[knappe]

We see this already with blackout outs in cable TV for various sports games ect.

In fact, it took 4 months to resolve a dispute between DirecTV and the Weather Channel [0], which affected 20 Million people. There was some outrage, but not enough to for DirecTV to relent. Instead, the content provider was forced to change [1].

There are lessons to be learned here for other content providers, like Netflix. My worry is that the gatekeepers still hold too much power and are strong arming content providers, using consumers as pawns.

[0] http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-c... [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/04/08/weather-cha...

[Jtsummers]

And not just sports. In the mid-90s I lived in south Georgia and was a Star Trek fan, at the time that meant watching UPN. The local UPN station was blocked during prime time for our area (literally local, it was broadcast from that town) in order for the FL (Talahassee?) station to retain its viewership. Only one problem, our cable offered only the local UPN station, not the FL one, so the blackout meant a 100% blackout of UPN during primetime for our town (short of rabbit ears, I wasn't that big a fan). Later, the two ABC affiliates ended up at odds with each other when the closer one ended up blocked by the one out of Atlanta, again during prime time.

[danielweber]

You have the sports blackout backwards. The content producer has demanded the blackout, not the gatekeeper, which would be happy to have the viewers.

[knappe]

Blackouts occur as a negotiation between local channels and the regional broadcasters (gate keepers), in general, such that local channels get priority over regional broadcasters.

Here is an example of a gatekeeper forcing blackouts the other way around [0]. The content producer was required to enforce a blackout on local channels as part of the deal with the gate keeper. Net result? Consumers lose.

[0] http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-27/news/48599544_1_philli...