Aereo Illegal antenna say the Logicians at SCOTUS
Oh, my blessed Lord! To add insult to injury, I now find myself in the unenviable position of thanking my most despised (Citizens United, etc.) Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for his, alas, losing decision contrary to those who said that helping a "broadcaster" simulcast their offerings complete with ads and which augments the number of ad viewers is illegal. A new win-win scenario for the people was declared illegal because a win-win was scenario was already comfy in place.
Here are the sordid details: Aereo is illegal, Supreme Court says, in big win for broadcasters - CNET
CBS, the parent company of CNET was ecstatic but why the fuck were they excited? If I, by Aereo's actions can now say to my advertisers, "look we are now reaching an audience 30% larger," why wouldn't they, CBS, just ask the advertiser for more money? We need further analysis to get to bottom of this; or, am I missing something?
Here is the high wire act that I see: the biggies, (CBS, etc.) have to broadcast over the public airways (this is a guess on my part--I'm too lazy to look it up but what else would explain that they continue to do so being that most who have money to spend also have cable?) and they are willing to do this because their advertisers pay them for it but it seems that where the money is is in getting rebroadcast fees from the cable companies. Nice game, you get money from the advertisers and from the cable providers. Why do I know this is what is happening? Duh, you have obviously never tried to tune into the low energy crap now being transmitted over the airwaves. The bastards which are CBS, etc., will not do diddly-squat to improve transmission because to do so would mean people would dump their cable provider and just tune in with their fancy digital antenna thereby depriving broadcasters of their second source of income. Today, it has been my experience that digital transmission pulls in one or two stations and poorly at that but if there were an incentive to increase transmission strength, cable companies would go under. Yet they don't. It's obviously a win-win for the cable and broadcaster companies. The cable companies get to eliminate their competition and stay in business and the broad casters get, as I've said previously, another source of revenue.
By rights, the cable companies should have had free access not to re-transmit at a later time, but to simulcast. At the same moment in time, the signal from the broadcasters is amplified and transmitted in high fidelity.The cable companies were terrified of losing their golden egg and acquiesced to the demands of the broadcasters for fees that were obviously not too burdensome. Cable should have come to the aid of Aereo and it would have been a win-win for Cable and Aereo. But the cable companies, in siding with Aereo, would fear incurring a retaliation by the broadcasters who could easily get back at turncoats by beginning to transmit a clearer signal "free of charge" as it was in the old days when the viewing consumer got a bang for his buck.
This was probably not Scalia's argument as he tends not to favor situations which favor the 99%. Unfortunately, rather than being democratic within the 1% which oddly would have favored the 99%, the Court chose to augment wealth disparity. The Court sucks for the people--no matter who was voting on their behalf.
Here are the sordid details: Aereo is illegal, Supreme Court says, in big win for broadcasters - CNET
CBS, the parent company of CNET was ecstatic but why the fuck were they excited? If I, by Aereo's actions can now say to my advertisers, "look we are now reaching an audience 30% larger," why wouldn't they, CBS, just ask the advertiser for more money? We need further analysis to get to bottom of this; or, am I missing something?
Here is the high wire act that I see: the biggies, (CBS, etc.) have to broadcast over the public airways (this is a guess on my part--I'm too lazy to look it up but what else would explain that they continue to do so being that most who have money to spend also have cable?) and they are willing to do this because their advertisers pay them for it but it seems that where the money is is in getting rebroadcast fees from the cable companies. Nice game, you get money from the advertisers and from the cable providers. Why do I know this is what is happening? Duh, you have obviously never tried to tune into the low energy crap now being transmitted over the airwaves. The bastards which are CBS, etc., will not do diddly-squat to improve transmission because to do so would mean people would dump their cable provider and just tune in with their fancy digital antenna thereby depriving broadcasters of their second source of income. Today, it has been my experience that digital transmission pulls in one or two stations and poorly at that but if there were an incentive to increase transmission strength, cable companies would go under. Yet they don't. It's obviously a win-win for the cable and broadcaster companies. The cable companies get to eliminate their competition and stay in business and the broad casters get, as I've said previously, another source of revenue.
By rights, the cable companies should have had free access not to re-transmit at a later time, but to simulcast. At the same moment in time, the signal from the broadcasters is amplified and transmitted in high fidelity.The cable companies were terrified of losing their golden egg and acquiesced to the demands of the broadcasters for fees that were obviously not too burdensome. Cable should have come to the aid of Aereo and it would have been a win-win for Cable and Aereo. But the cable companies, in siding with Aereo, would fear incurring a retaliation by the broadcasters who could easily get back at turncoats by beginning to transmit a clearer signal "free of charge" as it was in the old days when the viewing consumer got a bang for his buck.
This was probably not Scalia's argument as he tends not to favor situations which favor the 99%. Unfortunately, rather than being democratic within the 1% which oddly would have favored the 99%, the Court chose to augment wealth disparity. The Court sucks for the people--no matter who was voting on their behalf.
Comments
Post a Comment