  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
Simba7
Member
2013-Apr-10 10:42 am
Let 'em..I'm sure KTVQ would love to sue the piss out of them.. along with several other stations.
..not to mention the droves of viewers that would love to curb stomp the crap out of them. | |
|
 |  Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:26 |
Re: Let 'em..Another point to tag on: The Advertisers helping to fund the networks and stations will start pulling support too. Less eyes = less potential for revenue. Right? | |
|
| | | |
hey hey hey
Anon
2013-Apr-10 11:48 am
Re: Let 'em..said by Smith6612:Another point to tag on: The Advertisers helping to fund the networks and stations will start pulling support too. Less eyes = less potential for revenue. Right?
lack of an OTA option doesn't seem to hurt ESPN, USA, TNT and dozens of other cable networks when it comes to advertisers. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Let 'em..Exactly. Aren't only like 10% of viewers OTA? And supposedly the Gov't says they're shrinking all the time AND mostly NOT in the 18-54 demo. | |
|
| | | |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
Oh_No
Member
2013-Apr-10 2:15 pm
Re: Let 'em..said by fifty nine:Exactly. Aren't only like 10% of viewers OTA? And supposedly the Gov't says they're shrinking all the time AND mostly NOT in the 18-54 demo.
I am in the 18-54 demo and I canceled cable when they took my bill from $55 a month to $105 a month with no added channels. I have been cable free for over a year now. I use OTA and netflix. Nothing was ever on when I wanted to watch TV. I dont miss cable at all and I save $105 a month. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Let 'em..What exactly do you find worth watching on OTA TV? | |
|
| | | | | |  antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 ·Time Warner Cable
|
Re: Let 'em..said by Happydude32:What exactly do you find worth watching on OTA TV?
For me, local news, Simpsons, finals games (NBA and Super Bowl), Grey's Anatomy, Apprentice, Family Guy, American Dad, Arrow, etc. | |
|
| | | | | | |  r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 10:06 pm
Re: Let 'em..Dont forget PBS.
They have specials, This old house, motorweek, and nova. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Let 'em..said by r81984:Dont forget PBS.
They have specials, This old house, motorweek, and nova.
I doubt PBS is going anywhere. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | |  Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21 |
to fifty nine
+2 OTA viewers in the 18-54 demographic. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Let 'em..+3 on OTA, we suspended DirecTV for 6mos and we're not gonna miss it. Most stuff on cable is a bunch of reruns anyway. Why pay for reruns when I have netflix? | |
|
| | | | | | antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 ·Time Warner Cable
|
Re: Let 'em..said by millerja01a:+3 on OTA, we suspended DirecTV for 6mos and we're not gonna miss it. Most stuff on cable is a bunch of reruns anyway. Why pay for reruns when I have netflix?
+4 for most of my life. In east coast, my parents and I had to get cable due to the location. | |
|
| | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
to Smith6612
said by Smith6612:Another point to tag on: The Advertisers helping to fund the networks and stations will start pulling support too. Less eyes = less potential for revenue. Right?
Aereo allows people to watch their OTA tv easier by leasing an antenna. Aereo is allowing a TV station to get more eyes on their OTA broadcast, thus that means more potential for revenue. If anything they should be praising Aereo for brining in more eyes to their channels through leasing equipment. | |
|
| | | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:2 |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 2:14 pm
Re: Let 'em..Networks like the rest of the entertainment industry are not capable of logical thought.
Also how can CBS itself pull OTA? The networks do not really own any of the affiliates, And unless the network changes the contract to prohibit OTA they cannot stop their content from hitting the airwaves. | |
|
| | | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Let 'em..said by Kearnstd:Networks like the rest of the entertainment industry are not capable of logical thought.
Also how can CBS itself pull OTA? The networks do not really own any of the affiliates, And unless the network changes the contract to prohibit OTA they cannot stop their content from hitting the airwaves.
Actually, several of the networks do own local stations, which makes their threat of going cable even more lame. They would kill their own businesses. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Let 'em..said by JakCrow:said by Kearnstd:Networks like the rest of the entertainment industry are not capable of logical thought.
Also how can CBS itself pull OTA? The networks do not really own any of the affiliates, And unless the network changes the contract to prohibit OTA they cannot stop their content from hitting the airwaves.
Actually, several of the networks do own local stations, which makes their threat of going cable even more lame. They would kill their own businesses. They can just do it in the select markets that Aereo is in. Doing it in NYC alone where all the stations of the big 4 are O&O would pretty much kill Aereo. | |
|
| | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX  ·AT&T U-Verse
|
r81984
Premium Member
2013-Apr-11 7:16 pm
Re: Let 'em..It would also piss off all the OTA watchers and their congress persons.
Aereo will not have many users at all in terms of all OTA users.
Maybe a 100 people per city if lucky.
Everyone else will just watch OTA on their TV for free instead of paying a crazy amount of money to lease equipment from Aereo to watch OTA on their cell phone.
Aereo only lasts until cell phone manufactures catch up with the times and start having HDtv tuners in cell phones like in other countries. | |
|
| | | Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:26 |
to Oh_No
That's what I meant though. Fox will likely lose some advertising support if they start yanking their channels from Aereo, regardless of how much of a grey area Aereo's service may be when it comes down to the traditional method of broadcasting. | |
|
| | |
to Simba7
I say I wish it so !!! Fuck the MAFIAA ! The Dinosaur can go extinct and I will not miss them one bit.
100+ Years of Copyright Maximalists.................Love to see these people gone and buried. | |
|
| | |
jfleni to Simba7
Anon
2013-Apr-10 6:28 pm
to Simba7
What they are saying is: We will take a rusty old fish knife, a bowl of hot water and some soap and do a Brazilian wax job on ourselves!
Please, please televise it! | |
|
 IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Aereo should have to payI'm sure broadcasters would not be suing if Aereo would negotiate a retransmission agreement and pay for the privilege of retransmitting the broadcaster's signals. Cable and satellite providers pay for retransmission rights to broadcasters to carry their signals on their systems.
I'm for the broadcasters on this one. | |
|
| Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
Simba7
Member
2013-Apr-10 10:59 am
Re: Aereo should have to payFine.. Then the broadcasters can feed a direct line from their offices to Aereo so they have a perfect signal.
..or stream their HD feed directly to Aereo. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by Simba7:Fine.. Then the broadcasters can feed a direct line from their offices to Aereo so they have a perfect signal.
..or stream their HD feed directly to Aereo.
That's what cable providers get currently. | |
|
| | | | |
ptb42
Member
2013-Apr-10 1:32 pm
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by fifty nine
That's what cable providers get currently.
[/BQUOTE :Not necessarily. Some cable operators pick up the signal from an antenna, and retransmit it to all of their customers.
The difference (according to the court) is they are redistributing it to multiple customers. Aereo is effectively renting a small antenna to you -- an individual one for each customer.
I don't know how a community antenna for an apartment complex is different than retransmission by a cable operator. Maybe the "must carry" rules make that distinction. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by ptb42:said by fifty nine
That's what cable providers get currently.
[/BQUOTE : Not necessarily. Some cable operators pick up the signal from an antenna, and retransmit it to all of their customers.
The difference (according to the court) is they are redistributing it to multiple customers. Aereo is effectively renting a small antenna to you -- an individual one for each customer.
I don't know how a community antenna for an apartment complex is different than retransmission by a cable operator. Maybe the "must carry" rules make that distinction.
Yes, I know that some pick it up OTA, but a lot of them get direct fiber feeds. We have direct fiber feeds for our local O&O stations going to cable providers. | |
|
| | | | |
to fifty nine
No, not always. Charter in my neck of the woods gets it right off the air. The SD analog feed is a center cut version of the HD signal.
I am certain Charter is not alone in this. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by desarollo:No, not always. Charter in my neck of the woods gets it right off the air. The SD analog feed is a center cut version of the HD signal.
I am certain Charter is not alone in this.
Jeez, I did not say ALL of them do it this way ALL of the time. Yes, some get it OTA but some get direct fiber feeds. | |
|
| silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to IowaCowboy
Aereo is using the 1 antenna per customer loophole. I see no reason cable companies couldn't do the same. | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 4:45 pm
Re: Aereo should have to payHow? They would have to stream individual streams via IP, as you can't make a QAM channel for each house... This This is really what the networks are afraid of, but for now, it's a pipe dream. Do IPTV or SDV, and it could work, however. | |
|
| | | |
to silbaco
said by silbaco:Aereo is using the 1 antenna per customer loophole. I see no reason cable companies couldn't do the same.
How many millions of antennas would say, comcast or cablevision have to have? | |
|
|
1 edit |
to IowaCowboy
To me, these restransmission fees shouldn't be allowed in the first place. These broadcasters were given the allotted OTA channel for FREE. The broadcasters are only mad because they can no longer get DOUBLE $$$ of not only advertising money, but also retrans fees on their FREE OTA channel.
This just puts a damper on the retrans $$$. If they want to reap the benefits of retrans money, they they should have to PONY UP $$$$ to pay for that FREE OTA channel they were given.
Once they do that, then they may have my sympathies. Till then, I say go pound sand. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Aereo should have to payThey don't get the channel "FREE" they have to pay a license fee.
Also, they have to give back by fulfilling certain obligations such as E/I and EAS alerts.
Also, retrans consent only became an issue because the CABLE COMPANIES sued to end must carry. Prior to them suing, they got to carry all stations in a 50 mile radius FOR FREE. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by fifty nine:Also, retrans consent only became an issue because the CABLE COMPANIES sued to end must carry. Prior to them suing, they got to carry all stations in a 50 mile radius FOR FREE. While retransmission consent and must-carry are distinct and function separately, they are related in that commercial broadcasters are required to choose once every three years, on a system-by-system basis, whether to obtain carriage or continue carriage by choosing between must carry and retransmission consent. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2 |
to IowaCowboy
If you put an antenna up on the roof and run a wire to your TV does that make you a 'cable company'? | |
|
| |
••••••••••• |
| Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:I'm sure broadcasters would not be suing if Aereo would negotiate a retransmission agreement and pay for the privilege of retransmitting the broadcaster's signals. Cable and satellite providers pay for retransmission rights to broadcasters to carry their signals on their systems.
I'm for the broadcasters on this one.
The problem is Aereo does NOT retransmit anything. Aereo is just a company that lease equipment. Aereo leases an antenna, HDTV tuner, DVR, and internet connection to paying customers. The paying customers can use their leased equipment to pick up the OTA tv signals in range of their leased antenna. Aereo customers are not retransmitting the signal either, they are converting to a different format to play on any device they connect to their leased equipment. | |
|
| | IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by Oh_No:said by IowaCowboy:I'm sure broadcasters would not be suing if Aereo would negotiate a retransmission agreement and pay for the privilege of retransmitting the broadcaster's signals. Cable and satellite providers pay for retransmission rights to broadcasters to carry their signals on their systems.
I'm for the broadcasters on this one.
The problem is Aereo does NOT retransmit anything. Aereo is just a company that lease equipment. Aereo leases an antenna, HDTV tuner, DVR, and internet connection to paying customers. The paying customers can use their leased equipment to pick up the OTA tv signals in range of their leased antenna. Aereo customers are not retransmitting the signal either, they are converting to a different format to play on any device they connect to their leased equipment. It would be ok if that antenna was on the same location as the end user (such as an antenna on an apartment building that the landlord leases to the tenants) but Aereo is retransmitting the signal from their facilities to the end user via the Internet so that technically requires them to obtain a retransmission agreement from the broadcasters. They should just settle and agree to pay retransmission fees to the broadcasters. Every other cable/satellite provider pays retransmission fees to broadcasters. Even Netflix pays licensing to the movie studios and content providers. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe in respecting the rights of intellectual property holders by using and obtaining their content legally. And even if the TV stations are ok with Aereo rebroadcasting their signal, their hands are still tied by the content producers. As for leasing an HDTV tuner, DVR, and antenna, I don't see that as being logistically possible. If they followed the one antenna per customer, there would be an awful lot of antennas on the top of their building. | |
|
| | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
Oh_No
Member
2013-Apr-12 1:54 pm
Re: Aereo should have to paysaid by IowaCowboy:said by Oh_No:said by IowaCowboy:I'm sure broadcasters would not be suing if Aereo would negotiate a retransmission agreement and pay for the privilege of retransmitting the broadcaster's signals. Cable and satellite providers pay for retransmission rights to broadcasters to carry their signals on their systems.
I'm for the broadcasters on this one.
The problem is Aereo does NOT retransmit anything. Aereo is just a company that lease equipment. Aereo leases an antenna, HDTV tuner, DVR, and internet connection to paying customers. The paying customers can use their leased equipment to pick up the OTA tv signals in range of their leased antenna. Aereo customers are not retransmitting the signal either, they are converting to a different format to play on any device they connect to their leased equipment. It would be ok if that antenna was on the same location as the end user (such as an antenna on an apartment building that the landlord leases to the tenants) but Aereo is retransmitting the signal from their facilities to the end user via the Internet so that technically requires them to obtain a retransmission agreement from the broadcasters. They should just settle and agree to pay retransmission fees to the broadcasters. Every other cable/satellite provider pays retransmission fees to broadcasters. Even Netflix pays licensing to the movie studios and content providers. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe in respecting the rights of intellectual property holders by using and obtaining their content legally. And even if the TV stations are ok with Aereo rebroadcasting their signal, their hands are still tied by the content producers. As for leasing an HDTV tuner, DVR, and antenna, I don't see that as being logistically possible. If they followed the one antenna per customer, there would be an awful lot of antennas on the top of their building. Actually no the length of cord is not regulated in copyright law. The length of your cord can be as long as you want. Your antenna can be miles away from you with a long cable to your house and it is legal. Aereo does not retransmit anything. Customer lease the antenna, tuner, and internet connection. The customer can only watch the OTA tv their leased antenna picks up. Their antennas are micro antennas, just a few cm per antenna printed on a circuit board. They can print hundreds of antennas on a circuit board. Then these antennas are place in very close proximity to the local OTA antennas so even when small they pick up a perfect signal. Each customer uses one antenna and one tuner. The antennas and tuners are not shared, there is no retransmission. | |
|
| | |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy: Cable and satellite providers pay for retransmission rights to broadcasters to carry their signals on their systems. Aereo formed their technology very carefully. They were not the first company to try and do this feat. They read through the court's objections to previous companies, and designed their product to avoid the previous legal objections. You can't argue a legal dispute by saying "you guys are just not being fair". | |
|
bshelly
Premium Member
join:2002-02-17
Conover, NC |
bshelly
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 10:51 am
They underestemate the # of cord-cuttersI'm sure the advertisers may have an issue with their ads reaching fewer households. These stations have become way too reliant on their retransmission income, IMO, they shouldn't be able to charge cable and sat providers to retrans their signal. After all, they are doing the stations a favor in allowing broader reach of their advertising. Screw them all. The big 4 have become irrelevant to me. | |
|
|
••• |
 juilinsandarTexas Gooner
Premium Member
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX |
empty threatsIf they really had the cojones to do it, they would do this during the start of the NFL season. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
Just me too
Anon
2013-Apr-10 11:12 am
Cool! More white space!!!Cool! More white space!!! | |
|
| |
Also...We couldn't win in court so we're taking our ball and going home to tell our mommies. | |
|
|
•••••• |
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 11:27 am
Not only CBSUnivision has also joined the club. | |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL |
SunnyD
Member
2013-Apr-10 11:41 am
The sad part about Empty ThreatsThose empty threats become rather real when the pockets of legislators get lined and they get fed the line, "Imagine how many people will all of a sudden be without broadcast content because of this one little company breaking the rules."
Except the rules aren't being broken by the little company, but rather the big incumbents (as usual), and the politicians stop listening at "How many dollars was that you just slipped into my pocket again?" | |
|
| |
The Millions......and millions of Americans who still use OTA only would not stand for this.
For that matter, nor would individual carriers and broadcast affiliates.
Empty threats from people who refuse to update their business model with the times. Aereo is not wrong: people want to watch media while they're on the move, not always when they're parked in front of the television.
The sheer success of Slingbox and similar devices, as well as Netflix and HBO GO more than prove this. | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
Would Anybody Actually Miss Fox?Who cares if Fox pulls its network content? There's nothing on their network that's worth watching, anymore, anyway.
CBS? Now that might create an upset. CBS, unlike Fox, actually has content. Good content.
But Fox? Okay. Bye.
Jim | |
|
| | |
Re: Would Anybody Actually Miss Fox?said by jseymour:Who cares if Fox pulls its network content? There's nothing on their network that's worth watching, anymore, anyway.
I'm sure the millions of people who watch American Idol and New Girl would disagree with you. | |
|
| |
Take away their broadcast license and spectrumThe networks broadcast their signal to users free of charge so they can maximize the number of viewers and get thier advertisers because of this. Aereo only helps them get more viewers in this model so I don't know why they're upset. If they have a problem with it, their broadcast license should be taken away and they can become a cable-only network. The broadcast spectrum they're using can also be reclaimed and given to somebody else. | |
|
|
••• |
·Verizon FiOS
|
cableties
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 12:33 pm
The stations will win, and here's why...» www.fcc.gov/spectrumSo Aereo wants to profit on converting OTA to packets and stream. They don't own the content, nor licenses for retransmitting (packetizing or streaming). Can of worms, open! I command you! | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
Ads are the problemAdvertising has been the driving force, the shadow government if you will, of TV since the beginning of TV. We used to have shows like the "so and so brand of cigarettes Variety Hour" and things like TV seasons scheduled around the time of year that new car models get introduced (this is why we have TV seasons at all).
TV networks and stations do only those things that are somehow related to advertising they can sell for money. They call it inventory: the ads they have to sell. The more people watch, the more those ads cost. Nobody really and truly knows how many people watch.
Ratings are a black art to it and at best you get an estimate which everybody sort of agrees to accept because that's the way it's been and nobody wants to be the one to lift up the skirt of TV ratings and find out that the skirt is actually covering a wooden table leg and not the shapely human legs they hope are there. As long as everybody agrees not to look, as long as they all agree that one person who is rated stands in for 10,000 of their neighbors, the TV people and ad people are more or less happy and go on their delusional ways.
The problem with things like Aereo is that it takes away the skirt and the illusory nature of TV ratings. Suddenly people will be watching who are not rated. If they are not rated, they don't count. If a lot of people do that, the networks and their stations can't bill for their ads like they want.
Right now, TV stations get away with saying things like "We are in a million homes!" but with Aereo it might be "Well, we know a hundred people watched that game show rerun. Hey buy an ad!"
The other problem is distribution. TV networks are just middlemen. They don't make most of the things they show. Production companies and studios make them. What would happen if, for example, you could buy the latest season of a show from Paramount or Sony? Who needs the network at all? Netflix is already doing this with their internal productions -technically Netflix is still a middleman but a lot closer to the source than an NBC affil might be- and Netflix is doing things like letting you have the whole season all at once. There's nothing stopping the networks from doing that. Except they want your eyes for 13 weeks, not 13 hours. They have no interest in doing anything in your interest. You are not the customer. You are the product. The advertiser is the customer. | |
|
| |
More white space?Take it off the air, we need the white space for internet access so we can stream it through Aereo.  | |
|
| |
Probitas
Anon
2013-Apr-10 1:46 pm
sillyThose same service they all complain about were free up until they forced people to ditch their old style OTA antennas and either get cable/sat or a new dish capable of HD, even if the broadcast isn't in HD. Those were free before, and no one complained then. So it would seem the 'upgrades' to broadcast weren't about giving customers better service but about reaching out to try and get paid from everyone who watches regardless. | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:2 |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Apr-10 2:05 pm
here comes piracy....They will kill off OTA and then complain when piracy jumps up on their most popular shows.
See right now they can state if you are in range and do not want cable just put up an antenna and get their shows for free. If they kill OTA they just gave pirates another leg to stand on.
Piracy may not be legal, But if a company makes no efforts to exploit all methods available they lose PR ground when fighting it.
Also Aereo is not deleting the commercials so the networks do not lose anything. | |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
Oh_No
Member
2013-Apr-10 2:07 pm
Leasing an AntennaHow can they have anything to complain about???
All Aereo does is lease an antenna, hd tv tuner, dvr, and internet connection for customers.
Customers can only use the leased equipment to watch the OTA tv picked up by the leased antenna.
Their bitching makes no sense. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
Can't innovate... litigateGo right the fuck ahead CBS/Fox. I don't pirate a single thing right now but I easily could start. You need to build a better mousetrap, not litigate someone else's mousetrap away. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
The way to get Congress to act...is the usual way for business - slip them money into the right pockets. After all, Congresspeople need the money for re-election campaigns. However, with cash becoming harder to hide, what do they do now for bribes? Put money into offshore accounts? bitcoins? Pay in drugs? Hookers? | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:2 |
Snakeoil
Premium Member
2013-Apr-11 6:52 am
IMO, they are going to do it anyhow.The broadcast networks want to get a little edgier. Meaning by going to basic cable level of channels, like USA, TNT, FX, SYFY. They can have swearing and nudity, something they don't seem to be able to do now, because of the FCC rules, and parents who'd rather the government censor content vs they parent.
Aero is just an excuse of them to do this sooner rather then later. | |
|
|
|
·
·
