Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The headline that *should* be going in the tech news
Broadcasters demand that Supreme Court make broadcast television irrelevant

Having won a conclusive victory in their court case against Aereo, the broadcast television industry (in this case represented by Fox) chose to press their advantage by mounting a lawsuit against Dish's Hopper DVR system. Fox' representative stated, "Like Aereo, Dish is allowing viewers to watch our network in a way that is convenient to them. We won't stand for that -- if they aren't willing to watch it over the airwaves or cable systems, then we don't want them as customers at all".

Given the recent Supreme Court precedent, legal observers felt that Fox' case stands on solid legal ground, and was likely to further their long-held goal of rendering broadcast television irrelevant and moribund by the year 2020.
Yes, I can come up with not *entirely* idiotic reasons for this push by the broadcasters (mostly in that this model neither gives them the direct revenue they get from cable, nor prevents people from fast-forwarding through the ads). But seriously: this whole dispute seems to be about the broadcasters vs. the customers. Folks have found non-sucktastic ways to view broadcast television, and the broadcasters are having a hissy fit about it.

And really, what's the likely outcome? I mean, it's not 1980 any more, and broadcast TV just doesn't *matter* as much as it thinks it does. The broadcasters can and likely will win their legal point, and the end result is likely to be that all unauthorized attempts to retransmit broadcast television will get shut down. That's about as pyrrhic a victory as I can think of, though: all it's likely to do is accelerate the trend for folks to watch video *other* than broadcast television. The under-35 crowd in particular (most of whom wouldn't even recognize a TV antenna, and many of whom get all their video via Internet these days), seems likely to largely respond with a gigantic shrug, puzzled by why these old-fashioned companies are deliberately trying to prevent them from watching (but not caring very much).

Horribly strained metaphor (involving horse owners suing saddle makers during steam engine time) deleted, but you get the point. This really does seem to be an example of pissy legalism being used as a last resort, by companies that have no real strategy for survival...

  • 1
most of whom wouldn't even recognize a TV antenna

One guy at work tells the tale of watching TV at his in-laws' house; their cable company was encoding the broadcast channel they were watching so badly, he eventually gave up and dug out a pair of rabbit ears, and got them the native OTA signal. They were shocked; they had no idea that was possible. "Is it true you hacked our TV?"

That seems so strange to me given that I am undoubtedly many years younger than these people and grew up well aware that this was possible-- but then, when I was very young, the vacation house in Maine didn't have *anything* except what TV we could get over the air with the antenna, then we had a brief flirtation with the dish but it never worked, and now we're back to "we get three channels or so up there, maybe four if the wind blows right", but all over the air.

Aereo was doomed no matter what...

If Aereo had won its case at the Supreme Court, as I believe it should have, the broadcasters would have simply bought a law to shut them down. But the court decision still scares me because of the possible effects on other forms of cloud computing.

But then I also believe that the law requiring cable companies to pay retransmission fees for broadcast television is wrong. Having gotten that precedent wrong, it's not a shock that the court also got this one wrong.

  • 1