Is Aereo a Major Disruptive Force in the TV Industry?

It seems that the broadcast networks are scared. Two, anyway, have proclaimed that they might give up their access to the broadcast airwaves and retreat to paid television models. What would lead networks to consider -- or more likely, threaten -- such a drastic move?

This, it turns out:

Image from Aereo press kit. (aereo.com)

No, not the dime, the television antenna that it is next to and smaller than. A service called Aereo has thousands of these tiny antennae and is selling remote access to them as a way to deliver television content over the internet.

Now restreaming and selling someone else's copyrighted content is generally illegal, but Aereo has employed some conceptual brilliance here. By dedicating a tiny antenna to each paying subscriber, the product being sold is more like a computer peripheral, linking a personal antenna to a device, than it is illegal resale, or public performance, of content. That logic prevailed with a federal appeals court last week, where a dissenting judge described the service as "a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, overengineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law.”

The service is currently only available in New York City, and it seems like paid mobile access to broadcast channels would have limited appeal. After all, a lot of people don't bother to plug in antennas for free access to broadcast TV. The New York Times report on the court decision suggests that Aereo might see its future in deals with cable networks, like that penned with Bloomberg TV. If so, the service could develop into a paid TV provider, like a cable or satellite system for mobile devices. The success of such a system would limit broadcasters' own ability to profit from mobile distribution of their programming through services like Hulu Plus or Netflix.

Another major threat to the broadcast networks is the possibility of existing cable or satellite systems beginning to use technology like Aereo's for retransmission of network content. As the Times reports, these carriers pay to distribute network content, and they might be interested in an alternative that legally allows them to opt out of such payments. I'm not sure, though, how such a move would comport with must-carry restrictions. Cable operators are required by law to carry the content of local broadcasters, and it is through this system that payments are being made. It seems like an effort to circumvent that system could violate the must-carry rules.

In any case, we should expect broadcasters to be talking with Congress about Aereo soon.

You Can't Do That on Television (?)

Winning their division, achieving a winning record for the first time since 2005, and the star power of Robert Griffin III got the Washington Redskins a lot of hype last year. Hype that led a lot of people, I think, to wonder, "can you say that on TV?"

Whether it is appropriate to even speak the team's name on broadcast television is part of a novel argument for changing the team's name, which was advanced in a letter to team owner Dan Snyder, signed by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and other former FCC officials.

As part of the FCC's mandate to regulate broadcasting, it has been granted the power to levy fines for indecency. And the letter argues that casual use of a racial epithet in reporting might fairly be considered indecent and kept off the air like other offensive language:

"It is impermissible under law that the FCC would condone, or that broadcasters would use, obscene and pornographic language on live television... Similarly, it is inappropriate for broadcasters to use racial epithets as part of normal, everyday reporting. Thankfully one does not hear the "n" word on nightly newscasts."

Even if courts or the Commission decided that the word was not indecent, Hundt suggests in a Washington Post op-ed that using the word could violate broadcasters' obligation to serve the public interest. Using the broadcasting regulation angle is creative and, given our national concern over halftime nudity emergencies, perhaps a convincing argument. Broadcasting & Cable points to a previous effort to change the team name, though, that was aimed at Washington-area broadcasters and went nowhere.

This subject predictably riles people up. I think its insane that some team names and logos still exist and people wear them on hats on purpose. That said, I think it's incumbent on individuals to not be racist, and would prefer that they act on their own moral or financial interests to make a change.

And in case there is any doubt about the term "redskins" being derogatory and hurtful instead of somehow honorific (from the letter to Snyder):

"As it became increasingly difficult for trappers to transport masses of rotting corpses, colonial governors agreed to pay for Native Americans' scalps and skins. Trappers subsequently began using the term "redskin" to symbolize the bloody skin and scalps they collected."

Forty Years of Cell Phone Calls

Pew marks the 40th anniversary of the first cell phone call with some data on phones' proliferation and people's habits with them. Now 87% of adults in America own a cell phone, up from 75% about five years ago.

The good thing about all these phones is that people are learning to be a lot less annoying with them. I think there are some generally accepted norms about not talking in line, turning off your ringer in a movie theatre, and that kind of thing that didn't exist when the technology began to take off. There are still people talking in lines and now there are custom ringtones, of course, but I don't think the amount of annoying behavior has scaled with the popularity of mobile phones.

Another annoying part of the cell phone lifestyle is getting calls. That may seem counterintuitive, but getting a call in your pocket wherever you are, whatever you're doing is obtrusive. Most people think the alternative of being harder to contact is worse, but being interrupted to drop whatever to talk at any time is burdensome.

Enter text messages, which also allow immediate, anywhere connection, albeit in a much less disruptive way. Pew found in 2011 that among cell phone users who text, 31% prefer to be reached by text and 14% said that it depends on the situation. Also counterintuitive, but I think the rise of text messaging might be attributed in part to people's desire to be left alone.

So, 40 years on, the turn toward text communication, along with Internet connectivity for the web, Facebook, Twitter, and email, shows how far the cell phone has moved from something for voice calls toward a sort of all-purpose connection device.

Why Don't the Network Newscasts Cover Climate Change?

Media Matters is once again doing God's work (assuming God cares about the future of the human race) by drawing attention to the lack of climate change coverage on network television. It turns out the three network newscasts aired a combined total of 12 segments on the subject in 2012. Yikes.

Media Matters is asking its readers to sign a letter to the executive producers of the network newscasts asking for greater coverage of the issue. That can't hurt, but it raises the question of just what would lead to greater coverage.

One major obstacle to increased coverage is the politicized nature of the issue. Of course, science and the future of humanity shouldn't be politicized, but with the economic interests in ignoring the problem of climate change, politicization is inevitable. One of our major political parties is obviously willing to bend to those interests, but must our commercial news media?

The challenge here is familiar: with Republicans and Democrats largely on opposing sides of the issue, the media are restrained by twisted notions of objectivity and fear of criticism for violating that objectivity. These are real obstacles to covering climate change, but only real in the sense that they can go away if TV journalists and executives ignore them.

Viewer petitions like the one promoted by Media Matters could help a bit in that regard. But that letter to executives points to a bigger problem. That is, the content of TV newscasts is largely determined by what interests a profitable audience. So if the target audience for newscasts doesn't care about the issue (or want to hear about it) some other pressure would be required for coverage of that issue to get on the air. (This pressure could come from journalistic standards that say our impending doom is an inportant story, audience interests be damned.)

The networks likely pay attention to detailed ratings information and other reseach letting them know what viewers want to see. But that clearly didn't convince them to air more than 12 stories last year covering climate change. That suggests other means of expressing viewer interest (like a successful petition) or changes in politics or journalistic standards will be necessary before climate change gets adequate coverage.