I'm like 'Fine, whatever... no better way to lose MORE fans than by preventing your local supporters from seeing the game'.
  Plus, maybe I'm a cheapo, but I consider the tickets, parking, food, etc. just too d-mn expensive to make it worth seeing it live. If they made the games more affordable for a family, maybe they'd have better luck filling seats.
  [As an aside, I'm a bit disillusioned with the NFL these days, especially protecting some crapastic people like Rice & Peterson among others, so I don't really care if the NFL struggles or not]
  
  --
  
  'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
10. Re:Going Cable! by cayenne8 · 2014-09-30 07:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Although, I must say, I enjoy all that tailgating and community get together MUCH with college football games here in the south, than I do for Pro games.
  Better looking and younger chicks at the college game day celebrations!! That and you don't have to go through something resembling TSA airport security like you do with the NFL these days more and more.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11. Re:Going Cable! by khellendros1984 · 2014-09-30 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there are plenty of football fans (and sports fans, in general) that will pay $$$ to watch a single game, and many more that like watching it on TV enough to schedule their lives around when the football game will be shown. Myself, I'll watch a game every now and then, and I have a general idea of how well the teams that other people in my family root for are doing.
  
  As for whether fans would follow their games onto cable, in the cases that they don't already have cable or satellite, I'm sure that's a question of statistics. Some percentage will follow the sport to cable, some percentage will do more illegal online streaming, some percentage will just google the score after the game, some percentage will just stop watching. "Football fans" are different people, so they'll react differently.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
12. Re:Going Cable! by rjune · 2014-09-30 07:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Packers had games blocked out? You've got to be kidding, every one of the home games was on the Milwaukee station. The average wait for season tickets is 30 years: http://www.packers.com/fan-zon... See bottom of page. I think a playoff game might not have sold out due to some refund policy, but that was an aberration. The 3 biggest religions in Wisconsin are Lutheran, Catholic, and the Green Bay Packers and I'm pretty sure I have them reversed.
13. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  I really, really, don't give a shit about football and never go out of my way to keep up on teams or try to watch games. I like football just fine; if a friend is watching a game, I'll watch it with them and go to their Super Bowl party. For me, this story doesn't matter at all - it won't affect the number of football games I watch this year at all. But considering how people are moving away from Cable, I wonder if actual football fans are anything like me.
  I like NOT paying for cable MORE than I like any given show. If there was a show I was watching over the air that I absolutely loved, and it moved to cable, I would not watch that show anymore. There's so much other content out there and I'm not going to pay for cable to watch one thing. Do football fans feel that same way?
  As you've clearly stated you are NOT a football fan.
  But you've also made it clear that you don't find ANY forms of TV entertainment worth it if they happen come with a price tag at any time, even if you loved watching it.
  In short, you don't find value in any of it. In fact, I'm not even sure why you posted here. Or even own a TV. Seriously.
14. Re:Going Cable! by NotDrWho · 2014-09-30 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing that can stop the NFL and the misplaced US hero worship is their own greed.
  Greed??? Why sir, I'll have you know that the NFL *always* provided local viewers with plenty of reasonably-priced $4,000 skybox tickets as an alternative to being blacked-out. It was quite charitable of them!
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
15. Re:Going Cable! by geekoid · 2014-09-30 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  We can all settle down now people, Serenissima isn't affected AND he felt like he had to let us know.
  I can sleep easy tonight.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
16. Re:Going Cable! by geekoid · 2014-09-30 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  If someone is a fan and doesn't have cable.Sat. then they aren't going to get it because of this ruling.
  The NFL needs to wake up and start selling streaming packages to whomever ants them.
  I know a lot of fans would would pay for that service, but since it's not offered, then end up going through UK sites.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
17. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Look, I enjoy a good football game. It's something my parents and I have done from time to time, usually as the playoffs get closer. I also live in an NFL city, home to a lousy team which had to resort to trickery to get their stadium seating numbers to a point where they could sell / give away / foist tickets on people enough to lift the blackouts, plural.
  I won't call it trickery, but when the 72-hour blackout deadline approaches, someone might decide to purchase the remaining tickets to avoid the sellout. Unlike this example, the company that usually buys the tickets is the local TV station who wants to broadcast the game.
  I haven't heard of a team dropping ticket prices("give away") to avoid the blackout. I'm guessing this is because the NFL haven't reach the point where it's profitable to do that-- even with today's broadcast revenue.
  
  Help me out here - those of you who live where /good/ teams are, don't you normally avoid blackouts because your team is worth watching? Wouldn't it be the stinkers that have to be propped up by rules like this?
  Yes, having a good team(or at least a competitive team) for the season does help avoid blackouts. But that's not the only reason. A team that is located in an area with a large population will usually have enough of a fanbase to sellout consistently--even if the team is bad. Being the "only game in town" also helps.
  I found this page on the last time each team had a blackout.
  Interesting when the last blackout occurred for the 49ers, Bears and Cowboys-- about one to two years before a Super Bowl winning season.
18. Re:Going Cable! by k6mfw · 2014-09-30 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't follow football though some years ago I had opportunity to be in a press box high above 50 yd line. Very different than seeing it on TV, you can see how the play is set up and made. Where on TV the camera focuses on the ball so you miss peripheral details. What caught my attention is on hike, team with the ball had three guys acting like they had the ball (only one obviously did). It didn't fool opposing team but they still had to pay attention to those two other guys. And when they throw the ball, they throw it very high and very far.
  Other than that, I have heard many people discontinuing their season ticket holdings as these are getting so expensive in the hundreds of dollars. What gets me is enormous amounts of money involved. The new Levi stadium in Santa Clara for example with billions involved, I only drove past it a few times. I hear on game day, traffic is superbad. And listening to VTA bus freq, drivers that shuttle viewers to and from the stadium many times are directed away from stadium by police. Transit Control said to drivers can't they tell the police they need to shuttle to the stadium, driver responded "the officer was really rude." I also heard Sunnyvale requested CHP to look into a vandal call because city didn't have officers to respond. Heck, stadium is Santa Clara but getting assistance from Sunnyvale for game day, and they still lacking resources?
  I also saw on FCC database zillion new licenses for NFL freq.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
19. Re:Going Cable! by deKernel · 2014-09-30 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  If it means anything, I am in agreement with how d-mn expensive it has become to watch the games live hence why I just don't go anymore.
20. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  I have to say it: It doesn't work that way.
  The NFL has a salary cap: the amount each team can spend on player salaries is limited-- to the same figure for each team. To keep the players happy the figure is adjusted annually based on revenue.
  More importantly, the selection of new players is conducted in reverse order of the teams records. The stinkers gets first dibs. Picking the right guys in the draft might mean the team will no longer stink...sometimes.
21. Re:Going Cable! by Sentrion · 2014-09-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You actually GO to games and concerts IN PERSON? Even though you can watch it all on a smart phone, TV, or laptop? Let me guess, you also GO to the cinema also, even though you could just download the torrent. I guess I'll just never get "people" people.
22. Re:Going Cable! by JeffAtl · 2014-09-30 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  You must be in Atlanta.
23. Re:Going Cable! by GTRacer · 2014-09-30 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, my wife and I do just that - we go to the cinema at least 25 times a year. Sometimes with the kids, sometimes without. It is most definitely a "shared experience" thing. No, we do not often buy sodas or snacks.
  
  The rest of the time we watch movies is via streaming service or Redbox (automated physical DVD rental kiosks).
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
24. Re:Going Cable! by GTRacer · 2014-09-30 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Close. But I'd love to live there!
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
25. Re:Going Cable! by Serenissima · 2014-09-30 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Glad to help! ;)
  
  --
  Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
26. Re:Going Cable! by Serenissima · 2014-09-30 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at the risk of troll feeding, I did say that I wouldn't pay for it if it was through Cable. I have no problem paying for content. Fuck cable companies though.
  The reason I posted is because the people of the Slashdot community are probably more than likely also going to be the people with know-how to cut ties to cable while still being able to watch the content they want to watch. Out of this community, of the people who enjoy football, I was curious to see what their response would be if football did move to cable-only. Is football important enough to people who have cut cables ties to go back to cable? I certainly find no value in football, but I thought that, for the people who do, it was a pretty interesting question!
  
  --
  Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
27. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  We can all settle down now people, Serenissima isn't affected AND he felt like he had to let us know.
  I can sleep easy tonight.
  Are you being sarcastic? If so, that's mean.
28. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Tampa Bay?
29. Re:Going Cable! by BringsApples · 2014-09-30 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The games are fun to go to, but the folks that would like to advertize to you from the TV want their share of your time too. Not that there aren't folks advertizing to you at the game... it's just different.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
30. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  The Packers had games blocked out? You've got to be kidding, every one of the home games was on the Milwaukee station.
  It's called the Green Bay Packers, because their home town is Green Bay, not Milwaukee. If it was blacked out, it would be in Green Bay.
31. Re:Going Cable! by mythosaz · 2014-09-30 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  First, you should know that club sections and luxury seating has been exempt from the sellout/backout rules for, well, ever. The portion of tickets reserved for the visiting team are also excluded from the sellout/blackout rule. Teams themselves can buy their own tickets at $0.34 on the dollar to stay on TV as well. [And those 34% tickets are profit shared with other teams...]
  Regardless, only a couple of teams struggle with blackouts. I think the Bills have it the worst.
  As to options, NFL.com has been showing blacked out games (on delay) since 2009. If you're a Bills fan, you're free to watch the game on NFL.com after midnight if you can avoid spoilers.
  ...or buy a ticket.
32. Re:Going Cable! by AuMatar · 2014-09-30 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  In the last few years I've gone to games and I've watched on TV. I'd never pay sticker price to go to a game again- TV is a MUCH better experience. No weather, no annoying asshole standing up in front of you, better food, better priced food and drink, instant replays, etc. If you're watching sports (rather than participating) its just better all around on TV. I'm more engaged at home.
  Funnily enough, I'd rather go to a concert. That's an experience. Sports in person don't do it for me, even if I like the sport.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
33. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  The Packers have sold out since the 60's and the Bengals are not considered the best team in the league.
34. Re:Going Cable! by Khyber · 2014-09-30 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, ain't no smartphone, tv, or laptop coming with 50,000w of beat-your-ears-in sound system.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
35. Re:Going Cable! by frdmfghtr · 2014-09-30 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Packers used to play a couple of home games every season in the old Milwaukee County Stadium. They haven't done that since the '90s (and County Stadium was razed in 2000) but Milwaukee is still considered part of the Packers home media market.
  
  --
  Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
36. Re:Going Cable! by chromaexcursion · 2014-09-30 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  there's much to be said for college chicks.
37. Re: Going Cable! by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-09-30 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  eh, the NFL will probably just headbutt the FCC in the bridge of the nose during a 'roid rage and forget about it next week.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
38. Re:Going Cable! by cdrudge · 2014-10-01 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'd venture a guess the reason why is that you don't need 50k watts when the speaker is about an inch from your eardrum.
39. Re:Going Cable! by GTRacer · 2014-10-01 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Closer, but that's too far west. Also, love to vacation there but not as sure about living in Tampa...
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
40. Re:Going Cable! by Khyber · 2014-10-01 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  My 5w headphones capable of shaking themselves off my head to Young Bleed's 'How Ya Do Dat' still aren't fucking loud enough for my pleasure.
  And I stand next to 4kW stacks daily.
  Still have nearly-perfect hearing, minus the really odd gap at 15kHz-16kHz (about 1.3kHz lower than the mosquito buzz frequency, which I can plainly hear at the age of 32.)
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
41. Re:Going Cable! by Muad'Dave · 2014-10-01 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Still have nearly-perfect hearing, minus the really odd gap at 15kHz-16kHz ...
  Not odd at all. Were you exposed to CRT TVs or old monitors for an extended amount of time? Their flybacks operated at one of several freqs: NTSC is 15,734 Hz, PAL is equal to 15,625 Hz, PAL M is equal to 15,750 Hz I wondered if TV/monitor technology was getting better over the years - the flyback scream got quieter and quieter as I got older. Turns out my ears were losing their sensitivity to it. I have a gigantic notch at those frequencies.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
42. Re:Going Cable! by Khyber · 2014-10-02 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ooooh, good fucking point. You're right on that. I had HUGE CRTs (82 born) for over half of my life (I only ditched my 21" Trinitron 7 years ago and went LCD, so 25 out of 32 years of my life I've been exposed to CRT flyback scream.)
  But, I can still 'hear/feel' it. I don't think I've lost that hearing totally, but there's definitely a sensitivity gap in that range.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
43. Re:Going Cable! by zummit · 2014-10-02 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Here are some actual numbers about costs to attend a game:
  NFL Tickets: Team by Team Average Prices
  http://blog.tiqiq.com/2013/08/...
  Team Marketing Report â Sept. 2014 [PDF]
  https://www.teammarketing.com/...
44. Re:Going Cable! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-03 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  The cinema has a much bigger screen than I have room for at home. Watching a concert on a smartphone? Nice joke! Not only does the concert house have better audio - but if it isn't too big, you get some level of contact with the artists. At least if they are any good. Even perfect stereo equipment won't give you that . . .
Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 06:57 · Score: 0

If the FCC board members don't have incestuous ties to an industry and a change would benefit them personally as well as the public, then they'll do the right thing. What a great group!
1. Re:Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  The FCC may not have direct ties but the members of the NFL are known corporate welfare junkies.
  
  I lose all respect for someone anytime I see them mention the 1% or the small government crowd talk about their politics while wearing a shirt from one of these organized crime organizations.
2. Re:Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  when will the government learn that the best thing they can do is butt out, and the worst thing they can do is try to regulate something they only dimly understand?
  If they didn't regulate anything, you'd be eating toxic food, driving cars which burst into flames, and using products which are outright dangerous.
  Only a moron would believe that without regulations corporations wouldn't just screw consumers every chance they get.
  But, hey, I hear you can probably buy some cheap baby formula from China which has melamine in it ... I'm sure it will only make you a little sick.
  The 'free market' doesn't exist, and doesn't solve problems like this.
  You're an idiot, who only dimly understands the world around you.
3. Re:Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  And only a moron thinks that regulation is an automagic cure all.
4. Re:Goes to show by geekoid · 2014-09-30 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Regulation is why the country is so stable. Yes it has ups and downs, but nothing compared to other countries that don't have regulation, or enforcement there of.
  "I am from the government"
  the most dangerous words in the English language are "I am from the government"
  These NFL regulations made sense initially, but should have ended a decade age.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:Goes to show by towermac · 2014-09-30 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  "If they didn't regulate anything, you'd be eating toxic food, driving cars which burst into flames, and using products which are outright dangerous."
  Not me. I wouldn't buy that food or those cars. Instead, I would have depend on a company's reputation and their fear of the courts. I wonder if you really think that all food was toxic before the FDA existed.
  "Only a moron would believe that without regulations corporations wouldn't just screw consumers every chance they get."
  Sort of like the moron that thinks all history started in 1950 or something.
  "But, hey, I hear you can probably buy some cheap baby formula from China which has melamine in it ... I'm sure it will only make you a little sick."
  That is very scary, and obviously justifies anything you want it to. (I'd throw in 'think of the children' next time)
  "The 'free market' doesn't exist, and doesn't solve problems like this."
  If you have free people, and more than one place to buy something at, then you have a free market. No one ever claimed that the free market solved crooks, charlatans, and melamine pushers.
  "You're an idiot, who only dimly understands the world around you."
  Nah, I think you're the idiot, to equate the FCC allowing local stations to show football games with poisoned baby formula as justification for your socialism.
6. Re:Goes to show by dunkindave · 2014-09-30 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I know I am feeding a troll, but well, think of the children (who may be reading this).
  Noah Haders stated his opinion is that the government shouldn't try to regulate things "they only dimly understand", but with the inclusion of saying the words "I am from the government" are "the most dangerous words in the english language", revealed his true view is that ALL regulation is bad.
  The AC responded with examples of things where, without some regulation, the population would suffer. Without regulation we would be wearing asbestos-laced pajamas and getting our daily fiber (via sawdust filler) from your local hamburger stand. At no point did the AC poster claim, or even imply, that regulation can fix everything. He was simply responding to the poster who wrote that regulation is always bad by showing that the free market drives businesses to do what makes them the most money, not what is good for the people (sometimes these do overlap, but often don't), and the population can therefore benefit from regulation.
7. Re:Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  "I would have depend on a company's reputation and their fear of the courts"
  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah..
8. Re:Goes to show by Sentrion · 2014-09-30 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  True. Somalia doesn't regulate their cricket matches, which makes the game absolutely incomprehensible.
9. Re:Goes to show by Tokolosh · 2014-09-30 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  My kingdom for a mod point.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
10. Re:Goes to show by dunkindave · 2014-09-30 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  "I would have depend on a company's reputation and their fear of the courts"
  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah..
  Except without regulations companies would just buy their way out of the courts. Oh wait...
11. Re:Goes to show by sjames · 2014-09-30 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Smith's premise of markets depended on there being a great many small buyers and sellers who were of roughly equal economic power (say, within an order of magnitude). He said as much in the often cited but nearly never actually read " An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". (You should read it, it's free!)
  So no, two corporate billionaires selling to individuals is nothing like a viable market.
  Note too that he was a proponent of strong regulation and an opponent of corporate charters except where absolutely unavoidable. If you buy into the market, you should naturally oppose corporations and seek to minimize them.
  As for the FDA, it came into existence because there were poisonous foods and drugs on the market and people were dying.
  If you care to call for better regulation, I'm with you. I would love to see the FDA abolished with a ground up replacement, among many other reforms.
  As for the current topic, I am glad the FCC i butting out. That was not an appropriate regulation.
12. Re:Goes to show by towermac · 2014-09-30 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I have mod points at the moment. But instead of modding him down, I answered. Yes, I'm naive, and in hindsight regret throwing 'moron' back at him. I'm really interested in the discussion.
  Now the parent of AC, Noah, made a silly statement about all regulation or something, but just because I take AC to task, doesn't mean I agree with Noah. Noah, you sounded like you meant all regulation. Meat packing houses? No inspections? Not even a drive-by? A letter asking the estimated amount of rat feces in the average hotdog? Nothing? Seriously?
  Anyway, AC's response seems pretty typical; that we would all die without the FDA, because corporations want to kill us for profit. The FDA (and/or FTC, FCC, FAA, ...) is our only hope to live good lives.
  Or more concisely, The amount of their power is equal to our quality of life.
  Where do you even start with that?
13. Re:Goes to show by Tokolosh · 2014-09-30 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Somalia trope is usually trotted out. This deliberately conflates the government's legitimate function of protecting the rights of individuals, protection of property and enforcement of contracts, with the counterproductive creation of regulations, monopolies and participation as a player and referee in the private domain.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
14. Re:Goes to show by Euler · 2014-09-30 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm willing to tolerate a little bit of government if it means I don't have to conduct my own testing of every food item, car, or baby toy that I buy. No I don't trust the free market enough... I know damn well that reputation vs. cost savings is a balancing act to maximize profits. I expect no more and no less from a corporation; that is what they are designed to do. It is essentially government regulation that give corporations the framework to exist at all.
  If a company can deny, spin, cover-up, and pay off to protect their reputation then they will. It would be a conflict of interest for a corporation to always put utmost safety ahead of profits. Government isn't perfect either, but it isn't inherently a conflict of its own interest to protect my health and safety.
15. Re:Goes to show by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-03 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  "If they didn't regulate anything, you'd be eating toxic food, driving cars which burst into flames, and using products which are outright dangerous."
  Not me. I wouldn't buy that food or those cars. Instead, I would have depend on a company's reputation and their fear of the courts. I wonder if you really think that all food was toxic before the FDA existed.
  Then you'd fall for corps that work by first building a reputation, and then cash in by launching a cheaply made bad-quality product that they sell expensively. Reputation is a game these days.
  Without regulation, corps won't fear courts. They wouldn't be breaking the law - so the courts would not be able to touch them. You can't sue for poisonous food additives or scalding hot coffee if there is no legal basis for doing so!
  Take a look at the history of food coloring - lead-based paint has been used as candy coloring in the distant past. Melamine isn't nearly as bad.
  Before the FDA, people mostly farmed their own food - or bought directly from farmers. People knew enough about farmed food, no regulation needed. Then they invented factories, and the greedy would use all sorts of nasty tricks. Such as that lead based candy. And institutions like the FDA were created all over the world. Most people are not qualified to judge chemical food additives - especially those that won't kill you immediately. And how would they even know about the additives present - unless some law required an ingredient list printed on the packaging. . .
About damn time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 06:57 · Score: 1

