The reason we subscribed to Aereo was to gain access to over the air television. We cut the cord a few years ago because we paid for stations we never watched and satellite TV just was not a good value. Before digital we could receive stations with rabbit ears; after-none.
Having said that we never used Aereo that much anyway. I do regret, however, what I consider to be a narrow-minded decision by the SCOTUS but I am not surprised at all.
If not for Netflix I would have to build a tall outside antenna to receive TV signals where I live.
One last thing- choices and more choices are good. Restricting choices is bad. All my NSHO- YMMV.
So what happens when people stop using businesses that have state mandated recordings. If I wanted to sell a cell phone, I would find an alternative way to sell the phone. In large cities, I have no doubt that enterprising people will find a way to take advantage of the state government's stupidity, and most likely an illegal, underground market will emerge.
This is exactly like DRM for business- it only affects legitimate customers and the criminals or would-be criminals are totally unaffected.
If a scrap metal company asked to photograph my truck so I could sell them a load of junk, I would kindly and politely tell them what they can do with their cameras and leave.
I asked a friend of mine why all the apathy? He didn't really have an answer. I am trying to help him realize what is going on. I send him a lot of links from here to get him thinking about these privacy and constitutional issues.
It amazes me that there is no huge public outrage.
I agree and that is what I have done. I read an article a while back that the way to go is a TV plus set top box. I have 3 TV's with Roku and WDTV.
Another advantage, from the aforementioned article, is that a set top box is faster than a smart TV. I have no experience with a smart TV, but if a connected BluRay player is any indication, you can keep your smart TV's. My BluRay player, which I never use, is horribly slow.