Big broadcasters vanquish upstart Aereo at U.S. Supreme Court

Comments (21)
Solkre wrote:

This service should have been allowed to live. The broadcaster’s profits on OTA shows is advertising, which was left intact. The service was helping them as the shows reached more eyes, without having the broadcast invest in anything.

More complaining, and less innovating from the big media companies.

Jun 25, 2014 11:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Charles1234 wrote:

Every pair of eyes Aerio had was a pair less to cable companies who pay networks. Aerio is a thief, no different than someone tapping Coca Cola barrels and selling it a fraction of the cost then the legitimate owners. Let Aerio compete with cable companies by buying their content. Innovation and theft are not the same.

Jun 25, 2014 11:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
akita96th wrote:

Tells you how corrupt the supreme court has become..The are now shills for corporate America.

Jun 25, 2014 11:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
drauckerr wrote:

I never understood their position in the first place. Cable came about to provide better reception via a clean signal that couldn’t be achieved by antennae. There are cellphones with TV antennae that offer lousy reception. It seemed to me that Aereo was offering the same service to mobile devices that cable companies were offering to homes, and the right of broadcasters to be paid for such rebroadcasts is already well established in law. Their argument, for not licensing the content like cable companies do, never really made sense to me.

Jun 25, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cfbcfb wrote:

As expected, the supreme court rules for the folks with the large lobby and campaign contributions.

Aereo is no different from putting a tv antenna on your tv and watching free broadcast television. Apparently it was either too confusing for the old folks to figure out or they just went with the money.

Fine, most broadcast shows stink anyhow. I’ll just watch netflix.

Jun 25, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Regular wrote:

@cfbcfb: “Fine, most broadcast shows stink anyhow. I’ll just watch netflix.”

This ruling is a portent that the court will be influenced to choke netflix out of business by cable companies (Verizon etc.) very soon.

Jun 25, 2014 12:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

akita96th..please explain how the Supreme Court is corrupt and shills for corporate America. These people are appointed to office for life. So they don’t need lobbyist or campaign funding. It occurs to me that the problem here that everyone else who broadcast the content was paying fees. Aereo wasn’t. Simple solution..Aereo should pay to broadcast proprietary content as well. That or develop their our programs. They were essentially thief’s.

Jun 25, 2014 1:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WestFlorida wrote:

Of course it is essential to read the decision, but on the surface, it looks like another blow to innovation, and a continued entrenchment of dominant and monopolistic providers. Consumers lose. Entrenched players win. What else is new?

Jun 25, 2014 1:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
inMyView wrote:

All the TV content is available on the Net,free of any charges, copied & uploaded for our benefit by selfless folks. My sincere thanks to you all.

Jun 25, 2014 1:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

xyz2055 wrote: akita96th..please explain how the Supreme Court is corrupt and shills for corporate America. These people are appointed to office for life. So they don’t need lobbyist or campaign funding. It occurs to me that the problem here that everyone else who broadcast the content was paying fees. Aereo wasn’t. Simple solution..Aereo should pay to broadcast proprietary content as well. That or develop their our programs. They were essentially thief’s.

==========

Don’t expect people to actually make sense, because they won’t. People hate businesses. Unless it’s a business that is somehow sticking it to a larger business… then they’ll take their side.

Everybody thinks everything should be free now. This was no different than you paying for your internet, then your neighbor picks up your WiFi signal and sells it to the whole neighborhood. But of course, the general public doesn’t care… They just want to stick it to the man. I’m not a huge fan of the TV providers either. I think TV should be free. The on-air broadcast method of providing TV, was best. But there’s right and then there’s wrong. This was wrong. If you want free TV, go out and get an antenna. There’s new on-air channels popping up everyday. Show your support for them by watching them, and change the market that way.

Jun 25, 2014 1:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

Thou I hate big business, Aereo was wrong. They didn’t pay the fees to the broadcasters and they allowed people to FF through commercials so even the sponsors were against them.
This was a good judgment.

Jun 25, 2014 3:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Calfri wrote:

When they ruled against Napster, it put Napster out of business, but it didn’t ruin the technology. I don’t think SCOTUS has the ability to destroy a new technology, do they?

This reminds me a little of what they’re saying about Uber, in the sense that this concept/service could/will put traditional cabs out of business. Cabs and prob. limo services don’t want it. But most analysts say their objections won’t work, because too many people want an Uber or Uber/like service.

I am not an expert, but to me this just looked like Aereo was basically providing an antenna. Since broadcasters still get money from advertisers, what’s the problem? If it cuts back on rebroadcast fees from cable companies, oh well. That’s the way it goes, folks. When cars came around it cut back on fees to livery services. Blacksmiths objected. That’s the way it goes. It’s disruptive, but it’s progress. I don’t think they’ll be able to stop it in the long or medium term.

Jun 25, 2014 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
websquirrel wrote:

Yes, a broadcaster gets paid for advertising, but when any ad spots are bought, advertisers look at the number of eyeballs they are buying in that time slot. Aereo users can fast forward past all the commercials, and they are definitely NOT COUNTED in any ad-sales.

Jun 25, 2014 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SuefromSault wrote:

BBOOOO!!
Why pay $100 a month for the wasteland!

Jun 25, 2014 5:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Do people still watch broadcast television? What is it, 1976 outside? Looks like these antiquated broadcast networks just sued their only future audience out of existence. Smart :)

Jun 25, 2014 6:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Leatherrope wrote:

The court’s decision doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is the greed of Aereo’s initial investors. Some pretty big names just got burned.

Jun 25, 2014 7:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
comitas7 wrote:

The Supreme Court is never derelict in defense of business and corporations. Apparently the “free market” in the US now means: monopolies; oligopolies; and massive monetary emission. What a farce of a democracy.

Jun 25, 2014 8:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

dd606..thanks for the feedback. I absolutely agree with you. I merely try and get people to think through their argument now and again. Unfortunately..that technique rarely works in a positive way.

Jun 25, 2014 11:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Vertigo wrote:

“AlkalineState wrote: Do people still watch broadcast television?”

The last figure I saw said that about 25 percent of the population receive over-the-air (OTA) terrestrially-broadcast television. The cable companies don’t extend their systems far beyond the most populous markets. Satellite appeals mostly to rural people but doesn’t penetrate the urban markets as much as cable.

The introduction of HDTV not only greatly improved the picture/audio quality/stability of OTA terrestrially-broadcast television but also provides many digital sub-channels for an overall increase in available programming. There is more to watch, a broader selection. So, Yes, people do watch HDTV.

Jun 26, 2014 1:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tpvero wrote:

Leave it to this Court to sabotage the rights of the people to back major corporations. They have been our biggest enemy since they put George W Bush in office. Between them and the Republican congress the American citizen doesn’t have a chance.

Jun 26, 2014 3:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marpy wrote:

technology will just quickly find another way. ;-)

Jun 26, 2014 9:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.