The comfort of a big screen and my own snacks is all I need.
1. Re:About damn time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  I bet your approach to encounters with the opposite sex is pretty much the same.
2. Re:About damn time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Correct, sex regularly occurs on my couch. ;)
Pay-per-View by coinreturn · 2014-09-30 06:58 · Score: 0

They might not move the stench-bowl games to pay-per-view, but they could easily do that with the "big match-up" of the week. Not that I give a shit.
Online Sports Network by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:02 · Score: 0

I've stopped watching sports because I can't get the teams I want to watch online locally without paying for cable. Would someone please give me a quality streaming online sports ball network? The sport doesn't matter that much. I'll watch Lacrosse, Rugby, Baseball, Football, Soccer, Hockey, Anything really. Give me high-res live streaming, the ability to watch old games, and don't artificially block anything...
I want to watch sports. I don't want to pay $60 a month to do it while still having to sit though hours of commercials.
1. Re:Online Sports Network by BradMajors · 2014-09-30 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  You can watch European soccer online.
2. Re:Online Sports Network by SrLnclt · 2014-09-30 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is the one and only reason I still pay for TV. Virtually all my regularly scheduled programming I watch comes from the internet, and have for many years. But between the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NCAA basketball/football, the only way to get more than a couple games a year via broadcast networks is to pay for cable/satellite. For the teams I watch, I would need online access to the ESPNs, WGN, Comcast Sports Net, NBC Sports Network, Big Ten Network, and the broadcast networks to see 90% of the games. For those networks that do have online components, you need to login with your cable/satellite account to get access. Even if a network or two added an online only subscription, I would still be stuck with the rest of the networks.
  
  It always amazes me how obnoxious TV is when I actually watch sporting events live, since that is the only content I watch on my TV that still has ads. Maybe one day I'll just decide it's not worth it and stop watching sports.
3. Re:Online Sports Network by CastrTroy · 2014-09-30 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  What's worse is that the people at the stadium still have to deal with the ads. I grew up watching junior hockey because there was a rink across the street from my house. Didn't realized it until I was older and I went to my first NHL game that they had breaks for commercials in the middle of the period. You pay $100 for a ticket. You don't want to sit around with nothing to do because some TV network you aren't watching wants to play some commercials. It really breaks up the game. For something that's fast paced like hockey it really takes away from the enjoyment when they stop playing so they can play some commercials.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
4. Re:Online Sports Network by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  hockeystreams.com has pretty much everything you just asked for.
5. Re:Online Sports Network by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  That is WGN9 and not WGNA
6. Re:Online Sports Network by NatasRevol · 2014-09-30 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  NHL GameCenter. $160/season. All devices.
  http://gamecenter.nhl.com/nhlg...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
7. Re:Online Sports Network by smooth+wombat · 2014-09-30 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is why soccer (European football) is so much better to watch. No commercials. The game plays until the time runs out.
  Instead of a 1 hour game of football (American), it runs to well over twice that amount, not including the pre and post pontifications.
  Here's the way pro football works. Flip the coin to decide who kicks off. Go to commercial. Come back from commercial and have kick off. Four seconds elapse then play is ended. Go to commercial.
  Have first three plays of game. Go to commercial. Punt ball away or get second series. Rinse and repeat.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
8. Re:Online Sports Network by nabsltd · 2014-09-30 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  You can watch MLB, NHL, or NBA, if you don't mind paying for it.
  I suspect that all of these sports have the same rules (which I know MLB has) that you cannot watch your local team live over the Internet...you must watch them on local TV (either OTA or the regional sports network).
  Note that this means that if you live in Chicago and buy the MLB.tv package because you are a fan of the Cleveland Indians, you will not be able to watch over the Internet when Cleveland visits either Chicago team, or vice-versa. In some years, that would mean that out of 162 games, as many as 25 will not be available to you.
9. Re:Online Sports Network by rlwhite · 2014-09-30 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. There's a pending class action lawsuit over MLB.tv's restrictions: http://ballparkdigest.com/2014.... I'm curious whether the FCC rule change might have any bearing on the case, but I get the impression that it won't.
10. Re:Online Sports Network by Sentrion · 2014-09-30 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly why American Football never appealed to me, even as a child. That and most sportscasters and commentary are obnoxious. Can't stand commentary continuously announced over any event.
11. Re:Online Sports Network by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously haven't watched football in a few years. With the "hurry up" offense, the commercials are much fewer and farther between.
Fuck beta by Sowelu · 2014-09-30 07:12 · Score: 1

I dunno...I still live on classic, and I don't expect to leave, but popping into beta for a second it's starting to seem pretty usable. It's not without issues (why do I even have a moderate button if I don't have mod points), but I can do what I came here for.
Don't think they will move to a pay-per-view model by rock56501 · 2014-09-30 07:14 · Score: 1

What do they think what NFL Sunday Ticket is? Fans are essentially paying to watch their team when they live out of market.
Chairman Tom Wheeler by Dorianny · 2014-09-30 07:15 · Score: 1

