Comments on: Aereo’s big bet to break the TV industry: CEO Chet Kanojia explains

By: Jr

Jr — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:50:20 +0000

Why is it that broadcasters for decades made money without cable or satellite? Now they still charge advertisers and then started extracting fees from cab and sat in additon to cash from the advertisers. They will soon find it ok to charge us a fee to buy or use a rabbit ears antenna if we choose to drop cab and sat. It’s all about the expectation of unending exponential growth in revenue – thanks to Wall Street for that model. You would think they would be happy with just making a decent income but now it has to be more squared.

By: openreels

openreels — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:50:45 +0000

And let’s not forget that the programming which the public wants to watch, via any cheap means, is created by those same networks that Aereo is trying to unseat. If nobody will pay for programming (either through licensing or advertising) then it will cease to exist. It’s not just the legality of intelliectual property rights, its the cost of creating high-quality programming! Where do viewers (and Aereo) think these shows come from???

By: Drew Robertson

Drew Robertson — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:55:24 +0000

“injesting the programming and retransmitting”. I think that’s the critical issue. If I setup a Slingbox for you here in New York connected to your own antenna and tuner and internet connection you wd control the chain of ownership. You pay me to keep YOUR television running. You should be able to watch it anywhere not just NYC. It’s yours. I never take possession. If Aereo is in fact ingesting and retransmitting, they are interrupting that chain of ownership. What the courts decide will be interesting.

By: Sjs Wilton

Sjs Wilton — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:51:17 +0000

I feel all the passion folks, but the simple fact is that there are intellectual property laws protecting copyrighted material. It would appear that many of you are not familiar with the fact that content owners license their program assets to Operators, a.k.a. Broadcasters, Cablecasters, IPTVcasters, et.al.

These Operators obviously pay for the right to distribute programs to their viewers. These Operators may in some instances have the right to negotiate with other entities who want to retransmit that content to other viewers. For example, broadcastres have historically negotiated retransmission licenses with cablecasters so the latter can redistribute programs to cable subscribers. All of this is done based on rules and regulations embodied in copyright law.

If you as a viewer could acquire broadcast programs without Aereo, you’d have no need for this service now would you? If the signal is weak, you can go to Radio Shack and buy a better antenna, voila. Broadcasters have paid for the licenses that allow you as a private party to acquire and view that content. You can invite your friends and family over to view as well…no problem.

Do you want to resell the broadcasters programs — charge admission to your home to show the Super Bowl. No dice. If you want to resell the programming you can only do so by negotiating a license for that right. That’s what a bar or restaurant have to do.

Aereo is as a practical matter retransmitting programs without a license — by injesting the programming and retransmitting it to paying subscribers, they have become an Operator…not some sort of “virtual Radio Shack”. To claim that Aereo is doing the content owners/licensors a favor is like asseting that selling bootleg copies of DVD’s is going the owners/licensors a favor.

You folks need to get a grip. Aereo isn’t some flipping new age Robin Hood. We’re talking about intellectual property rights here folks. Get a grip.

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:41:30 +0000

Hats off to your efforts Chet Kanojia. No point in paying the networks for the $#%^& programming packages. Please liberate us. I desperately would like to see this in Boston and the nearby towns.I dreamed something like this long ago and you are fighting to make it real. Keep it up.

By: Bruce A Johnson

Bruce A Johnson — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:28:40 +0000

It is interesting that this Aereo situation is happening at the same time as broadcast TV is trying to get “mobile ATSC” off the ground. In case you haven’t been “tuned in” (pardon the pun) the new mobile tech requires broadcast TV stations to give up around 25% of their over-the-air bandwidth to make space for a signal that, at this moment, almost no devices can receive. And what sane person is going to want to graft a TV antenna onto their smartphone or iPod? In a very real way, Aereo *is* mobile ATSC, and the broadcasters don’t have to do a thing to get their signal out to all kinds of connected devices. I strongly suggest that the NAB start talking to Barry Diller to come to some agreement, because Aereo is doing them a big favor. I’m pretty sure they don’t see it that way, though.

By: Max Broder

Max Broder — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:07:51 +0000

The situation is akin to taking on Ma-Bell in the good old days before it faced real competition. And look where we are now, with competition. I honestly ask – Do you want to get back to dark old days of Bell monopoly? or would you much prefer the competition we see today.

If the answer is – Yes I want it to remain in the hands of the oligopoly of Networks and CableCos & DTH – then boy you will continue to pay increasing fees which is way above the inflation rates with no one to protect your limited discretionary dollars going in the pockets of the cozy oligopoly of Networks and CableCos & DTH.

Wake up guys! You are being fed drivel and have your hands tied behind you all thanks to the gutless FCC and the lobby-fed Washington. I salute the likes of NetFlix and Chet Kanojia’s Aereo along with Barry Diller who have the guts and the vision to take on the entrenched oligopoly.

Make a promise to yourself that you don’t need to pay for what you never wanted to watch anyway and let the TV Industrial complex charge you for it – it is legitimized daylight robbery.

If you don’t, you know what is going to happen.

Max Broder

By: Tetracycloide

Tetracycloide — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:16:56 +0000

We will bury him? You sure you want to paint that picture? Sounds like you are just sore the judge did not do the heavy lifting for you and denied the injunction.

By: 186k

186k — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:31:22 +0000

Not convinced and what’s this nonsense about the cost of pay TV…”It’s just irrational that it should cost hundreds of dollars a month”

Well it doesn’t cost that much, DirectTV is offering 140 channels for $30

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:20:21 +0000

Kanojia doesn’t like bulldozers – he thinks Caterpillar charges too much for them – so he’s placed himself in front of one that isn’t running. The driver yelled at him to get out of the way but Kanojia hasn’t moved. He has a shovel, he’s dug up a little dirt, and he says the shovel is better because it costs so much less than a bulldozer. If the driver ever starts up his machine we’ll see who can push harder, Kanojia with his shovel or the bulldozer.