I think you really have to dig into the previous arguments and case law for the context here. In the oral arguments [1], neither Aereo nor the broadcasters claimed Aereo was a cable company. Both had their reasons for this. For Aereo, to do so may have put them at a disadvantage, particularly in the earlier stages of litigation, because the a district court had already rejected a somewhat similar service's claim to be a cable company [2]. The broadcasters were also not willing to claim Aereo was a cable company because to do so would be to give Aereo the opportunity to avail itself of a compulsory license. Additionally, from Aereo's perspective, they did not believe they needed such a license in the first place, due to its technology.
The interesting wrinkle is that the majority opinion [3] clearly likens Aereo to a cable company:
"But given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable
companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here."
They don't explicitly say they're overruling the district court from Ivi, but it's also hard to say they didn't just declare Aereo to be a cable company, with all of the rights and responsibilities that comes with.
Aereo's response today is basically like, "well, that's not what we argued for, but we can work with that."
For the broadcasters, there's a lot less at stake this time, because the real threat of Aereo operating without paying retrans fees was that other TV providers might use similar technology to do the same. That would mean billions less in revenue. This is much less of an existential threat to their business model.
The interesting wrinkle is that the majority opinion [3] clearly likens Aereo to a cable company:
"But given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here."
They don't explicitly say they're overruling the district court from Ivi, but it's also hard to say they didn't just declare Aereo to be a cable company, with all of the rights and responsibilities that comes with.
Aereo's response today is basically like, "well, that's not what we argued for, but we can work with that."
For the broadcasters, there's a lot less at stake this time, because the real threat of Aereo operating without paying retrans fees was that other TV providers might use similar technology to do the same. That would mean billions less in revenue. This is much less of an existential threat to their business model.
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...
[2] http://gigaom.com/2011/02/22/419-ivi-tv-loses-major-court-de...
[3] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf