Is the Supreme Court Preparing to End TV as We Know It?

Justices will soon decide whether to hear a lawsuit that broadcasters say they need to win to survive.

Members of the cast of NBC's 30 Rock.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Brendan Sasso
Jan. 10, 2014, midnight

The Su­preme Court could de­cide as soon as Fri­day wheth­er it will hear a case that could re­shape the tele­vi­sion in­dustry.

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and oth­er TV broad­casters are su­ing to shut­down an In­ter­net video com­pany called Aereo. The broad­casters warn that if they lose, it could be the end of their in­dustry.

Aereo, which is backed by me­dia mogul Barry Diller, al­lows cus­tom­ers to watch loc­al TV chan­nels on their com­puters, tab­lets, or In­ter­net-con­nec­ted TVs for a monthly fee. But, un­like cable and satel­lite pro­viders, Aereo doesn’t pay the TV broad­casters for their con­tent.

In a brief filed with the Su­preme Court, law­yers for the TV net­works as­ser­ted that Aereo’s busi­ness mod­el is “built on the for-profit ex­ploit­a­tion of the copy­righted works of oth­ers” and that the com­pany “im­per­ils “¦ the vi­ab­il­ity of over-the-air broad­cast tele­vi­sion.”

Aereo ar­gues that it doesn’t need the broad­casters’ per­mis­sion be­cause it uses clusters of tiny an­ten­nas to pick up the over-the-air broad­cast TV sig­nals and then trans­mits those chan­nels to its cus­tom­ers over the In­ter­net. Any­one has the right to ac­cess broad­cast TV with an an­tenna, al­though most people watch broad­cast chan­nels as part of a pack­age from their cable pro­vider.

The broad­casters say Aereo is try­ing to cre­ate a loop­hole in copy­right law, but Aereo ar­gues it is only mak­ing it easi­er for con­sumers to ac­cess video that should already be free.

The case turns on wheth­er Aereo’s ser­vice is a “pub­lic per­form­ance” or wheth­er each an­tenna and video stream is “private.” The U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the 2nd Cir­cuit has backed Aereo, while fed­er­al Dis­trict Court judges in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., and Cali­for­nia have ruled for the broad­casters in cases in­volving a sim­il­ar ser­vice.

Both sides want the Su­preme Court to take up the case. The broad­casters say Aereo is caus­ing them “ir­re­par­able harm” as long as it keeps op­er­at­ing, while Aereo fears that if the Su­preme Court doesn’t hear the case, the com­pany will have to wage costly battles with the broad­casters in Ap­peals Courts around the coun­try.

The case is about more than just one In­ter­net video com­pany. If Aereo wins, cable and satel­lite pro­viders may use a sim­il­ar tech­nique to avoid the bil­lions of dol­lars they pay every year to of­fer broad­cast TV chan­nels.

“I don’t know if Aereo per se is that big of a con­cern to broad­casters,” Den­nis Whar­ton, a spokes­man for the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Broad­casters, said. “What’s the con­cern is the pre­ced­ent that is set of tak­ing con­tent that you don’t own, char­ging a price for it, and keep­ing all the rev­en­ue. That’s the re­volu­tion­ary concept.”

News Corp. Pres­id­ent Chase Carey threatened last year to yank Fox pro­gram­ming off the air if Aereo wins.

“If we can’t have our rights prop­erly pro­tec­ted through leg­al and polit­ic­al av­en­ues, we will pur­sue busi­ness solu­tions,” Carey said at the time. “One such busi­ness solu­tion would be to take the net­work and turn it in­to a sub­scrip­tion ser­vice.”

Steve Ef­fros, a tele­vi­sion-in­dustry con­sult­ant and a former lob­by­ist for the cable in­dustry, pre­dicted that if the Su­preme Court sides with Aereo, the broad­casters will launch an all-out lob­by­ing push to get Con­gress to re­write the law or for the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion to in­ter­vene.

“The copy­right law is, of course, writ­ten by Con­gress, so they could change two words and end this thing,” Ef­fros said. “There is an im­port­ance to what the Su­preme Court may de­cide to do here, but it is an im­port­ance with re­gard to the be­gin­ning of a pro­cess, not the end of a pro­cess.”

If cable pro­viders stop pay­ing broad­casters to of­fer their chan­nels, broad­casters will have only one re­main­ing source of rev­en­ue: ad­vert­ising. But that rev­en­ue stream is also un­der as­sault from tech­no­lo­gies that al­low view­ers to skip com­mer­cials.

The broad­casters have also sued Dish Net­work over its Hop­per ser­vice, which lets view­ers auto­mat­ic­ally skip over ads on broad­cast chan­nels.

Whar­ton warned that if new tech­no­lo­gies force broad­casters off the air, view­ers will lose ac­cess to not only qual­ity en­ter­tain­ment, but also a crit­ic­al in­form­a­tion source dur­ing dis­asters.

“Ask the people in New Jer­sey and New York City [dur­ing su­per­storm Sandy] if broad­cast­ing mattered. When all the cable sys­tems were down, when all the broad­band sys­tems were down, when all the cell-phone net­works were down, broad­cast­ing was the one tech­no­logy that sur­vived,” he said.

But John Bergmay­er, a staff at­tor­ney for con­sumer ad­vocacy group Pub­lic Know­ledge, ar­gued that pub­lic policy shouldn’t be dis­tor­ted to pro­tect the big in­cum­bent play­ers.

“I just can’t get over the broad­casters. They get free spec­trum that oth­er people don’t get, and they’re sup­posed to be of­fer­ing a free ser­vice, but they just can’t get out over the fact that there are some people that might want to re­ceive their con­tent with an an­tenna in­stead of pay­ing for it,” Bergmay­er said.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.