This doesn't seem like much of a surprise with the FCC chairman being a former big cable lobbyist.
1. Re:Chairman Tom Wheeler by sconeu · 2014-09-30 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless... this is actually a Good Thing(TM) for those who watch sports.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:Chairman Tom Wheeler by cdrudge · 2014-10-01 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps. Remains to be seen what the long term effect is. What happens when the NFL is "forced" to go cable only. Or worse, shows games on an uber-expensive channel/package a la Sunday Ticket. Is it better to require fans to purchase cable tv or an "NFL package" to watch the team that their tax money often goes towards?
Slashdot news for Nerds by Anon-Admin · 2014-09-30 07:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Wait, Why is there a story about football on a site that is news for nerds? Move it to the News for Jocks site.... Wait, can they read?
1. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I concur. I have no idea why anybody would want to watch a football game.
  Now, here's a sport that *I* would watch.
2. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-30 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because just look at the boring, almost empty submission queue.
3. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well, yeah, that's what you get when you delete valid submissions because they don't fit your political agenda.
  You'd think we'd have an article on #GamerGate by now given that even Forbes and NPR have covered it. But despite multiple submissions being voted up to red, they all get summarily deleted shortly after being submitted. Hmm... wonder why that might be?
  Although in this case I'd argue that the FCC doing something vaguely consumer-friendly IS news for nerds. Give us some hope that maybe they won't decide to destroy net neutrality even though in reality this is the FCC siding with the cable companies over the NFL and we all know they'll side with them on net neutrality too.
4. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by khellendros1984 · 2014-09-30 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because it's primarily a story about modernizing FCC regulations, not primarily a story about sports themselves. I doubt that a sports site would be as interested in the legal aspects of the change; they'd be more interested in the practical effects (i.e. that they get to watch more sports). Discussing legal ramifications of a regulatory change seems pretty nerdy to me.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
5. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by Drethon · 2014-09-30 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ding, ding, ding! ... sorry, no mod points...
6. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  It's high-tech because it's on television.
7. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by geekoid · 2014-09-30 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  ". Discussing legal ramifications of a regulatory change seems pretty nerdy to me."
  ANd there are a lot of site that specialize in law that are discussing it. /. is the worse place to discuss it because there are no experts here, and most people haven't even read the FCC ruling itself.
  "Discussing legal ramifications of a regulatory change"
  I don't think people spouting off their incorrect interpretation of the ruling and having no legal background actually count as a discussion so much as it is angry wankery
  ". I doubt that a sports site would be as interested in the legal aspects of the change;"
  no, they have the same wankery going on on those site as slashdot does.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:Slashdot news for Nerds by khellendros1984 · 2014-09-30 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Angry wankery" or not, my point was that the story wasn't primarily about sports, and that discussions of legal technicalities would fit under the banner "News For Nerds" just fine. Stupid discussion is still discussion, it just isn't reasonable debate.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Well... by william.meaney1 · 2014-09-30 07:18 · Score: 1

Lot of good it looks like it will do...only two games were blacked out as of last year...this seems like fairly inconsequential news.
song by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:19 · Score: 0

{intro}
*drum part*
In the Navy
you cannot lick where I make pee
in the Navy
you cannot do another he
*flack-um lick*
{outro}
1. Re:song by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it kinda hard to lick the kidneys anyway?
So nothing happened? by mwn3d · 2014-09-30 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

The NFL can still black games out. I guess they'll just have to negotiate the rules with the cable networks? If that's how it goes then games will still get blacked out all the time because the networks won't give up the NFL over that rule. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
1. Re:So nothing happened? by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-30 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I guess this means that the NFL can still blackout the games but they can't say "Don't be mad at us! The big, bad government made us do it." In other words, they can blackout games but they will be the ones in the fans scream at.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re:So nothing happened? by mwn3d · 2014-09-30 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno about you but I always yelled at the NFL for it. I assumed it was their idea.
3. Re:So nothing happened? by geekoid · 2014-09-30 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  It means if it's broadcast in non blackout area, the cable/sat can play it in the local area. here, the doc. explains better than I:
  The Federal Communications Commission today repealed its sports blackout rules, which prohibited cable and satellite operators from airing any sports event that had been blacked out on a local broadcast station. The action removes Commission protection of the NFL’s current private blackout policy, which requires local broadcast stations to black out a game if a team does not sell a certain percentage of tickets to the game at least 72 hours prior to the game. The Order finds that the Commission’s sports blackout rules are no longer justified in light of the significant changes in the sports industry since these rules were first adopted nearly forty years ago.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:So nothing happened? by mwn3d · 2014-09-30 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah so they're not required by law to black it out but the NFL will probably still want that to happen so they get ticket/concession sales. So then they'll just set it up in the contract with the cable networks to work the same as before and the cable networks will go with it because people watch the NFL and they don't want to lose that. Cable networks get eyeballs on the screen and the NFL gets butts in seats. Everyone wins but us.
5. Re:So nothing happened? by cdrudge · 2014-10-01 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Blacking out games has always been the NFL's idea, but it use to be even worse. With the original policy, all games in the home market were blacked out, even playoffs and championship/superbowl games. When teams first started broadcasting all their games, there was a very large drop in attendance as a result, hence the "need" from the teams/NFLs point of view for the blackout rule.
  It wasn't until Washington was denied viewers in 1972 and Washington's politicians missed watching their team that things changed. The Attorney General requested the NFL adjust it's blackout rules, and when the NFL refused, it was suggested that the NFL's tax exempt status could change. Congress in 73 passed a law that lifted the blackout in home markets if they sold out more than 72 hours. That policy has since been tweaked to allow a sometimes 48 hour or rarely a 24 hour deadline if a team is very close to selling it out.
  The NFL sometimes does point to Congress/the law and says in effect "don't blame us, it's not our fault. It's the law." but it really has always been them. It was the law that changed the policy from awful to just bad. And now it's the law that has changed it from just bad to it's-all-on-the-nfl. And with many teams looking at the local community to chip in for stadiums, I'd expect a large amount of backlash should stick their hand out for begging for money while simultaneously blacking out games.
Online Sports Network by slashdice · 2014-09-30 07:39 · Score: 1

You can watch MLB, NHL, or NBA, if you don't mind paying for it.

