The problem is Aereo is charging for this service that circumvents the system and pays nothing back to redistribute the content.

Contrast this with the lesser known, but competing service offered from Syncbak.

Syncbak does the same thing as Aereo, but rather than circumventing the existing networks and content providers; those are Syncbak's paying customer base.

http://www.syncbak.com/

The advertisers already paid for content to be distributed. The broadcasters aren't even missing out on theoretical revenue cause no subscriber pays for over the air tv. If anything they could increase ad revenue claiming more viewers.

I'm missing something... Cause I don't see why broadcasters are against Aero at all. Is it cause cable companies pay broadcasters for content and people think Areo will cut into that?

You're missing that broadcasters transmit to a select geographical location, so they can still sell the transmission to cable and satellite networks. By making it cheaper to watch those channels outside of the areas covered by OTA broadcasts, they're making it easier for current cable subscribers to "cut the cord".

Aereo makes new users sign up with a credit card linked to a zip code within the OTA broadcast range of the metros that they operate in. The users then get the channels that are available in that area. See https://www.aereo.com/channels

Theoretically Aereo makes it more expensive to watch these channels(but easier and more reliable) than a one time purchase of your own antenna.

Prepaid CCs can often be linked to addresses you don't own.

If Aereo were ruled legal today, the cable companies would figure out tomorrow how to duplicate Aereo's position and avoid paying the broadcasters any fees.

Ok. I don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with the legal system being used to prop up industry(s) that are otherwise no longer viable.

I don't know enough about this specific case to judge. But, by in large that is what copyright law has been used to do for last 20+years.

By statute, broadcasters can choose whether a) local cable companies are required to carry their networks [which is why public access still exists], or b) to negotiate for the rate, which lets the cable company walk away if they cannot come to terms.

>The problem is Aereo is charging for this service

To me that's like saying Sony who charges $150 for an outdoor digital antenna, RCA who charges $80 for a signal amplifier, and the installer who charges $500 to rig it all properly should all pay the content owners because they enabled me to watch the freely available content.

I could pay Aereo a small monthly charge or I could modify my house at great expense and end up with the exact same outcome. I don't see the difference.

You missed one:

Hulu - pays a fee to creators for use which it recoups/profits from ads

Aereo - pays no fee to creator, still profits from ads

Broadcast television contains inline ads that compensate the broadcaster, who then compensates the creator.

>still profits from ads

I must have missed something. How do they profit from ads?