The Supreme Court Is About To Decide The Future Of Television

Major television broadcasters and Aereo will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday in a case that is about much more than the future of a controversial startup. The outcome could have far-reaching effects on the future of television and cloud computing, the quality of wireless service, and entrepreneurs trying to create the next big thing in technology.

Aereo is a 2-year-old startup that uses tiny antennas to capture broadcast airwaves and stream those signals to users who pay about $8 a month for the service. The company offers a handful of network TV offerings in several cities, and subscribers can watch and record the programming on their computers and mobile devices.

The Supreme Court Is About To Decide The Future Of Television

The article goes on to say that if Aereo win their case that would be the end of Free TV in the US as Broadcasters will charge a fee to watch any of their free basic TV packages.

I doubt they will win but certainly an interesting story.

a reply to: flammadraco

I can't remember a time when I got 'free tv'.

Cable costs are ridiculous, I welcome an alternative.

There is no such thing as free entertainment these days, only "cheap" entertainment.

We get ten channels over the air free around here with an antenna. We got rid of the dish over eight years ago, the cost of an antenna paid itself off in about three months. There is plenty to watch, we don't even rent movies anymore very often. I spend time here and researching. I wish the internet was free, it's forty bucks a month for that.

I wouldn't even pay 8 bucks a month anymore since it is free now.

You cant get an outside antenna and digital converter box to receive over the air broadcasts?

Its very FREE.

Last time I check that Free tv came with a Host of Propaganda and brainwashing for products that do us all harm...

So yeah, real free.


I am a Proponent of aero, it is a business model that is innovative, and uses the rules they created to do it, this company has to set up an antenna for every subscriber to get broadcast tv.

Its than streamed to them over the internet, they are doing it the way they demand, with an actual antenna despite tech existing to make it easy.

Yet they stick to the rules that the NETWORKS demanded, yet still a supreme court case...

Free enterprise alright, subsidized by the government because of lobbying, BS.

a reply to: minusinfinity

A antenna is free, except you have to buy the antenna lo. Other than that the service is free.

I enjoy my Netflix and Amazon Prime.

-SAP-

The big companies don't like it because it could break their stranglehold over package cable. It's that simple. That's why they sued.

TV isn't free? Oh.. Well, connect the HDMI from your Graphics card to the HDMI in your TV, load videos, select play and .. Uh Oh... Didn't someone mention that little process to those greedy broadcasters?

I could live two lifetimes and never see everything I'd find interesting for what the net has today, let alone tomorrow.

Go ahead..Charge away. I can finally win the argument with my wife and have the pleasure of taking the pruning sheers to the cable line.

The few TV shows and movies I watch, I always get from torrents. Commerial free is the only way to go for me.

I just download my tv shows for free with all the adverts cut out and watch them on my tv with usb stick and have free view tv, I used to have sky satellite tv which cost £35 a month they got the tv shows at least 4 to 6 weeks behind the US and with 5 minutes of adverts every 15 minutes, no thank's im no longer paying to watch advertisements.

In a small town here in AZ, Century Link has taken the airwaves. When moving there we paid for their service and were not happy with it for what we were paying, so we cancelled it.
I found a digital antenna I had packed away that I had used to watch TV with before when the switch happened. I hooked it up as usual and got nothing. I ran to the mall AKA Wal-Mart thinking I may need something else to make it work, and was pissed with what I found. The guy told me that Century Link has control over everything including local channels and no digital antenna will work.
Luckily this place is in the forest so I can find better things to do to occupy my time and keep my money.

I can't remember a time when I got 'free tv'.

a reply to: minusinfinity

I do, back then we received all the local channels and public TV. If you had a good antenna on your house, you could pick up other TV signals, but the clarity wouldn't be the best.

