[nanoanderson]

"Aereo, the startup that features unauthorized streams of local broadcast signals."

That statement isn't even loaded, it's just wrong. What makes Aereo so interesting to me is that its premise is unbelievably simple. It's a regular old [ridiculously small] TV antenna, but instead of plugging it into your TV, it's plugged in a few dozen miles away and it connects to your computer over the internet.

When the leagues say that Aereo cuts into their retransmission fees from cable companies, what they're saying is "we want people to use cable tv, and making broadcast tv easier to use makes that less likely."

[warfangle]

What's funny, is Aereo has almost exactly the same business model as the first cable companies: in order to service valley communities that did not have line-of-sight with broadcasting towers, they would set up a large antenna on a mountain and pipe the signal to homes.

The main difference with Aereo seems to be that every subscriber has their own antenna.

[untog]

Well, no, when they say that Aereo cuts into their retransmission fees they mean that Aereo is retransmitting their signal without paying fees.

I don't support their fight against Aereo but I do get where they're coming from. If Aereo do it for free, why can't the cable networks turn around and say "we're not paying you retransmission fees any more, we're just going to do what Aereo does"? That would mean the networks lose a lot of money, and they're not exactly profit machines as it is. Get ready for a lot more ads.

[Touche]

Pedantic but Aereo doesn't cut into retranmission fees, antenna viewing cuts into their retransmission fees. They are saying they don't want more people using antenna instead of cable. We can speculate why that is, probably antenna customers are less profitable or perhaps retransmission fees are a more stable income.

[untog]

Yes- and that's why I don't support what they're doing. They're directing their legal wrath against Aereo (and so, Aereo's users) rather than attempting to solve what is actually a problem between the broadcast networks and cable companies.

But I do still get the root cause of what they're doing. And I don't particularly want my cable company to make even more money than they do already.

[300bps]

That would mean the networks lose a lot of money, and they're not exactly profit machines as it is

You're looking at this precisely how the NFL and MLB want you to look at it. The reality is that MLB and the NFL are congressionally-sanctioned monopolies that make a ton of money for the owners and players. Ever see an episode of MTV's Cribs?

The networks are "not exactly profit machines" as you say because the leagues are charging them so much. The networks in turn have to charge an arm and a leg to sports fans to make up for it. Sports fans are rebelling with both illegal and legal options like Aereo.

I don't know how things will play out but when you have a situation where a single person is making over $150,000 to play a single game of baseball, that's probably not a sustainable business model (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contract...).

[jneal]

To be fair, the cable company transmits 1 signal to everyone, with Aereo each person has their own attenna. It's not much different from a service like slingbox except that slingbox uses your actual home signal whereas w/ Aereo you are effectively renting an antenna.

[untog]

Right, but that's just technical semantics, really. Aereo installs an individual antenna for every person to skirt around existing rules. By any objective analysis it's a total waste of time and money.

[evan_]

> Aereo installs an individual antenna for every person to skirt around existing rules.

One person's "To skirt around" is another's "To comply with".

[mbreese]

But that was the only technical method that was available to comply with the law. The supreme court practically laid out that business model for them in a prior decision.

It's a total waste of time and money, but it's also legal.

[dublinben]

It's actually legal semantics, which are the only relevant semantics here. Aereo must jump through these ridiculous hoops for their service to remain within the letter of the law.

[shittyanalogy]

No actually they're being rather straight forward. They gave you the exact reason why they want Aereo to be shut down. They don't care at all if people use cable, they just want re-transmission fees.

I don't agree with their position at all, but there is absolutely no reason to change their words or act like they're being indirect.

    Aereo is causing a stink from the cable companies.
    Cable companies have very little public good will.
    Cable companies realize they can threaten NFL and MLB.
    Cable companies lobby NFL and MLB to make statement.
    NFL and MLB have enormous public good will.
    NFL and MLB make statement.

[hudibras]

"NFL and MLB have enormous public good will" is drastically overstating the case. Americans love professional football and baseball but the NFL and MLB are far from beloved institutions. I think the average fan is more likely to see this as another instance where the team owners are trying to screw over the little guy who just wants to watch the game.

[joezydeco]

Then add:

    Public finally gets involved when the threat 
    of losing football games is announced.

[joezydeco]

What the broadcasters are saying is "we don't like this precedent of Aereo doing it for free, because then that means Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/etc are going to quit paying us retransmission fees as well"

The NFL and MLB are just being used as a pawn by the networks to crank up the pressure.

[Aloha]

Something can be both unauthorized and perfectly legal.

They don't want it to happen, that doesn't mean it can't be done.