dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-21 08:39:20: You might recall last year that CBS joined in a chorus of broadcaster pouting and empty threats in regards to Aereo, proclaiming that they'd pull their network from over the air broadcasts and move it to cable if they weren't allowed to crush Aereo. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


anonomeX

@comcast.net

Classic

As always, "do the right thing" = "what we want".

Fortunately (or not), legal decisions have nothing to do with right or wrong; they're simply about interpreting the written laws (most of which are poorly written and ill-conceived to begin with).


nfotiu

join:2009-01-25

1 recommendation

misinterpreted?

I don't think you interpreted the quote correctly. To me, it sounds like they are saying one of their alternatives is to take their content off ota and provide it directly to cable companies. Either by just not broadcasting ota, or taking anything worth watching off of the broadcast network.

The industry could definitely use some disrupting, but Aereo is not going to be the one who helps customers. If they win, they will only succeed in taking away the free OTA option for everyone.


spepper

join:2003-11-09
USA

who's behind all the lawsuits against Aereo

Who's behind all the lawsuits against Aereo? BIG CABLE, NOT the individual TV networks. I don't care who all is listed as the plaintiffs; they are all being used by BIG CABLE as their junkyard dogs to viciously attack any alternative to BIG CABLE.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

reply to nfotiu

Re: misinterpreted?

quote:
I don't think you interpreted the quote correctly. To me, it sounds like they are saying one of their alternatives is to take their content off ota and provide it directly to cable companies. Either by just not broadcasting ota, or taking anything worth watching off of the broadcast network.
If Aereo wins in the Supreme Court, cable companies can do that themselves. That's the whole point, they could offer Aereo-like services without paying traditional retransmission fees. Dish and DirecTV have already expressed interest in this idea.

He's saying that the broadcasters ALSO have the ability to offer those services themselves. He's effectively arguing that you'd see a wider variety of choices with an Aereo win!


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

Id have to wonder if theres a patent involved though, in which Aereo may possess, preventing the MSOs from duplicating the technology.

There really is no long term "Aereo win". They may be contributing to TV evolution, but they will have a short life span.

All the things we argue about will lead to one thing. Increased prices for standalone internet services with CAPS, and eventually it'll all be 100% metered.


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

Strange Quote

I think Moonvees had a little too much to drink with dinner last night - that's a really confused quote. I think what he's trying to say is that if Aereo is upheld, the networks would go to a split delivery model. Cable would get the current program suite directly by fiber or whatever. Cable subscribers wouldn't see any difference over what they see today.

Cablecos wouldn't try to clone Aereo because OTA would would get an alternate set programming. Local news, syndicated crap, etc. The 5-10% of people that get OTA would just be out of luck.

Think what TBS did when Syndex first came into being.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

Re: misinterpreted?

Those price hikes and caps are coming no matter happens.



dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

1 recommendation

are coming? they're ALREADY HERE!
--
Despises any post with strings.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode

It's not the network that loses, it's the local broadcasters/local stations and local news- public affairs function.
Also with no OTA it's cable, satellite, or IPTV you'll be paying to connect to with NO free option



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to dvd536

quote:
are coming? they're ALREADY HERE!
Maybe where you live. I have FiOS and Cablevision to choose from, neither have CAPS or Usage based billing. All these cheapy video streaming options, both legal and illegal are simply speeding the eventuality of usage based billing. I will continue to pay for traditional TV as its the best and simplest way to watch my programs; especially my Sports.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
reply to nfotiu

The broadcasters can't take away OTA w/o losing their licence to broadcast on that spectrum. You think they would do that?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

3 recommendations

You gonna tell them what to air? How bout 24 hours of commercials on NBC redirecting people to Syfy, Universal, Sprout, Oxygen, and CNBC?

Lets not exaggerate, maybe for an hour a day theyll air the local news.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to ieolus

FCC already wants that spectrum back. and the networks are content consolidators/managers more then broadcasters.
PBS, and church, and shopping channels which don't rely on third party advertising will be all that's left, at least for a while.
It will take fanatical fundraising to keep any local content.


jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to travelguy

Re: Strange Quote

actually something like 17.8% of Americans watch only over-the-air as of 2012 per NAB

In some markets, like Miami I've read that it may be up to 30%. Miami is 16th in households and 10th in advertising dollars

And then there are the sport contracts, and contracts with affiliate stations many of whom nowadays (like FOX) pay the network


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

said by jagged:

And then there are the sport contracts

This is the real interesting point. Congree gave the sports leagues a pass on antitrust in exchange for keeping a significant number of games on OTA TV. Will Congress let those leagues slide if they go cable only, or will they pull the antitrust exclusion?

travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
reply to jagged

said by jagged:

actually something like 17.8% of Americans watch only over-the-air as of 2012 per NAB

Knew it was rising, but didn't realize it was hitting close to 20%. That's great...

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to ieolus

Re: misinterpreted?

Most of that spectrum is owned by affiliates and not the networks.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to spepper

Re: who's behind all the lawsuits against Aereo

Not quite. "BIG CABLE" wins big if Aereo wins this. Not only could they potentially bypass having to pay retransmission fees but they could also gain content exclusive to cable if the major networks pull it from OTA.

This is all the TV networks.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: misinterpreted?

take away the network programing and how long will YOUR local station last?


cahiatt
Premium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA
reply to silbaco

Re: who's behind all the lawsuits against Aereo

I think it can go both ways for them.

1) Potential savings if they can somehow bypass the re-trans fees under an Aero like system.

2) Potential loss due to users bailing out on them and switching to Roku like system with Aero, Netflix and Hulu content.

