This has got to be the stupidest rule ever, if I want to pay for the feeds from wherever, why shouldn't I be able to?
I can subscribe to newspapers anywhere in the world and they will send them to me. I can log on to the internet and check the news anywhere in the world also.
Let me put this the simplest way.
If you want to get the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune delivered to you, you contact each company and they can mail those newspapers to you.
If you do not want to wait a couple of days for a newspaper, you could go to a newstand which may have the papers available. You could even go to each newspapers' website and get the news, provided you agree with their terms and conditions.
If you even want to watch local newscasts on channels generally unavailable to you, you can view them over the internet.
However, are you paying each station to deliver feeds to you? Including feeds of programming that are copyright-restricted, such as network programming?
That is where the disconnect in this whole argument.
Just another instance of big brother telling you what you can and can not do.
Well, in this case, if the government decides to let the market run its course and as "big brother" does nothing, distant network feeds should no longer be available. How is it "big brother" when the government doesn't meddle?