3 ms·
Call me obtuse, but I still don't get it. Specifically, how is it any different than me using my own antenna? Does it just boil down to an OTA vs Cable war, an
by evandena 13y ago
Call me obtuse, but I still don't get it. Specifically, how is it any different than me using my own antenna? Does it just boil down to an OTA vs Cable war, and the networks/NFL/etc would rather everyone pay for cable instead of installing their own antenna?
- joezydeco 13y agoThe NFL doesn't really matter here. They are getting their rebroadcast fees from the networks no matter who is watching. The networks are the ones making extra revenue by forcing the cable companies to pay them to carry shows on their systems. The historical reasons for this are complex but I would refer you to a nice NPR podcast that explains it better: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/27/226891181/episode-488-the-secret-history-of-your-cable-bill http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/27/226891181/episode-... So back to the problem at hand: Aereo has found a way to skip around those carriage fees that the networks demand. The courts have backed them up. So the real problem is that the cable companies are now asking "why should we pay if Aereo is not?" It's not a cable-vs-OTA war, it's the networks-vs-everyone-else.