How many times have you complained about paying good money to watch the same old crap on TV? It’s one of the reasons I don’t own a TV anymore. I got rid of it about 15 months ago and haven’t looked back since.
‘Broadcasters say a federal appeals court ruling favoring Aereo created a blueprint that might let cable and satellite providers avoid paying “retransmission” fees to carry programming. With those fees estimated to exceed $4 billion this year, some broadcast companies say they may convert to cable channels if Aereo isn’t shut down.’
Personally I think Aereo are spot on with this. I mean, you buy a DVD and you get to watch that movie as many times as you like, right? You don’t have to pay every single time you watch it, do you?
And look at who is complaining. Ha!
February 2014 – http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2014/02/aereo-vs-the-broadcasters-6-possible.html?page=all
6 Possible outcomes? How come I can only think of one way this will go?
April 2014 – http://www.businessinsider.com/aereo-lawsuit-2014-4
Okay, so only really one possible outcome. It was inevitable wasn’t it? How can you win against corporations the size of Disney etc?
So, not too worry people. If you are happy to pay to watch the same old shit on TV, then you carry on.
The question here, is what effect (if any) will this have on internet viewing?
Aereo May Be Dead, But Internet TV Will Live On
‘Indeed, Aereo has been a force for change in this industry. Just last month, one of Aereo’s biggest adversaries, CBS, announced the launch of CBS All Access, a subscription service that allows people to stream CBS content online for just $5.99 a month. A few days before that, HBO announced its own standalone streaming service, which won’t require a cable subscription. But even if Aereo’s time is over, there may be space for a similar service in the future, as the FCC looks to redefine its regulations about who can and cannot retransmit broadcast television. Last month, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a new rule that would allow internet TV providers to license content just like cable and satellite companies do. Wheeler acknowledged that Aereo has played a key role in changing the Commission’s thinking. In a blog post announcing the proposal, Wheeler wrote: “Twenty-first century consumers shouldn’t be shackled to rules that only recognize 20th century technology.”
Is this the start of something much bigger? I can’t help but feel there is an evil Governmental ‘thingy’, behind this:
‘In the President’s statement he maintains that the decision is the “FCC’s alone” and that the FCC should “create a new set of rules” for the Internet, as follows:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
But of course, on the back of the NSA spying programs, this is no surprise. The question is not IF. The question is WHEN?
*NEWS JUST IN*
GOVERNMENT RUN INTERNET