- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
The Future Of How We Watch Television Is In The Hands Of The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress
Anybody wanna guess how they'll rule?
Hint: it won't be in favor of the little guy.
Television or, at least, the experience of watching broadcast shows on a television is not the wave of the future. The television ratings company Nielsen classifies nearly 5 million households as Zero-TV, meaning that they either have no television or that they use it only for DVDs, games and other activities unlike traditional TV watching and this is a 150 percent increase in the number of Zero-TV households since 2007. TV ownership is steadily declining, while more and more Americans are seeking entertainment on the Internet.
Yet, because of a loophole in federal law, television programs broadcast over the Internet can be treated very differently than programs broadcast via cable or satellite. While cable and satellite companies must pay a fee to broadcast copyrighted material that they ultimately transfer to consumers, a company known as Aereo has found a workaround to this fee. Under federal law, broadcast programs are free as long as the consumer owns and controls the antenna used to catch the broadcast signals. As Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia tells ThinkProgress, his company uses an antenna array that it uses tap into the over-the-air signals. Customers pay $8 a month to rent their own mini antenna that works like the rabbit-ear antenna you plop on top of your TV. Customers also get their own DVR cloud space to save shows as part of their rental package.
On Tuesday, however the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., a case that could potentially shut down Aereos ability to take advantage of this loophole. The case pits Aereo against major broadcast companies such as ABC, CBS, NBC and Telemundo. If Aereo wins, it could expand TV on the internet, opening up the market for online-only cable and satellite TV alternatives. But if the broadcasters win and even if they dont consumers may have to pay for content that was once free, regardless of whether they actually watch it on TV or online.
Ultimately, this is a fight about how do we stop getting programming delivered to us via [traditional] broadcast and move it onto the Internet. This is the beginning of the initiation of how and when thats going to happen, Michael Carroll, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C., tells ThinkProgress.
Anybody wanna guess how they'll rule?
Hint: it won't be in favor of the little guy.