--
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
What about baseball? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-09-30 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Major League Baseball has one of the most draconian and bizarre blackout policies even conceived - and it's not mentioned in that document at all. So I am wondering how a ruling about the NFL's policies is being interpreted as "FCC rejects blackout rules".
Oh, and MLB also has an exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:What about baseball? by sconeu · 2014-09-30 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. You can't get local games on MLB.tv. EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT!!!!
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:What about baseball? by geekmux · 2014-09-30 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Major League Baseball has one of the most draconian and bizarre blackout policies even conceived - and it's not mentioned in that document at all. So I am wondering how a ruling about the NFL's policies is being interpreted as "FCC rejects blackout rules".
  Uh, perhaps because the two parties in question here are the FCC and the NFL?
  If I read about a lawsuit surrounding Toyota recalls, I don't expect to find Chevrolet in the discussion just because they are also an automaker.
  I'm sure if the NFL policy changes dramatically, the MLB fans will try and table their policy too. Perhaps it's a bit different of a priority when you're talking about 140+ games compared to sixteen.
3. Re:What about baseball? by nabsltd · 2014-09-30 08:28 · Score: 1
  Major League Baseball has one of the most draconian and bizarre blackout policies even conceived
  There's nothing bizarre about it...MLB wants you to watch games on the network that pays them the most money. In order from most to least:
  
  You must watch a "national network" (Fox, ESPN, TBS, etc.) if it is carrying the game.
  You must watch your local regional sports network, if it is carrying the game.
  You must watch a local OTA channel, if it is carrying the game. Note that some regional sports networks partner with local stations for some games, and either channel is then considered to be the RSN.
  You must watch on an out-of-town RSN or MLB.tv., assuming you have paid for one of these packages.
  This order is what makes the MLB blackouts so draconian (as you point out). It means that what the end viewer most directly paid for has the least priority for being watched by them.
4. Re:What about baseball? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-09-30 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, perhaps because the two parties in question here are the FCC and the NFL?
  If I read about a lawsuit surrounding Toyota recalls, I don't expect to find Chevrolet in the discussion just because they are also an automaker.
  But in your hypothetical case you also wouldn't expect the story to refer to all "automotive" recalls - you'd expect it to say "Toyota".
  The lede from this story says "Today the Federal Communications Commission eliminated its sport blackout rules, which prevented cable and satellite television providers from showing sporting events that were blacked out on a local station". But the FCC hasn't eliminated all blackout rules... only the ones specifically pertinent to the NFL.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
5. Re:What about baseball? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-09-30 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  People who aren't baseball fans may not be familiar with this, so I refer them to the maps of the various teams' "home regions" that determine whether you can watch a team or not.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
6. Re:What about baseball? by steelfood · 2014-09-30 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  All the major sports leagues have an exemption. It's nothing new.
  I assume the blackout protection expires for all sports, not just the NFL. But the NFL is the current big and bad (not just headline wise; we're also in the middle of the regular season when blackouts are most likely to happen), so they get the mention.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
7. Re:What about baseball? by pavon · 2014-09-30 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, someone at the MLB must really hate Iowa.
8. Re:What about baseball? by Quirkz · 2014-10-01 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you *can* get the radio version live. And you *can* watch the local game after a certain time has passed (one hour after the game is over?) But no, you can't watch them live.
  Still pretty obnoxious, though.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:43 · Score: 0

Different people like different things. I don't like sports, but lots and lots of people do. I don't call them stupid for liking different things than I do.
Re:Don't think they will move to a pay-per-view mo by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:55 · Score: 0

What do they think what NFL Sunday Ticket is? Fans are essentially paying to watch their team when they live out of market.
Yeah, but that's not pay-per-view, that's pay-per-season, which of course is TOTALLY different, if you don't know how to do math, which would explain the popularity of the service.
News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 07:56 · Score: 0

Slashdot is so fucking dead. I hope you all fucking die.
Re:stupid by geekmux · 2014-09-30 08:01 · Score: 1

The NFL is incredibly popular because this world is full of stupid fucktards
Wow.
I take it nothing you do in your life could ever be viewed as "stupid" by anyone then. Good luck with that. You gotta be one of the coolest nerds that ever lived.
I'm a pimp by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:10 · Score: 0

bitches come to me
Blackouts are from the idiots guide to marketting. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2014-09-30 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, our team is unpopular, how we going to fix this?

I know boss, lets prevent people from watching the games.

But won't that mean we'll have less fans in the long run?

No, we figure our team is just going to lose and we don't want anyone to see it .

Genius! Black out the game!

