| |cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
Fort Wayne, IN
Re: Goodbye CNET
said by Mike:I was going to say just that. I personally thin CNET started it's downhill journey when it acquired ZDNet. Since about then I've never regarded anything that I've read from them as anything but a shill...a paid advertisement for whatever was being reviewed. And if something was a negative review, it was a paid shill for said product's competitors.
CNET has killed CNET long before CBS.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: Bring on the Streisand Effect
said by Bootes:Again, i doubt they will succeed, as industry isn't likely to be caught snoozing, and Aereo doesn't have the 11-figure deep pockets necessary to bribe its way through network resistance.
I see them making an agreement where Aereo starts paying fees per viewer similar to the cable companies. Then Aereo turns into the first internet cable company and starts picking up other cable channels as well, which I'm pretty sure is exactly what they would like to be.
But USDTV and Sezmi actually did manage to get a dozen cable channels to sell to them before they imploded, so it isn't impossible.
| || What Aereo needs to do is to start cutting deals with any programmers they can, be it niche cable/sat channels that can't get good carriage agreements from the big cable companies, foreign channels that want to enter the market, independent producers, and even smaller OTA TV stations that want carriage into a market. Tell these guys that, if they'll agree to waive carriage fees and allow Aereo to insert ads in any local ad slots the channels provide, Aereo will agree to make their service available for free to consumers for a specified amount of time, say maybe five years. Then either distribute via Roku or, if that doesn't work out, build their own similar streaming box.|
Yes, caps will be an issue for heavy viewers, but that's something that the cable companies and telcos are going to have to defend someday, either in court or in the court of public opinion, and I suspect it's an issue they'd rather not have to air out in public. But, at any rate, if Aereo goes this route, and if it can build an even decent selection of programming, it will serve to really pull away the budget-conscious TV households.
At that point, the big programmers may have wished they'd left them along or gotten on the bandwagon.
Peachtree City, GA
Re: Anti-trust Please give blame to all that should receive it.
Start with the crooked, conservative Supreme Court with several decisions giving corporations the same rights as those given to an individual.
Oh, well. You live and you die.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
| |said by Telco:Because there isn't even an inkling of a hint of a case.
Why is there no anti-trust case against cable and traditional media.
Generally, content is cheaper than ever.
Just because we can't buy/rent the content in the manner, format, time, density and bundling we prefer, doesn't make for a conspiracy among the content owners - quite the opposite - they lose the potential sale.
Much as I'd like to see content sold dynamically, ala-carte, and I'm confident that such a system would result in huge revenue increases - people buy more when they can choose what they want, business prefers predictable revenues, just as consumers want consistent flat-rate billing, even when measured plans would save them lots of money.
So absent the second coming of Steve Jobs holding a World-Wide content sales summit, where all the players can see the light (more $$$$ for everyone, not just the newcomers), the established players are going to protect their investment, and they have every right to do so.
Re: Disclosure is all they need
said by jjoshua:I disagree. The lawyers for those that CBS is suing would use the fact that a CBS subsidiary has supported them as a point in a civil lawsuit proceeding. And I evidently have much less confidence that a jury or even a judge would be impartial and not take those facts in to account.
CBS is worried that CNET can't objectively review something because litigation is taking place?
CNET just needs to disclose this to the reader and they can make up their own mind.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
| |ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
Re: Disclosure is all they need
said by FFH5:If that argument had been made prior to HopperGate, other things being equal it would have been easily refuted to judge, jury and public. As it stands now CBS has poisoned that well. Since everyone now knows that CBS management is actively involved in editorial actions, dictating terms to CNET and so forth, there is no counter to the argument. Congratulations CBS, done and done!
I disagree. The lawyers for those that CBS is suing would use the fact that a CBS subsidiary has supported them as a point in a civil lawsuit proceeding.
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese
I wonder how Lindsey Turrentine feels now After the Hopper debacle, CNET's Editor-in-Chief, Lindsey Turrentine, posted an article trying to explain the whole thing and justifying why she didn't quit.
In it, she said she would do everything in her power to see that such interference didn't happen again. Naturally, most of the commenters called BS on this and reminded her that she couldn't do a thing.
So, Lindsey, how do you feel now? You were either naive thinking that you could do a thing about it, or you were simply rationalizing why you didn't walk like you should have. Which was it? And I'll remind you that, if you ever were a journalist, you aren't one now. Whether you intended it or not, you're now simply a shill for CBS.
Re: I wonder how Lindsey Turrentine feels now I agree with you. In the short term, she made the right decision from a purely financial standpoint, but this assumes that CNET won't end up taking a hit for this. If it does, she may, at some point, find herself looking for employment, and people are going to remember where she was when this happened. Still, if she'd at least been honest and said that she stayed because she needed the money, I could respect that, but neither I nor anyone else bought that line about her not allowing this to happen again. It makes her look like either a terribly naive individual or a liar. Either way, her credibility is severely diminished.
She and the other CNET staff had a golden opportunity. If they'd walked and started up their own news site, they'd have grabbed many of CNET's visitors. And, if you think about it, a site's writers are its backbone. Servers and bandwidth are relatively cheap and widely available, but good, seasoned writers are harder to come by.