Question, if anyone knows more than I- Are broadcasters/nets still under any of the requirements of old (in exchange for their spectrum allocation) to "serve in the public interest," e.g., to program for a wide audience including children, to provide local news, etc.? It would seem clear that they've been pursuing sports more and more simply in the interest of remaining relevant in this age of competitively splintered entertainment media. A ballgame is a ballgame and cannot be counterprogrammed in the way that dramatic series can, and being the sole source for the game forces a good share of the public to both to get it from you alone, but moreover, simply to remember who you are, how to receive you and how to maintain that capability. Otherwise, without the sports exclusives, an increasing # of folks may effectively forget that the old nat'l broadcast nets even continue to exist.
Of course the major sports they seek in this regard are super-pricey, but never fear, the nets have gained the ability to hold themselves (and their sole-source sports) hostage to carriage "negotiations" with multichannel providers that produce windfall profits for them to cover the costs. In effect extracting significant fees from a majority of their viewers who not all that long ago received them at no charge under the aforementioned public interest mandate (and who may have no interest in sports). Interestingly they still now can be and always have been available at no charge from a home antenna. That's quite the dichotomy, big $$ through cable/sat; free offair.
I suppose about here is where the argument comes in that we've got to let the nets keep escalating this situation or else lose them and their free broadcasts altogether in the competitive scrum. Any thoughts?
www.tvtechnology.com
