|
AnonMan
Anon
2013-Apr-17 8:49 am
I am tired...I am so tired of this crap.
I think a law needs to be made that is flat and simple (yeah I know it will never happen).
The options for TV are as follow:
Either you make money off advertisement OR you charge a broadcasting fee.
You do NOT get to do both. We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does, cable fees are for the most pure profit.
If this model was followed more people would be able to have TV because only cost would be renting the boxes, paying a small fee to the cable co to manage the lines etc. but that would get more people TV thus more advertisement revenue...
Oh well, time for me to wake up. The way I see it TV is less and less an entertainment factor. It's simply not cost effective in this economy. Why should these companies get record new profit year after year and keep raising prices while the value of our $ goes down and yearly pay raises no longer exists and if they do don't even cover inflation?
I wish more people would vote with wallets... | |
|
| |
Re: I am tired...Where do I sign.
I Agree 100% Ads or Cash not both. Works Pretty good for Netflix and Redbox.
I'd go cash hands down. I might not get much, but I'll be happy living an ad free existence. | |
|
| | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2013-Apr-17 10:54 am
Re: I am tired...A re-hearing en banc is unusual in a federal court. This is grasping at straws. On page 7 of the petition (thanks for the direct link Karl), the reason for desperation is apparent. Dish and TWC are considering partnering with Aero or implementing Aero like services, which would allow them to bypass the need to negotiate rebroadcast rights. If Aero is just an Internet based antenna cable and doesn't violate copyright, a lot of cable fees for local stations could be lost. The argument by the plaintiffs seems to be that Aero is providing public performances without a license. That wouldn't seem to square with the technology, they have a separate antenna for each subscriber, and provide that subscriber only channels they could ordinarily receive over the air. This isn't public in any way most would understand it. Another court, did issue an injunction against another service. How similar that service is to Aero isn't clear. The case enjoined is here - » docs.justia.com/cases/fe ··· 8-27.pdf it was a simple streaming of live television without permission, but apparently without separate antennas and without verification of residence within the area of OTA reception. I'm not a lawyer, but the petition for review en banc seems weaker than I'd have expected. | |
|
| | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
dfxmatt
Member
2013-Apr-17 12:17 pm
Re: I am tired...the whole public performance thing was already decided at district court level, so I don't suspect that will be raised again. Meanwhile, their current case is not over - so asking for an en-banc hearing before even working with the current judge? not likely to go over so well. | |
|
| | chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
to buzz_4_20
I agree with both of you guys ads or money I pay for Sirius radio so I don't have to listen to ads like radio that is on the ground. (And that it works where regular radio does't) | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to AnonMan
said by AnonMan :We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does We do? said by AnonMan :If this model was followed more people would be able to have TV How many people don't have access to content available on a TV; cable and/or OTA? said by AnonMan :Why should these companies get record new profit year after year and keep raising prices while the value of our $ goes down and yearly pay raises no longer exists and if they do don't even cover inflation? You're conflating two very different issues; rising rates for pay TV and the Fed devaluing the dollars in your pocket. Inflation isn't a concern....yet. You think you're paid too little and spend too much now, just wait | |
|
| | jagged join:2003-07-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
jagged
Member
2013-Apr-17 10:07 am
Re: I am tired...given the ad rates for 30second spots for 8-10pm primetime yes. Then until recently the broadcast stations have to pay the networks cable/satellite retransmission fees to carry their programming | |
|
| | | |
AnonCable
Anon
2013-Apr-18 2:03 pm
Re: I am tired...I believe that before retransmission fees, the operators aired the local broadcast signals without paying or being paid. There is an FCC must-carry rule for broadcasters above a certain power. It used to be that broadcasters (especially the non big 4 ones) would force themselves on the operator's line-up with this must-carry rule. Operators did not, as far as I know, receive payment to carry. Sometimes (more in the old days than now) CABLE networks would pay for carriage in early years a of a deal, especially when they were trying to get to critical mass of homes. But I think even that has become rare. | |
|
| | Brian_M join:2004-06-19 Manchester, GA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:How many people don't have access to content available on a TV; cable and/or OTA? Probably not many, but when you are one of those people (unwilling/unable to spend what cable wants, no access to OTA due to location), it's a pretty major thing. I'm in that boat... granted, each month that goes by means I'm less irritable about it, and less likely to go back. No skin off my back at this point, though I'll try out Aereo when/if it's available to me. Might just find that even at $7/month the value isn't there, and the funny thing is that it wouldn't be any fault of Aereo.... | |
