Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kylekramer | Hacker News Reader

Seems well within CBS's rights. This isn't a "ban". SodaStream could show the ad anywhere they can convince companies with advertisement space to show it. There is not an inalienable right to air any commercial CBS is given and clearly CBS stands to lose much more from damaging their relationship with customers who consistently advertise with them than the one time payoff from SodaStream. I'll save my outrage this time.

View on HN

Well, I think this is somewhat tricky. If CBS truly decided on their own to not do this, it is within their rights. If there was any coordination between CBS and a competitor of SodaStream, then things get a lot more questionable.

Much like the CEO of a company selling all shares right before bad news hits is not necessarily illegal. Is a pretty high sign of insider trading, though.

Of course, usually caveats about random internet person possibly being completely confused on some topics apply. (And please, if I am, correct me.)

I'd have to guess that there are significant costs associated with producing a commercial for the Super Bowl, and I'd have to think SodaStream had some sort of arrangement with CBS to air the ad, perhaps even paid for a Super Bowl spot. Even if there aren't breaches of contract, it's still pretty crappy behavior.

This could still work out in SodaStream's favor. The public outrage against CBS and big soda (?) creates the sort of David vs. Goliath dynamic that people gravitate to.

I would've sided more with you if CBS were a cable network, but it uses the public airwaves. That isn't to say that it should be forced to show every ad, but I think it raises the bar needed to refuse an ad.

How does using public airwaves change the bar? I don't see how using tax payer funded spectrum really affects the situation at all. It isn't like it is in the American taxpayers' interest to have an Israeli company's interest put over three American companies' interest.

I don't see how the fact that it's an Israeli company has much to do with it. Sounds like they would have denied the ad it if it were an American company too.

I agree with that even if SodaStream were American CBS wouldn't have aired the ad (which honestly was created to get this exact article published), but I thought the nationality of each company underlined how irreverent using public airwaves are to this particular issue.

The United States Government is involved with guaranteeing to the over-the-air CBS stations certain protections of their frequencies. It is reasonable to make certain demands on them as a result, and certain demands are indeed made. For instance, over-the-air TV is subject to some restrictions on content that cable is not. Similarly, when the phone companies were the beneficiaries of a great deal of funding to get the entire country wired up, and given government monopolies, it was and is reasonable to make certain demands in return.

Personally I don't think rises to the level of requiring the big stick o' government to come smashing down, but opinions can reasonably vary.

Keep framing it like that and AIPAC will employ you. It's not like them to miss a trick.

> I don't see how using tax payer funded spectrum

To clarify, the RF spectrum isn't funded by taxpayers; it simply exists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com