I thought it was already well established that Country A hoover's up all data outside Country A, Country B hoovers up all data outside Country B. A and B share data and now they are both 'legal' because they didn't 'collect' their own country's data? (obviously the 'only' outside is theoretical only!)
Which is why the laws should be written to make 'possession' of data from inside the country illegal as well as the collection.
As noted in the article above, most of the Cable Co's are also regional sports network operators. With the exception of Football, most local market teams aren't on OTA TV anymore.
NBA does allow streaming I think, but NHL only allows out of market games in it's streaming subscription. In DC, the Capitals are on a cable sports network so no OTA access is available that I'm aware of.
MLB is slightly better I think.
But OTA access to 'local' sports isn't great in my experience.
Do people not check their bills every month? Having had land/cell phone service for well over 20 years, I've literally never seen this happen to me. Which of course means it never happens to anyone! haha.
but seriously, wouldn't calling the company and saying 'That is not authorized' be the end of it? Annoying sure, but checking your bill for accuracy is a simple step when I'm going to be giving out my money :)
Sorry, this is what the OP said. The statement is clear, 'we don't want to outright lie and say there's no competitive impact..so if we find an edge case where there might be we should acknowledge that in our statements'.
That's them being normal and human (for a cable co. anyway) rather than proclaiming something they would know isn't true...if they found something that invalidated their statements.
And while there might be some software that could tell them, the person writing this 'note' likely doesn't have any access to that is putting it here to handle cases that could possibly crop up.
there are LOTS of things to be upset about, but this is missing the forest for the trees.
The benevolence of the State isn't direct subsidy but the franchise agreement that someone will always be available to serve your needs no matter where in town you are.
If private enterprise were allowed, the 'sticks' still wouldn't have cable or in some cases running water. It's simply not profitable to serve those customers unless you have the full customer base to make up for it. Society is better off when everybody gets a fair shake, even at the expense of slightly higher pricing for the easily served.
Now, franchise agreements have their problems to be sure, but without acknowledging the benefits of a faster build out of infrastructure it's not a fair comparion.
Is Taxi service infrastructure? Certainly not in the traditional sense, but its the same with Fedex/UPS. There are places they simply don't serve...yet the USPS is required to do so.
Do we cast off the 'hard to serve' in the name of cheaper pricing for the masses?