|
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2013-Apr-17 5:57 pm
Re: I am tired...said by Brian_M:but when you are one of those people (unwilling/unable to spend what cable wants, no access to OTA due to location), it's a pretty major thing. I guess you could always go with a low cost Sat TV provider. | |
|
| |
ClericVA to AnonMan
Anon
2013-Apr-17 10:10 am
to AnonMan
A blanket statement such as we all know means little, please provide the numbers for the total income and expenses from developement, production advertising and distribution of all television programming. Then throw in the research costs for the cable industry whether it is for the developement of past and future generations of cable boxes IE: Wireless Media Servers or the amount it has cost companies such as Verizon to develop FiOS and it will cost Google to roll out Google Fiber. Developing the hardware and software to ge us TV, Internet and phone through a beam of light was not cheap. Then let's fill the cable companies call centers (most of which are here in the US by the way) so that when your 70 year old mother, can not understand that she has no picture on her tv because the TV is on but the cable box is off, or because her TV is on the wrong input has someone to call 2 or 3 times a month instead of you. I am also pretty sure you have never tried to talk someone who is clueless how to program a remote control over the phone and naturally they don't have a cordless phone or a corded one in the same room as the tv. Then let's talk about the advertising that will pay for all of this. If all of these expenses were covered solely by that your Gator Aid would be $5 a bottle and Frosted flakes would be $10. Yes the cable companies make a lot of money but they are publicly traded and need to generate profits or people would not invest in them and there would be no new innovations. However if you can please provide the numbers to back your statement I will be more than happy to retract everything I just typed. | |
|
| | Ubee E31U2V1 (Software) pfSense Netgear WNR3500L
|
Re: I am tired...Hollywood and content owners and broadcaster like to use "creative accounting" to make it look like their productions are losing money(thus, they don't have to pay residuals to their actors), so any number you get will make it look like you are right, on the surface. Until you start digging and realize that CBS is more a conglomeration of thousands of smaller companies, and each up the chain charges the lower ones a "fee", with production sets and such being on the lowest of the chain, meaning that they get "fee"d out of any money they would have made on advertisements, thus, making it look like it lost money, while CBS continues to produce record profits(according to its stock price over the last 10 years). | |
|
| jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
to AnonMan
said by AnonMan :You do NOT get to do both. We all know advertisement alone would pay for shows and in almost all cases does, cable fees are for the most pure profit. Sooo.... TV production studios and actors and crew get to make plenty of profit, but cable/satellite companies don't get to make profit. As long as you're deciding all these rules unilaterally, could you write out the details? | |
|
| | |
Probitas
Anon
2013-Apr-17 1:16 pm
Re: I am tired...Well, maybe they should not be getting the kind of pay they get, after all, they ain't pro sports stars, those guys earn their money. ;p | |
|
| |
to AnonMan
I have voted. My family ditched pay TV months ago and could not be happier. Pay Tv is was not worth $100 a month to us. We only watched 5 channels at the most. | |
|
| 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to AnonMan
I don't think we need to go that far. Limited the studios ability to control the distribution of content would help a ton. In the retail world you don't see Microsoft dictating who sells the xbox and for how much. -- | |
|
kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL
2 recommendations |
kaila
Member
2013-Apr-17 9:00 am
'I wish this internet thing would just go the hell away'-signed, the broadcasters | |
|
newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2013-Apr-17 9:07 am
We'll buy our verdict eventuallyIf at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again.
- The Broadcasters | |
|
SunnyD join:2009-03-20 Madison, AL |
SunnyD
Member
2013-Apr-17 9:16 am
Dear Judge;You were wrong.
- Signed, People who don't know squat about the law that got told what we didn't want to get told. | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
I am with the broadcasters on this oneAereo should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement with the broadcasters like every other cable/satellite provider. If they are taking a signal that I could get for free with an antenna and reselling it, then they should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement.
I get my local channels through DirecTV and they have to pay the broadcasters for the right to retransmit their signal so that is built into the fee I pay DirecTV for service.