--
God spoke to me
Pay Per View by rssrss · 2014-09-30 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

"They also don't think there's any chance the NFL will move its games to pay-per-view."
ROTFLMAO.
What are they smoking? The NFL will go PPV, ASAP.
Book it.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
1. Re:Pay Per View by Cardoor · 2014-09-30 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  if you think it's going PPV, you fundamentally misunderstand the role of 'circus' in 'bread and circus'.
2. Re:Pay Per View by DigiShaman · 2014-09-30 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not a marketing guy here, but aren't the commercials for the Super Bowl the most expensive to produce and gain the most eyeballs? Can PPV only make up for the lost advertisement revenue?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:Pay Per View by robot256 · 2014-09-30 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  "They also don't think there's any chance the NFL will move its games to pay-per-view."
  ROTFLMAO.
  What are they smoking? The NFL will go PPV, ASAP.
  Book it.
  And as soon as they do, the rest of America will cancel the cable bundles they only pay out the nose for because of the live sports channels, where PPV fees are the straw that breaks the camel's back. The entire cable industry will collapse overnight, and the vacuum in the ISP market will be filled by startups and municipalities with gigabit fiber and competitive pricing. Then the under-served talent in America will finally be productive and solve global warming, and all the polar bears will have yachts and Whole Foods will solve world hunger by giving everyone veggie burgers.
  Yup, sounds like the FCC made a good decision to me.
4. Re:Pay Per View by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  They will only go to PPV if they think the revenue they would gain is greater than the advertising they would loose.
  I don't think it is.
5. Re:Pay Per View by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  if you think it's going PPV, you fundamentally misunderstand the role of 'circus' in 'bread and circus'.
  Won't be PPV, but the NFL channel will be a premium channel (if it isn't already). The Minnesota Twins move all of their games to cable after they got their brand spanking new stadium built at tax payer expense. Most NFL teams are in the process of getting their $1 billion stadiums which make the elite that actually attend happy (not hogs, but gourmet sausages). Last thing to do is get those who watch for free to pay which is just unplugging over-the-air games or you just make over-the-air games a less pleasant experience so that they buy the channel.
6. Re:Pay Per View by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Correction.
  "NFL HIGH DEF will go pay-per-view". It pretty much already is, in fact. And if the entire NFL, go PPV across the entire season, I wish them luck. Especially if they offer it online. Cable subscription would drop considerably.
7. Re:Pay Per View by steelfood · 2014-09-30 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sure the NFL will go PPV. And the networks will replace NFL with MLS.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
8. Re:Pay Per View by kybred · 2014-09-30 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Pay per view sounds good to me; they pay me and I'll watch it!
9. Re:Pay Per View by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  The NFL created it's own cable/satellite network as a framework to go PPV if it didn't get it's way. It's pretty useless for anything else. They will go that route if they cannot get their way in future contracts for a season or two. Out of market games are still shown on PPV or streaming for a fee, but it's a very small percentage of total viewers. I pretty much quit watching pro sports years ago, and wouldn't miss it.
you said "cure all" by globaljustin · 2014-09-30 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

no one said gov't regulation was a "cure-all" for anything!
YOU said that...
everyone not an anarchist is in favor of government regulation, whether their rhetoric matches their functional beliefs or not
it's merely a question of **what kind of regulation**...there is no debate about the inherent existence of government regulation...yes libertards/GOP'ers use that language, but when they **vote** their actions don't match their rhetoric...they vote to give government money but no accountability because of corruption
that's it...a true anarchist is the only person who can claim to be truly 'anti-regulation'...and an anarchist isn't worth debating about the function of government, b/c their default is always to abolish government completely...b/c they're a true anarchist
everyone else is just debating how the government should regulate...GOP'ers and "libertarians" are most dishonest on this point

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Next Step by sexconker · 2014-09-30 12:33 · Score: 1

Can the FCC eliminate broadcasting professional and collegiate sports entirely?
Fuck that shit, and fuck having to pay for 8 dedicated channels of it on my cable subscription when I don't watch that fucking shit.
Re: stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 13:03 · Score: 0

DAD?! I thought you told us not to curse...
An extremely rare anti-crony result - WOW by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 19:27 · Score: 0

There was never any legitimate reason for the FCC to make itself into the enforcer for the business interests of a bunch of multi-millionaire team owners. By using the force of government to help a monopoly enforce its market manipulations the FCC was further displaying its own total illegitimacy. Why people want to invite the FCC further into the internet is beyond me (the net got to be what it is today without any so-called "net neutrality" rules, and there are people at the FCC who are drooling over all the new power they willl have to interfere in content and services if they get the power to enforce net neutrality). With the FCC no longer helping the NFL to squeeze money out of the citizenry, the Earth will continue to rotate about its axis and orbit the sun - but now those crony capitalist team owners will have to decide if they want to keep trying to drive-up ticket sales by blacking-out local games of teams that suck too badly to sell-out on the merits or just live without the blackouts. They are still free to push the blackouts in contracts with TV stations, they just can no longer pretend to their fans that this shakedown is part of some nebulous federal government regulations. The blackouts were always just a way for team owners to force the locals to buy tickets to see the games being played in the stadiums that those very same local fans were probably forced to pay for with taxdollars extracted via the blackmail of threatening to move the team away...
Re:Fuck beta by Quirkz · 2014-10-01 04:08 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, can you see if anyone has replied to or used mod points on your own posts on your post history page? That was a big sticking point for me. It kills the discussion if you can't easily tell that someone's attempting to discuss things with you.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay