This will get interesting :-)

[Bebop]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57578785-93/cbs-joins-fox-in-considering-subscription-only-model/

[gparris]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57578785-93/cbs-joins-fox-in-considering-subscription-only-model/

Aereo is rebroadcasting over the internet, without permission, just like if any of our satellite or cable companies tried to pull that stunt without paying for it.
Just because these tiny user-owned antennas supposedly get the signal, by whatever means, does not mean that that are actually GETTING it until they pay Aereo for the internet access, who is making a profit without paying for the retransmission fees. This stinks, IMO, if the Feds allow it.
How many times have we lost local channels in the past year, including the cable only channels that go with a network's bundle due to negotiations that go south with a cable or sat service we pay for? Now, if the Aereo antennas did only that, send the picture and sound directly to your TV, nothing else, I don't see the problem, no money changing hands.
The little guy who cannot afford cable or sat (or another box to feed it to another TV with his OWN antenna attached to his own TV) will be screwed once again.

[LoadStar]

First, this (from FOX and CBS) is a lot of bluster and posturing, and frankly is utterly ridiculous. There is zero chance that either CBS or FOX would go cable-only anytime soon. Maybe one day, but that day is a long time down the road. FOX, in particular, would have issues with NFL (especially) and MLB, both of whom value having their games on a freely available over-the-air network. That's not even mentioning that affiliates would also be rather incensed as well.

That said, I tend to side with Aereo to some degree. For one, cable television originated as "community antenna television," and was mainly intended to do exactly what Aereo is doing in a way, allowing users to share an antenna (or antenna farm). It wasn't until later that the whole concept of retransmission consent came about and slanted the playing field way in the broadcaster's favor.

Second, I remain baffled that cable and satellite companies, through retransmission consent, are often being forced to pay an arm and a leg for something that the OTA broadcasters send out *for free.* Why does it make sense that I should have to pay the broadcasters (via the cable bill) for something that I could easily receive if I just put a pair of rabbit ears on my television? Personally, I believe if you deliberately send a signal out in the clear, intending consumers to be able to view it for free, there should be no reason that a company that simply shifts that broadcast onto a wire line should have to pay.

Third, from what I understand, Aereo is offering a product that basically integrates a DVR, a "sling box" type of video streamer, and an antenna. If they were to sell a packaged version of this product that sits in your home, I doubt that anyone would have much to say about it. But because this service sits in some data center instead, does that change anything fundamentally about the product?

What is really going on is that FOX, CBS, and the other networks (not just over-the-air, but cable networks alike) are realizing that the technology exists to put and end to the business model of advertiser-supported linear programming. They are coming up with small financial victories here and there to make sure that end is still some time down the road, but the end is still nigh. In fact, the networks (and by extension the affiliates) are simply middlemen, passing programs along and adding very little value. One day, consumers will simply get all their programs directly from the content creators. Whether that takes an advertiser-supported form or that of a subscription service, that's yet to be determined, but either way, the fundamentals remain the same - the networks aren't really needed.

Because the networks see the end of their business coming, any technology that upsets the precarious model that exists today is a major cause for alarm. Aereo isn't even the first example; Dish's Hopper was another. As technology continues to develop, we are going to see this sort of thing happen again and again.