I don't buy Aereo's claims of leasing an antenna, it just is not technically possible given the size of TV antennas. | |
|
| |
Re: I am with the broadcasters on this oneI'd also like to see pictures of Aereo's setup. There've been reports that each unit has a "dime-sized" antenna, but that just doesn't jive with what I know about OTA reception. That just sounds like a bunch of bull. I have a ClearStream4 in the attic with direct line of site to the broadcast antennas at 11 miles with my house being on the top of a hill and there are still some channels that are troublesome. They mean to say that in NYC, with all of the multipath issues, that an array of "dime-sized" antennas, which could create interference among themselves, pull in all the channels reliably? Again, bull. | |
|
| | (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: I am with the broadcasters on this oneI'm sure they are not a 11 miles away, they are probably really close, less than a mile, and at that distance it's easy to pick up with almost anything. Just because they don't have something like this for retail use doesn't mean it doesn't exist. | |
|
| | |
| | Hanko join:2001-12-28 Eatonville, WA |
to Killersaurus
said by Killersaurus:I'd also like to see pictures of Aereo's setup. There've been reports that each unit has a "dime-sized" antenna, but that just doesn't jive with what I know about OTA reception. That just sounds like a bunch of bull. Look here and scroll down. » www.digitaltrends.com/ho ··· for-now/ | |
|
| | kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL |
to Killersaurus
OTA signals get collected by multiple large rooftop outdoor antennas, which essentially reflects onto those 'dime sized' antennas. | |
|
| | | |
Re: I am with the broadcasters on this oneThis setup still conflicts with everything I know about OTA reception. Large rooftop antennas reflecting onto the dime sized ones? Does not compute. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: I am with the broadcasters on this onesaid by Killersaurus:This setup still conflicts with everything I know about OTA reception. Large rooftop antennas reflecting onto the dime sized ones? Does not compute. No different than satallite reception. The LNB is quite a small device and catches the reflected signal from the dish. | |
|
| | | | kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL |
to Killersaurus
Reflected is probably the wrong word, redirected would be more apt.... The outdoor antennas that actually get the OTA signal are cabled and run inside the building where the signal gets amplified and fed to directional repeaters mounted on the ceiling, and beamed to the antenna array. | |
|
| | | | 1 edit |
to Killersaurus
said by Killersaurus:This setup still conflicts with everything I know about OTA reception. Large rooftop antennas reflecting onto the dime sized ones? Does not compute. I don't think that is correct. The antenna design is much like a phased array on a military system. From looking at patents, I don't think the technological hurdle is the simply receiving the signal for broadcast, it is assigning individual antennas to individual users to comply with the legal interpretation of what is permitted under current legislation. Prior to about two years ago when Barry Diller began investing in the company it was called Bamboom Labs. You can google old articles about their efforts to make the technology legal. They are not the first company to try and do this, but the other ones were shot down by the courts. Bamboom did careful research into the legal rulings on their predecessors before designing their system. Aereo's patent » appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ ··· 20127363said by RARPSL:If you go back in history to the origin of cable TV, it was an Antenna that was placed somewhere (such as on a hill) and used to feed TVs that could not receive the signal directly (since it is in a valley with the hill blocking the signal) Yes and it was called Community Access TeleVision (CATV) and not Cable TV. But you are making a philosophical discussion. Back in the 1950's CATV simply increased TV sales and ratings for advertisers. CATV was initially invented by people who wanted to sell TV's, and many potential customers weren't interested because they had no signal. CATV was economically beneficial to networks before it became competition. Aereo might argue that the TV household with lousy OTA reception might play video games or watch Netflix instead of network TV. It is a solid argument that they are only helping the networks. However in the advertising saturated world, a few extra viewers is not the economic advantage of being able to resell a signal. The real fear is that the cable operators will license a technology developed by Aereo and the networks will lose a substantial revenue source. | |
|
| | |
to Killersaurus
When I lived in N. NJ (12 miles from NYC) you could pick up all locals with some tin foil attached to the TV.
Add to that a lot of stations broadcast from the Empire State Building (used to be WTC) or across the river from towers in the Meadowlands and you sure can get good reception from a dime sized antenna. | |
|
| | | |
Re: I am with the broadcasters on this oneI live in northwest NJ and here we can't pick up squat! | |
|
| |
to IowaCowboy
I am with Aereo. I pay TIVO $14.99 a month to subscribe to their service and equipment. My TIVO is connected to an attic Antenna. If I did not have TIVO I could not watch OTA stations as my TV does not have a digital tuner. I understand that TIVO does not provide the OTA signal to my TV, but the equipement that I rent from TIVO enables me to have access to that content. All Aereo is allowing me to do is rent access to an antenna and servers that will deliver the OTA broadcast to my house via the internet.
| |
|
| | •••••••••••••••• |
| ak3883 join:2005-08-20 Marlton, NJ |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:I don't buy Aereo's claims of leasing an antenna, it just is not technically possible given the size of TV antennas. Ummm, you can use a paper clip for an antenna if you are close enough to the towers. TV antennas don't have to be huge. | |
|
| |
to IowaCowboy
Retransmission fees are nonsense for OTA stations. They get an exclusive franchise in a market using valuable spectrum for free, spewing their content into the ether and they have the balls to demand payment from companies that make reception of their signal easier?
