dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-07-10 12:27:25: While Aereo claimed they didn't have a plan B if they lost before the Supreme Court (which they of course did late last month), that doesn't appear to be entirely true. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

2 recommendations

Rising from the ashes?

Go Aereo!

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

A "Surpreme" can of worms ...

I took the time and read the filing, its legitimate and shows that the supreme court has no clue on just how intertwined and convoluted the copyright laws are.

What they are saying is that the court claims they are cable system as a basis for the broadcasters to win the case, what the broadcasters didn't look forward to what that would mean

1) Aero gets to sell legally the content, broadcasters have to license the content, otherwise they Aereo can just provided it until broadcasters comply with law.

2) if Aero time shifts, then they can keep there original model as its no longer a public viewing

Whats really interesting here, and I think cable company's will be very interested is in today's current model, the content providers just turn off the link when the contract is not in effect, hence stopping the cable company's even though the law allows them to continue to offer content.

Aereo is saying, you can't have it both ways and there technically correct, don't want to license to content, fine we will provide via OTA until you do, all 100% legal ( and only applicable to cable companies, which until the ruling Aereo wasn't one )


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

The first nationwide cable company?

Aereo could become the first nationwide cable company.

Franchise/territory agreements wouldn't apply?


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Let them pay the retransmission fees then

I would support them being a real cable company if they would pay the retransmission fees. With ad revenue dropping due to the bad economy and commercial skipping at an all time high (hello DISH hopper!) the TV stations and networks need the retransmission revenue even more.

So sure, let them play, and pay.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to IPPlanMan

Re: The first nationwide cable company?

I'm pretty sure they WOULD apply. This means that people out in podunk would be stuck with their 50 cent local affiliates, and Utahans would be stuck with censored TV.


Kuro

@75.151.50.x
reply to fifty nine

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

The business model needs to change for stations and networks then. Customers are voting with their wallets that they don't want commercials and instead of changing the business model they just whine and try to get more invasive.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to IPPlanMan

Re: The first nationwide cable company?

Well if by nationwide cable company you mean one that only provides OTA channels. Which I am OK with.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Aereo could become the first nationwide cable company.

Franchise/territory agreements wouldn't apply?

They would have to negotiate carriage with every television station, and it may be hard to do that after they haven't made themselves very likable by the broadcasters.

They would also have negotiate in EACH market, so nationwide coverage seems unlikely. However, if they see themselves as a cable company, they COULD negotiate for a few nationwide channels (think CNN, ESPN, etc), but seeing as a major company like Dish Network has a hard time getting that off the ground, I doubt that will happen. Aereo will probably continue to focus on the LOCAL broadcasters, and hope that there is at least 1 market with some stations that see this as a good thing.

Also: They would still have to apply the regional sports blackouts, if they apply if they are a cable company. In the north-east it gets a little iffy, especially in areas where multiple states border, and there are many teams. As a broadcaster, you can't do anything about that, as you can't stop the signal at the state line, but cable companies are required to black out per zipcode. Now, on broadcast networks that isn't a HUGE deal as most sports are on cable specific regional sports networks, but with Football on the main networks, there may be some crossovers. But that is for them to figure out.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Kuro

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

said by Kuro :

The business model needs to change for stations and networks then. Customers are voting with their wallets that they don't want commercials and instead of changing the business model they just whine and try to get more invasive.

Cable tried that, and except for a few premium channels not enough people will pay enough to support the cable plant.
The fees charged for premium channels barely pay the content owners demands let alone operation and profit to the network and local stations.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Kuro
The model is changing. Game of Thrones is on HBO, which doesn't have any commercials.

But you're dreaming if you think that the pittance you pay the cable company for your cable subscription is going to cover the cost of running a TV station and providing programming.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

I would support them being a real cable company if they would pay the retransmission fees. With ad revenue dropping due to the bad economy and commercial skipping at an all time high (hello DISH hopper!) the TV stations and networks need the retransmission revenue even more.

I never used to mind commercials, until it got to the point where a full one-third of every program was nothing but commercials. But even that wasn't enough for them, they had to add popup banners on the bottom of the image to squeeze in ads for other shows (and in at least two instances, ads for third-party products). But even that wasn't enough for them and they had to take product placement to a ridiculous degree. Do I really need to hear a character call their car a Prius every single time it appears on the screen??? Do they really expect me to go out and buy a new car because a character in a TV show is ramming it down my throat? If anything, I would make sure not to buy a Prius just because the product placement pissed me off.


Kuro

@75.151.50.x
reply to fifty nine
Then they scale back content/raise prices and find the balance that works. Maybe not have a large portion of it riding on commercials. Maybe some things need to die and people lose their jobs, a shocking thought I know.


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS
reply to fifty nine
There are no commercials on Netflix..... They are hardly a 'TV' station, but it seems to cover their costs. In fact they have enough left over called profit, and that's after their own original programming.
--
Cord Cutter Hauppauge DTV Tuner Card PlayOn.tv Hulu.com Netflix.com Windows Media Center Guide.
Here's how »homes.yahoo.com/news/how-to-pay-···275.html


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Sadly, Even If The Ploy Works...

...we're gone. Tried a new kind of antenna, and it reduced weather-related disruptions to a bearable level. Now experimenting with an OTA DVR solution. Once I have that nailed-down, we'll be good.

All with no recurring fees whatsoever.

TBH: Aereo was just "okay," for us. Startup was slow and the UI kind of clunky. The device kept pestering us to turn down the resolution, and the stopping at the end of a program as annoying. The only thing it had over the solution we have now is an Android app, but they never got so far as to make that available on the version we have on our phones, so we never really used it.

I wish them well, but we won't be back.

Jim

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA
reply to fifty nine

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

said by fifty nine:

The model is changing. Game of Thrones is on HBO, which doesn't have any commercials.

It's also $15-$20 a month for ONE channel.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
reply to Kuro
said by Kuro :

Maybe some things need to die and people lose their jobs,...

Just so you get it cheaper?
Maybe if you don't like the price you do without?

Your sense of entitlement is shocking.


Kuro

@75.151.50.x
The first thing I said was that they may have to raise prices on consumers and lower content costs till they find a happy balance. If such a balance cant be achieved then yes stuff is going to have to change.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to davidc502
Netflix is somewhat like a better JoeTV basically selling those reruns that the content provider CHOOSES to release.
It's the current version of a video store without the expense of all the bricks and mortar or vending machines and direct customer service/cashiers they can offer more...until the next round of liesnceing hits and the content PROVIDERS/PRODUCERS demand more $ for themselves.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to guppy_fish

Re: A "Surpreme" can of worms ...

I read Aereo's claim, and it is interesting. The Supreme Court seems to have declared Aereo a cable company. Section 111 - »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/111 seems complicated. Aereo may be able to continue as a cable company, which would be odd, in that it has no cables to any home.

I wonder if this couldn't return to the Supreme Court.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

smcallah

join:2004-08-05
Home
reply to IPPlanMan

Re: The first nationwide cable company?

They didn't even have nationwide service before, so don't jump to that conclusion yet.

smcallah

join:2004-08-05
Home

1 recommendation

reply to davidc502

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

But that's because Netflix doesn't send to every home 24x7x365, nor does it have a huge coax and equipment infrastructure to maintain. Nor does Netflix make housecalls if Netflix is not working.

If Netflix was streaming to your house 24x7, you can get it would cost more than it does now.

Comparing it to a cable company or teleivision station does not work in the least.

suggy2004

join:2004-01-07
Conshohocken, PA

Aereo's Plan B: Argue It's a Bonafide Cable Company

Have 2 options open:

1. Commercialized Less Money from the subscriber

2. Commercial Free More Money from the subsriber


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13
reply to tshirt

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

said by tshirt:

Maybe if you don't like the price you do without?

And doing without (which means NO $$$ coming in) prevents said job and content losses how exactly?


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

So sure, let them play, and pay.

The problem is the broadcasters do not want this model to survive. As such, if they will even negotiate at all they'll demand wholly unreasonable terms ensuring Aero will not survive. Just ask Intel what broadcasters think of OTT services.

/M

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to fifty nine

Re: The first nationwide cable company?

That's all Aereo provided anyway, right? They didn't offer NYC service to anyone. You had to live in the NYC area. Of course cousin Floyd in Topeka, KS could use Aunt Greta's Manhattan address to subscribe but that's similar to the problem satellite company's have with self-install kits.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to Skippy25
They don't provide any OTA channel nationwide, do they? To subscribe, don't you have to be in that area's OTA region? In other words, you cannot live in Detroit and subscribe to NYC Aereo. Each Aereo "cable company" would be very regional.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to suggy2004

Re: Aereo's Plan B: Argue It's a Bonafide Cable Company

How is #2 an option for Aereo? They record and time-shift existing OTA transmissions which already have commercials.


Plus One

@50.182.54.x
reply to IPPlanMan

Re: Rising from the ashes?

said by IPPlanMan:

Go Aereo!

Give up Aereo. Pay the fees to broadcasters or go away.


Plus One

@50.182.54.x
reply to fifty nine

Re: Let them pay the retransmission fees then

said by fifty nine:

I would support them being a real cable company if they would pay the retransmission fees. With ad revenue dropping due to the bad economy and commercial skipping at an all time high (hello DISH hopper!) the TV stations and networks need the retransmission revenue even more.

So sure, let them play, and pay.

I agree


Plus One

@50.182.54.x
reply to Kuro
said by Kuro :

The first thing I said was that they may have to raise prices on consumers and lower content costs till they find a happy balance. If such a balance cant be achieved then yes stuff is going to have to change.

Product placement within all shows is what that leads to. The show itself is embedded with products.