Aereo and the Supreme Court

[imoldernu]

UPdate

Quote:

Aereo scored $95.6 million in venture equity despite a legal bull rush from television networks who contended the company was violating their public performance rights. Remarkably, $33.5 million of Aereo's funding — more than a third — came in October 2013 as the case was nearing the Supreme Court. The high court hadn't yet delivered its near death knell. In Aereo, they thought they had a technology that would disrupt the billions of dollars spent on cable and satellite service. On Thursday, Aereo declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and according to the debtor's court documents, the upstart had burned through most of its funding. Aereo counts $20.5 million in assets but just $4.6 million in cash on hand. That's against $4.2 million in undisputed liabilities. Level 3, Quality Technology Services and Google are the three biggest creditors. Law firms come next.

Aereo Investors Lose a $95.6 Million Bet on Future of Television - Hollywood Reporter

[Chuckanut]

Very sad. But, I have my DVR and my Flatwave antenna and am recording free OTA TV for viewing on my schedule. It's to bad as Aereo would have added some competition to the cable TV business, something that is sorely needed for many people.

[bUU]

Hopefully, this helps re-calibrate expectations: Competition and choice are fine, as long as the business model for a new competitor isn't based on violating the law and ignoring someone else's property rights. I think recent changes (related to the recently announced, online-only HBO service, for example), show the best path forward.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Very sad. But, I have my DVR and my Flatwave antenna and am recording free OTA TV for viewing on my schedule. It's to bad as Aereo would have added some competition to the cable TV business, something that is sorely needed for many people.

There was some group giving away free antennas at a nearby market on Sunday. People were lined up for a block and a half to get them. Weird - I bet two thirds of them have cable and no plans to change.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff There was some group giving away free antennas at a nearby market on Sunday. People were lined up for a block and a half to get them. Weird - I bet two thirds of them have cable and no plans to change.

Did someone say "FREE"?

[aja8888]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer Did someone say "FREE"?

Heck, it's not FREE Bacon though.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU Hopefully, this helps re-calibrate expectations: Competition and choice are fine, as long as the business model for a new competitor isn't based on violating the law and ignoring someone else's property rights. I think recent changes (related to the recently announced, online-only HBO service, for example), show the best path forward.

Probably much easier claim to make for those who can get the major networks OTA. Funny how the major networks fight for "property rights" on something they give away for free over-the-air to those lucky enough to be within the range of OTA signal.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Probably much easier claim to make for those who can get the major networks OTA. Funny how the major networks fight for "property rights" on something they give away for free over-the-air to those lucky enough to be within the range of OTA signal.

Yes, but their business model is to show commercials.... and if you want it free OTA you either record it on your own device or watch it live....

If you do neither of these, they want to control how you look view it later... you can go to their website and watch (and may or may not get commercials) or use a service where they are paid some fee...

As mentioned, it is their property rights and they should have a say on how their property is to be used....

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud ... As mentioned, it is their property rights and they should have a say on how their property is to be used....

Complicated by the fact that they are using 'public' airwaves.

-ERD50

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Yes, but their business model is to show commercials.... and if you want it free OTA you either record it on your own device or watch it live.... If you do neither of these, they want to control how you look view it later... you can go to their website and watch (and may or may not get commercials) or use a service where they are paid some fee... As mentioned, it is their property rights and they should have a say on how their property is to be used....

I'm fine with them having a say as to how it is used.... just allow some mechanism for people who live in areas that don't receive good OTA signal to get it like other OTA customers and then I can record it on my own device and watch it later at my convenience. I don't mind paying a small fee to Aereo or to them even though OTA customers get for for free.

[bUU]

And that is called "cable television". With a monthly fee that reflects all the costs including those associated with the broadcaster. What really needs to happen to address your concerns is for the local government where you live to come to care about your concerns the way you do and put their (your) money where their mouth is: If the local MSO is charging too much and no one is willing to compete against them, then the government should build its own network, or pay the market rate to take over the MSO's facilities by eminent domain, in the public interest, and make the service available to residences for free. That is a solution to the problem that doesn't exploit someone else's property without permission.

[pb4uski]

No thanks... a progressive city near us tried this and it was an unmitigated disaster and has cost taxpayers millions so a socialist response is not the way.

Quote:

A home network connecting every residence and business of Burlington was conceived in the 1980s. There were a number of failed attempts in the 1990s. A funding source could not be found. An experienced telecommunications expert, Tim Nulty, was hired as a consultant by the city. Nulty became General Manager of the newly created Burlington Telecom, a division of the city government. The network was laid in stages. The first stage was finished and profitable by 2003. The first and second stages became profitable by 2006. This led local government officials to believe the project would result in a major funding source for public coffers in the future. In September 2009 Burlington informed the Vermont Public Service Board it had used $17 million in city money to support Burlington Telecom operations since early 2008. The failure to repay that loan was a violation of Burlington Telecom's state license. The revelation prompted a forensic audit of Burlington Telecom by the Public Service Department and, in early 2010, a criminal referral to the Vermont Attorney General. Two private citizens also filed suit in Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington to compel Burlington Telecom to repay the $17 million. A special committee created by the City Council and including four citizens experienced in finance or telecommunications concluded in January 2010 that Burlington Telecom was unable to support its debt load. In mid-February 2010, Burlington Telecom defaulted on an interest payment of $386,000 to its commercial lender, CitiLeasing.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski no thanks... A city near us tried this and it was an unmitigated disaster and has cost taxpayers millions so that's not the way.

fify

[pb4uski]

I wasn't overstating it... its nickname is the Peoples Republic of Burlington.

Quote:

Nickname for the left-leaning Burlington, popularized during the mayoral tenure of now US Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.

[MichaelB]

I wasn't understating it, just showing how the same thing could be said without the partisan and political references.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski No thanks... a progressive city near us tried this and it was an unmitigated disaster and has cost taxpayers millions so a socialist response is not the way.

Just because one city did it wrong doesn't mean it can't be done right.

One example of something similar that does seem to be working right in Illinois, is the way we can have a separate provider and supplier for our electrical power. One company is paid to maintain the lines and provide service, and another can be chosen to provide the actual power.

A municipality could certainly outline a competitive model for telecom services, and that does not necessarily mean that they need to own any part of it.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB I wasn't understating it, just showing how the same thing could be said without the partisan and political references.

Was that 'fify' from MichaelB the moderator, or as a personal post?

-ERD50

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Was that 'fify' from MichaelB the moderator, or as a personal post? -ERD50

that which we call a rose

All of my posts are from just another participating member unless otherwise noted. I'm not trying to provoke, just show a way to express the same thought without opening a door we prefer to keep closed.

I'll bow out now...

[bUU]

Quote:

No thanks... a progressive city near us tried this and it was an unmitigated disaster and has cost taxpayers millions so a socialist response is not the way.

If the available competition is inadequate in the minds of citizens, then the answer is for citizens to provide the competition, not to allow exploitative companies like Aereo to cannibalize the rights of legitimate businesses.

[explanade]

Increasingly, the money is in data, not TV programming.

But the telecom lobbies have successfully bribed many state legislatures to prohibit municipalities from building network infrastructure, after some successfully built them, causing telecoms and MSPs to upgrade their infrastructure and become more price-competitive.