I believe consumers are getting railroaded. We pay for cable or satellite, yet we're forced to watch 3 minutes of advertising every 15 minutes of programming, not to mention infomercials! Advertisers are placing commercial ads in the privacy of our homes. The last time I checked, they usually have to pay top dollar and royalty fees for billboards located on private property. Why should this be any different? In my opinion, the cable and satellite companies are collecting millions for these ads, yet they charge outlandish fees to the consumer for their service. Advertisers are also tracking consumers buying habits without our consent. Consumers should be getting a percentage of the cost for allowing advertisers to advertise in the privacy of our homes! They're using publicly owned air waves to advertise not only on our TV, but also on our computers!

Nobody wants to pay to watch commercials, so why does our government allow corporations to do it without paying royalties to the consumer? Just another example why corporations have the ear of the government as compared to consumers.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
TV isn't free? Oh.. Well, connect the HDMI from your Graphics card to the HDMI in your TV, load videos, select play and .. Uh Oh... Didn't someone mention that little process to those greedy broadcasters?

I could live two lifetimes and never see everything I'd find interesting for what the net has today, let alone tomorrow.

Go ahead..Charge away. I can finally win the argument with my wife and have the pleasure of taking the pruning sheers to the cable line.

Well, you kind of have to buy a TV with that. I don't have one of those. I'm too poor to afford cable or a nice TV so I am stuck on the computer. But my Wifi is free.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Yes, cable and satellite would go to an a la carte system if they were really looking after the consumer, but instead, they're in bed with the networks, and they can afford to be because there are so few of them. This is what happens when there isn't robust competition in the market. They form bundles with all the crap channels no one wants.

Imagine a consumer-centered market where you could either buy just the channels you wanted or even just the shows?

We're getting close with things like Roku and streaming, and now Aereo opens up another avenue assuming they don't get killed off.

a reply to: benrl

I grew up in the 60s and still until the 70s we had free TV with an antenna attached to the roof of the house, I don't seem to remember any type of propaganda during that time like we have today, perhaps I misunderstood your post.

Anyway the supreme court will side with the big corporate giant behind the banning of less expensive TV, because we have learned that our supreme court is not exempt from corporate influences.

But I could be mistaken.

I hope Aereo wins, not because I really care about their technology but because I find the whole TV business model to be fundamentally flawed.

Netflix and Hulu have it right. You can pick the shows you want to watch, and just those shows. Though Hulu screws up with commercials.

The fundamental problem that no one is wanting to address is that outside of Netflix the people pirating shows are getting the product in it's best possible form. Which is the form of the fewest interruptions, in the format they want (saved file to be viewed whenever or streaming), without commercials.

That is the two ton giant pink elephant standing in the middle of the room that no one is addressing. My field is primarily video game design so this is something I am very familiar with (96% of PC games out there are pirated rather than purchased). If the free version of your product provided by pirates is superior to the paid version your company is providing, no one will purchase the paid version. Furthermore, if someone creates a platform to conveniently and inexpensively buy your product legitimately it is going to be a success. Netflix and Steam are very similar and are both massive successes.

It's not a question of if the TV broadcasters are going to die out at this rate but when.

I've posted this here before but I'm going to repost it because I believe it will not only make TV better (I should mention that I watch less than 100 hours of TV per year, most of which is anime and occasionally an HBO/Cinemax/Showtime series) but because it will make someone rich. This is a billion dollar idea and not all that difficult to do (as in, I have the skills for this but not the time because I work+goto school, though maybe I'll do it myself after I graduate if nothing comes along).

What has to be done is that advertising has to become more subtle and part of the program itself. The technology to do this is already widely used in special effects. Essentially you turn all advertising into product placement and then partnering with the data collection the ISP's, Google, etc have use this information to only show the products the person is already agreeable towards. It can also allow for forced placement where for example the first broadcast shows an object as product X, but the rerun shows it as product Y.

To give an example, lets say two characters are talking and one is drinking something from a 12 oz can. In the scene being filmed the can is simply a blank object in the shape of a can, with some markers on it so that a computer can track its location and orientation. In post processing a texture is placed on the can which can make it a diet coke, budweiser, lemonade, or jones soda. All of these options are rendered and a composite version of the scene is created using any of these depending on which the end user wants to see. For example Coca Cola may have bought first broadcast rights and in the episodes premier all cans, candy bars, and whatever else are coke products. With only a minor amount of work (changing a texture directory from one company to another) the repeat can turn everything into Pepsi. The Netflix version can identify the user in order to find the brands most agreeable to them and place them in the program as a form of advertisement. The pirated version however is only going to have the brands from the initial broadcast (or whenever it was copied). This leads to a program that the end user finds less enjoyable because the characters identify less with that viewers preferred brands, which creates a situation where the custom product is superior to the pirated product because people enjoy viewing it more.

In a world of consumerism, identification through branding is a huge part of how people identify with each other. The viewers now identify more with the TV characters, the advertisers have a higher hit rate on their products because the shows reinforce brand loyalty, and those who pirate get a less enjoyable experience. If they get an early copy of the show without post processing done (very common among media screeners, where lots of pirated sources come from), they'll even end up with totally brandless objects that take away from the show due to being less realistic.

Everyone wins, and it even gets rid of annoying advertisements.

originally posted by: marg6043
I grew up in the 60s and still until the 70s we had free TV with an antenna attacked to the roof of the house, I don't seem to remember any type of propaganda during that time like we have today, perhaps I misunderstood your post.

I don't know much about the 70's, but the 50's and 60's were absolutely brutal when it comes to propaganda. The stuff that was done to advertise back then would never even be allowed today but it was done at the time due to Cold War fears, and trying to reinforce on everyone to continue their current way of life.

It wasn't as flashy, but it was done to subtly brainwash and it worked very well. If you have the opportunity go look at some magazines from the 50's and 60's and pay attention to the ad's.

a reply to: Aazadan

While the commercials are annoying, I understand why they're there. What I dislike is being told that if I want to watch a bare half dozen programs scattered across 5 or 6 channels, I have to buy a cable package with 70 or more channels, most of which I will never watch, and all of which I am subsidizing just to watch those few networks or shows with an enormous cable fee.

This model needs to die.

The really good stuff that people actually watch would survive and a lot of dead weight would be trimmed if they were forced into an a la carte model. Heck, if I could pick and choose what I wanted to put on my cable bill, I'd put up with commercials.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

While the commercials are annoying, I understand why they're there. What I dislike is being told that if I want to watch a bare half dozen programs scattered across 5 or 6 channels, I have to buy a cable package with 70 or more channels, most of which I will never watch, and all of which I am subsidizing just to watch those few networks or shows with an enormous cable fee.

This model needs to die.

Al a Carte pricing is just the natural evolution of streaming. It's not going to happen until there are more streamers however. Netflix has a great model right now but if they were competing with 10 companies or so a better pricing system will need to be put in place.

Commercials themselves are annoying, and they do have a purpose but I think you missed my point. When someone pirates a show they don't see the commercials. Very often when you record with a Tivo or similar device you don't see the commercials either (or didn't the last time I used one). The only ones who watch commercials are the people viewing the program as the broadcasters intend. Those that abuse the system avoid the commercials and therefore get a better end product. When you can view a program for free without commercials or pay to view it with commercials, which do you think people are more likely to choose? The only reason it's not as widespread with TV viewers as it is in the game industry is that TV viewers as a group are less technical. Which then gets into the issue that TV only exists in it's current form because of viewer ignorance.

a reply to: Aazadan

I wasn't thinking about TIVO anything like that because it's been such a long time since I've done that. We're getting ready to cut off the cable here and stream, so I'll know about it soon.

They'll find other ways to advertise soon enough, product placement or those little banner things at the bottom of the screen.

As I said, I'm not familiar enough with streaming yet to have good ideas on how to advertise with it.