I keep forgetting why extending the reach of a free broadcast is such a problem. More viewers==more ad revenue, right? Oh, right, it's because the major broadc

I keep forgetting why extending the reach of a free broadcast is such a problem. More viewers==more ad revenue, right? Oh, right, it's because the major broadcast stations don't actually want people to watch their broadcast; they'd rather people buy cable, watch their programming there, and be paid by cable for the privilege. Plus the ad revenue. A guide to laws surrounding cable retransmission: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations And why do the sports leagues care? Kickbacks out of the same system. The article even says so: "The leagues collect about $100 million of the $300 million broadcasters receive from “compulsory” license fees paid by cable and satellite outlets, the brief stated". Plus the money the broadcasters keep is used to buy the sports content. So: this is just another attempt to discourage cord-cutting and preserve the (huge) cable money stream. If people can actually watch the broadcasts (which, I'm convinced, only exist due to historical and political inertia), it's one less reason to have cable. But why do we need trickery like Aereo to watch OTA programming? Some of it is convenience, but a large part is because the "digital TV" transition seems to have removed reliable reception for lots and lots of people. I'm 13 miles from a whole host of 1000MW towers, and can barely get a decent signal. That's just terrible. It ought to work fine 50 miles away. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, and it's probably just poor execution, but it sure is tempting to think that the digital broadcast transition was subtly sabotaged to push people to cable. So good luck to Aereo. I don't think they're breaking any laws, just threatening an old business model. And that shouldn't be illegal. Sorry, entertainment industry (including the leagues): cable is gonna fade, whether you like it or not, so you better learn to deal with it. Deal with less money, lean more heavily on ads, or, even better: use the Internet! I'd pay the NFL directly for a decent streaming solution, but that'll never happen because it would tread on the toes of the networks. Maybe let the networks sell streaming directly? That would tread on the toes of the affiliates! Oh well. Figure something out.