You'd think broadcast and cable companies would embrace doing their own competitive product to extend their reach.
Instead they still to this day create a false demand by holding back American innovation, that only works if their aren't other alternatives.
If broadcast/cable want to live on they need to get to innovating and improving service, not fighting everything that challenges their kingdom.
I hope Aereo once again opens up competition on overpriced and monopolistic practices. Cable and broadcast had an immense lead when broadband internet innovated (with the help of taxpayer money and rights to provide the service they agreed to), then they stopped, got fat and turned to hogs.
Monopolies can sometimes move everyone forward for a time (At&T/telcos leading to software/C/C++, Microsoft spreading computing and internet, possibly Apple and the smart phone initially) but eventually, if the leaders aren't innovating and get too comfortable, they need to be jolted awake as they are no longer the leading innovators nor the future.
The broadcasters aren't monopolies, not in an age where the broadcast medium itself (as distinct from the content) is increasingly irrelevant. Only 7% of households rely on over-the-air TV: https://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2013-Pr....
The networks continue to matter because they offer products that people want to buy (movies and TV shows). These products are so compelling, that very few people have managed to offer compelling alternatives. E.g. people don't just want a doctor show, they want "House." They don't just want a sitcom, they want "How I Met Your Mother." It's not "innovation" to simply figure out new ways to take popular products and distribute them to consumers without paying the creators.
I applaud Netflix and Amazon for going down the path of real competition. Shows like "House of Cards" and "Alpha House" are rare alternatives to the media offered by established companies that actually receive good critical and audience reception.
Yes broadcast channels are on the decline but they owned and ran off the benefits of public airwaves which were/are very hard to get access to.
Before cable, Fox was successful in being the 4th big broadcast network but it was a huge battle (although it did shake things up when successful shows like the Simpsons were on).
Thankfully shortly after, we have cable and internet now, both further steps in limiting top down broadcast control. But with the support of tax money, broadcast space and lots of money the old broadcast stations were a combined monopoly on the airwaves.
You could argue the network stations have had to innovate a bit with cable and internet taking over and so they do have content that people love. The desire to use the public airwaves has been impossible for so long nobody really wants to take over the public airwaves much anymore so it is silly to fight against Aereo.
The broadcast channels never owned the public airwaves. At the time, broadcast was the most practical way of delivering content, and they engaged in what was a reasonable bargain for everyone: the public gets high-quality content for free, and the broadcasters get to use the public spectrum.
Today, I don't think the arrangement makes sense for anyone. Broadcast TV isn't the best use of all that spectrum, and the vast majority of people get their television content through cable or the internet. The bulk of the value of the networks today is in their content. They've always had the content people love, because they do a really good job making such content. They have expertise. It's very difficult to create content people want to watch, because most people will quickly dismiss shows and movies that don't have high production values. That's where the value of these companies lies in the modern era. And going forward, they'll have to double-down on this core function.
But Aereo isn't moving "innovation" forward in any way. They're just trying to make a quick buck using other peoples' content. In contrast, Amazon and Netflix (as well as HBO and some other companies) are moving the whole situation forward by trying to compete with the networks in the area of content production.
Instead they still to this day create a false demand by holding back American innovation, that only works if their aren't other alternatives.
If broadcast/cable want to live on they need to get to innovating and improving service, not fighting everything that challenges their kingdom.
I hope Aereo once again opens up competition on overpriced and monopolistic practices. Cable and broadcast had an immense lead when broadband internet innovated (with the help of taxpayer money and rights to provide the service they agreed to), then they stopped, got fat and turned to hogs.
Monopolies can sometimes move everyone forward for a time (At&T/telcos leading to software/C/C++, Microsoft spreading computing and internet, possibly Apple and the smart phone initially) but eventually, if the leaders aren't innovating and get too comfortable, they need to be jolted awake as they are no longer the leading innovators nor the future.