If local stations want to play this game after years of benefiting from "must carry", then it should also be the rule that I can opt out of paying the fees associated with the retransmission agreement and go back to receiving them OTA.
These tying contracts associated with cable TV are getting tiresome. I have no ability to vote with my dollars other than severing service in its entirety. | |
|
| TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS Ubiquiti NSM5 Synology RT2600ac Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:Aereo should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement with the broadcasters like every other cable/satellite provider. If they are taking a signal that I could get for free with an antenna and reselling it, then they should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement. I get local tv streamed on my local network from a Hauppaug Broadway unit attached to an antenna. I don't own a tv set. I can log into that unit remotely from anywhere there is Internet access. Should I also need a retransmission agreement? I see no difference with what Aereo is doing, an antenna and a converter streamed to my computers. I can see where Aereo would be very useful for folks with bad OTA reception. Essentially you are renting an OTA antenna from them. What's the big deal? | |
|
|
Probitas
Anon
2013-Apr-17 10:52 am
I hear ya!Charge me a fee and then no commercials, or free tv with commercials. I am so in agreement with this stance. It's not about rights or legality, it's about thinning the size of their corporate wallet. That OTA even works suggest they are making enough to broadcast it. Their issue is they don't want that OTA signal available everywhere, just places they don't want to lay cable lines.
Jerks. | |
|
|
Xsquid
Anon
2013-Apr-17 11:36 am
A New Trial?At least the broadcasters are finally focusing on retransmission, which is where Aereo is weakest.
It seems damaging to Aereo that they are negotiating with Dish to provide local channels to Dish customers, when Dish has to pay retransmission fees to carry those same channels, but who knows how the court will view it.
Maybe Comcast, Uverse, Fios and the other guys do the same? Hard to imagine how that might work, but makes it easier to understand why broadcasters are starting to sound desperate.
Something I missed, when did Aereo win a trial? | |
|
| |
Probitas
Anon
2013-Apr-17 3:37 pm
Re: A New Trial?IF you can rig a setup that takes in those signals that are beamed onto your propery that doesn't use any propietary equipment, it's an ownership thing. That's why antennas were used for so long, since once a signal is sent out, you really can't complain about reception anymore since you are not charging to have the signal provided to any particular location, you just give it out everywhere.
OTA sends the signals out free of charge or complaint. The issue is those signals are being repeated, but I'm sure Aereo can do that legally, since the service they provide is retransmission, not decryption. If you needed to decypt before viewing, then they'd have legs to stand on when arguing.
That's why sat signal theft is illegal, you need to break the encryption, which is generally viewed as wrong and theft of propietary property. Where is the theft involved over a signal sent out for free (paid for by advertisers)? | |
|
| | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
Re: A New Trial?Like the Judge pointed out if Aereo is illegal the a person putting up a TV antenna is illegal as well. The Antenna is small because I believe it is a fractal style antenna, these are the kind of antennas that are in many cell phones and are electrically a lot larger then they seem. | |
|
|
S Templar
Anon
2013-Apr-17 11:42 pm
B'casters will winbecause they hold the keys to a resource of ultimate importance to congress critters: the airwaves and commercial time thereon. Politicians need to raise thousands every day because they need to buy airtime on the TV and broadcast is still by far the most effective per dollar. If the broadcasters whine hard and long enough (and the volume level behind the scenes will be orders of magnitude louder than their public mewling) they will get their way. I would not invest in Aereo for the long term ...... though it is a sign of how desperate the broadcasters are that they would think anyone (even a congressman) would buy their threat to take their ball and go home. I'm lovin' seeing Mel and his cohorts squirm in their newfound discomfort over not holding all the cards anymore. | |
|
1 edit |
Barry Diller used to be on the other sideBarry Diller used to scream "illegal" until he bought Aereo. Nothing is right or wrong, it just depends on who it benefits.
I can't see them going off the air. All the networks already own multiple cable channels. What good would it do to have another cable channel? They could just transfer their shows to the existing cable channels. If the existing cable shows can't come close to the highest rated network shows, why would it matter if they have another cable channel?
I could see the networks cutting out their affiliates. They would broadcast OTA from their owned and operated stations, and then just post the shows on their websites with a live-stream at the same time. You wouldn't need Aereo because the shows would already be there. | |
|
|
|