This is a classic example of why this industry needs to be heavily regulated. Cable companies rank up there with lawyers as shysters and never to be trusted.
We're forced by one regulation to take the broadcast channels as part of the service and listed as part of basic cable then they tack on a BS fee? It's like buying a car and then adding a surcharge for a license plate frame.
It's time for local governments and federal authorities to prevent this behavior. If you subscribe to a sports tier, you get the sports channels without the "RSN Fee". Basic cable is just that - basic cable and shouldn't be permitted to add essentially duplicate charges. They complain they don't want a la carte pricing but they are essentially doing that without giving us the benefits of it.
Stick an antenna in them... they're done. Go Aereo!!!!
Never assume what the Supreme Court will do.... Many assumed the Court would find Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional. However, the court ruled it was constitutional... as a tax... Something the government initially said it wasn't.
"The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument."
Nobody saw that coming, especially from Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee.
Nobody knows what the ruling is until the interns run from the courthouse...
But part of the reason it is legal is because of "interstate commerce" thus they can have a tax. It is 100% fact that everyone will have a transaction with the medical system sometime in their life. If any part of the medical system from medicines, to x-ray machines, to furniture involve buying over state lines then any medical transaction effects "interstate commerce".
They can tax/control anything that has to do with "interstate commerce". You not having insurance still affects "interstate commerce".
I remember reading about a case of a restaurant in Alabama that wanted to not follow equality laws. The laws were enforce on anyone doing "interstate commerce". They tried to claim that everything in their restaurant was from their own state and they did not do any "interstate commerce". The government's position was he buys from industries like farming that do sell interstate so he buying and selling in his state affects the supply and demand of interstate commerce even if he did not directly conduct "interstate commerce". Thus no matter what he was involved in "interstate commerce" thus they had the right to regulate him.
They did not rule it consituational as a tax. By ruling it a tax, that meant it can't be legally challenged until the tax goes into effect. Next year, expect a whole new round of lawsuits.
And since the bill is not written to have explicit severability, the courts could throw the whole thing out. I fully expect them to throw out the entire bill, despite knowing that in doing so, consumers with pre-existing conditions will all lose their insurance the day the ruling comes out.
I hope they survive, but I wouldn't count out the hordes of lawyers that the broadcast companies are sending against them. Not until the final Supreme Court verdict comes through.
Sure it does. It provides an affordable and mobile alternative. Convenience has a cost, but Aereo is a remarkable service making inroads.
No it does not. I provides leased equipment so someone can stream their own OTA stream. I actually have done this since 2004 using windows media center. It is 100% legal to do. It is fair use.