I'm a cable subscriber but mostly out of habit. I'm fine with local programming for news and getting movies or back shows from Netflix, Hulu and Redbox. I get a great signal on all local channels with an OTA and am probably another "fee" away from cutting them out.

I can see a similar offset for the major networks. Sure CBS, Fox and others may lose some re-transmission fees. But wouldn't there be a shift in the user base from premium channels back to the locals when they do cut cable and go to OTA or Aero? Wouldn't that increase their advertising value and potential revenue there as an offset?



n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Called Their Bluff

pull their network from over the air broadcasts and move it to cable
I suspect word finally got to the top that if they did pull programming from OTA, their prized broadcast licenses would be forfeited back to the FCC and sold off to someone else. In the end, those licenses are still prized possessions.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
reply to nfotiu

Re: misinterpreted?

said by nfotiu:

To me, it sounds like they are saying one of their alternatives is to take their content off ota and provide it directly to cable companies.

At which point my wife and I would stop watching them entirely. Works for me.

I bet that would do wonders for Netflix, and probably inspire more Netflix-type services. I imagine PBS and non-affiliated local commercial stations would remain. Would be good for them, too, I imagine. Would probably help prop-up the local DVD/BD rental places for a while longer, too.

Aereo's being a bit disruptive. The networks doing as some suggest would be exceedingly disruptive. The big broadcast networks are showing their age, anyway. Have been for quite a few years. Maybe their time is about over? Might be interesting to see. Bring it, Moonvees

Jim

viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
reply to tshirt

I would submit that this somewhat new stream of money coming from retransmission fees is NOT being directed to local operations/news, but to shareholders and top management. Local budgets are still being cut, even as revenue increases significantly. And as much as they might whine about loosing that 'new' revenue, broadcast is still where the money is. There are still a lot of people using OTA. The picture quality is uncompressed and better, and more content is becoming available OTA all the time. Plus, cable and satellite are just becoming to expensive for many.



SpottedCat

join:2004-06-27
Miami, FL

I don't get it.

Networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. are always fighting over viewers. They want the highest ratings possible and the most eyes as possible to see their ads!

So why aren't they ENCOURAGING services like Aereo and streaming so that as many people see their content as possible? Just like ABC now requiring a cable subscription to watch (ad-supported!) content online!

It just seems bonkers to me that they'd want to reduce the number of viewers they have, especially on platforms like iOS where you CAN'T skip the advertising...


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to ITALIAN926

Re: misinterpreted?

Maybe, but costs to deliver bits are dropping dramatically so long term market forces will take hold. Look at all the patent royalties, court wins that Tivo has made/won over the years from their DVR patents. While Aereo as a product may die, those patents will be trolling around for a very long time. The broadcasters may license or develop their own version. It all boils down to cost/patents/TTM.

At the end of the day, nobody is married to Aereo, it's the point that OTA offers a low-cost platform for broadcast TV, and the broadcasters would have to INNOVATE to a similar or improved platform to CHARGE for such a thing, and simply not tack on retrans fees because of some laws created in the 80's when people had 300 baud modems.

Aereo has said (if I recall) that they are profitable after 40k users in a market, so this means the barrier to entry is low, sans patent complications and the courts which Aereo will take the lumps on.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to ITALIAN926

Word of the day:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast

Verizon already testing this with LTE. Sports are EASY to distribute and not locked to broadcast. So live presentations can and will be delivered in a number of platforms in the next few years.

@Italian926 -- And I 100% appreciate you paying for linear cable, it slows the hounds for coming at my internet more aggressively.

Broadcast is like the dinosaur looking up at the gray sky after the meteor hit and too stupid to know its already dead. Content providers will adapt, we are talking about just changing the delivery platform....



pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to SpottedCat

Re: I don't get it.

There is one reason that I can think of: Networks are double dipping. They take the advertising money and also sell the feed to the cable companies.

Advertising revenue should not change with AERO as the same number of "eyes" will be viewing the broadcasts, [possibly more if AREO is wildly successful].

The other half of the income stream however will decline as the cable retransmission rights become less valuable when customers get alternate paths to access the networks.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
reply to SpottedCat

said by SpottedCat:

Networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. are always fighting over viewers. They want the highest ratings possible and the most eyes as possible to see their ads!

So why aren't they ENCOURAGING services like Aereo and streaming so that as many people see their content as possible? Just like ABC now requiring a cable subscription to watch (ad-supported!) content online!

The network TV business have evolved tremendously since the 80s. Used to be that networks provided programming "free" to local affiliates to get the national ads in front of the greatest possible audience. They occasionally allowed the local station to insert locals ads, but all of the network revenue came from national advertisers.

That changed about 20 years ago. Local stations now pay the national networks to run their programming, national ads included. Local stations in turn are now charging cablecos carriage fees. Network owned local stations charge the cablecos directly. These agreements also include bundles of network owned cable channels. Since ad reveue isn't growing nearly as fast as retrans revenue, there's no way the networks would allow anything to devalue those cableco fees. Aereo does that.

travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
reply to pende_tim

said by pende_tim:

There is one reason that I can think of: Networks are double dipping. They take the advertising money and also sell the feed to the cable companies.

Absolutely. All the MBA suits that run companies these days are taught to price based on value, not cost. They see value delivering eyeballs to advertisers? Charge them. They see value to viewers for providing entertainment? Charge them (well, the cablecos, but same thing).


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to viperlmw

Re: misinterpreted?

Most of the fees stay with the affilitie stations though a share of their ad revenue goes back to the top.
It used to be mostly to the networks advantage to have top quality stations to raise the viewership and ad rates of national programs to the point that they help support them financially, now the locals are on their own and can't even afford the reruns/JoeTv that filled their schedules. so more talk shows and unreality TV are slowly losing out to infomerials even in large markets.