Aereo Set to Expand to New Markets
Will Launch in Most Major Markets By 2013
Fresh off of their first legal win against the broadcast industry
, local channel streaming operation Aereo says they'll soon be expanding their service outside of their original New York City pilot market
. “Within a year and a half, certainly by ’13, we’ll be in most major" (sic) markets, says Aereo's Barry Diller -- who originally founded the Fox network. The company, which offers a $12 platter of over the air signals to users who have cut the cord or get poor antenna reception, has beaten back a broadcast injunction but still has a long legal battle against the broadcast industry ahead. “One of my friends at a large broadcaster said you succeeded in dropping my stock 2 percent," Diller said. “I did think we were on the right side of this, and I’m happy the judge agreed with us."
Re: Why stop with broadcast channels?
said by CXM_Splicer:Don't confuse your desire for a "versatile viewing experience" with content owners' desires to bundle more channels than people want for more money than people want to spend and then forcing the responsibility of negative customer experiences off on the content distributors.
Content aggregators can make deals with programmers to provide a much more versatile viewing experience than the too big to take a chance giants.
said by CXM_Splicer:I seem to remember at least one attempt at racking a bunch of Slingboxes and selling access. I don't believe it turned out favorably.
If they started adding additional not-over-the-air programming, I think it would tend to muddy this model which is already on shaky legal ground.
Re: Finally As usual, you can thank Congress. Back in the late '80s/early '90s, the cable companies were upset because "must-carry" was forcing them to carry every broadcast station in their markets. OTOH, the broadcasters felt that, if the cable companies were going to make a profit from carrying the local stations, the broadcasters should see some of that money. The cable companies responded that it wouldn't be fair to make them pay for stations that must-carry forced them to pick up. So Congress created a compromise: if a station chose to be carried under must-carry, then it couldn't charge the cable company, but if it opted to try to charge (retransmission-consent), then it lost the right to demand must-carry. Of course, now only the smallest stations opt for must-carry, since the larger ones want their piece of the pay TV pie.
And we, the consumers, get screwed.
Re: Finally Yeah, I agree. This is not some abstract concept around the fact that broadcast from local stations is OTA and there's no charge to receive their signal. This is business. The local station business model is revenue = advertising + retrans fees.
Aereo breaks their model in two ways. First, as subs move off cable/satellite to Aereo, cable/sat viewership goes down, and retrans fees are negotiated down. Second, the Aereo subs are not measured by the ratings services, so overall ratings go down, which reduces ad rates the local station can charge.
A responsible venture that wanted to stream local stations would recognize the local stations as partners and negotiate a deal. Aereo instead basically gave a big "F U I'm going to take your signal for nothing, sue me" to their "partners". So guess what, they're being sued. Surprise.
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
| Umm.. your argument wouldn't hold up in court. You can't get a court to rule on what YOU say they're doing. To say that someone is charging for something is your opinion. The cable company can say "it's included at no charge".. who are you to get into the mind of subjective and say what is what? They very well could not have line itemed or even factored a profit on locals at all.. but YOU want to apply the argument that "everything is for profit".. intent comes to play here and it's easy to say that unless they're pushing locals, that their intent was to actually provide it at no charge and that they're just piping in what everyone already is entitled to for free. Maybe in the days where locals on cable WAS a valued service for lack of reception, you'd have an argument.. but it's not always the case. This kind of subjective argument has always bugged me because YOU can't get into the mind of another and say what they're actually thinking.|
And if you dropped the locals, I don't think you'd see a defection per say. There are many people that don't watch locals any more. Further, it's the PROVIDERS that have the power of competition because THEY can use satellite to encourage a defect to those that wanted it. However, if you recall, satellite LONG charged $5 for locals too. The only difference is that they let you opt out of locals.
I can't believe you're sitting here supporting screwing over the population. If locals want to charge and make a profit for their product, then they should give up their spectrum. They benefit just as much, and actually MORE by being on cable now that they got the mafia, I mean the giverment, I mean GOVERNMENT to give them this leverage against the cable industry.
Also, I call BS to your "they just added back in the cost they now lost" argument. Before this happened, a basic tier 1 connection in Sacramento CA, as an example, was $7.95 which included 29 channels of service. This was the late 80's when cable TV first started for that market. Seems to me that $7.95, even in that time period, was more kin to a "basic connection charge".. even the power company at the time was charging $6.50 just to be connected to the network, power used or not. There is a basic cost to have a home connected to maintain the system and provide customer service etc. I really don't think cable was making a fortune on the product. They DID benefit from it to a degree by the fact that consumers WANTED locals to come in clear. Many customers got cable for locals because they didn't want to maintain an antenna or simply couldn't get locals. (See the history of the first cable setup in the U.S.) Also, at the time, I can assure you that you got a MUCH clearer picture by using an outdoor antenna to that of traditional cable TV service.
It wasn't until the broadcasters figured out a way to raise revenue that it became an issue for them. Further, cable could argue that more people saw their signal making them more relevant in the market place.. either way it doesn't matter, because it's the consumers that get to now pay for something that's already free.
Re: Finally Nielson ratings have become less and less relevant since they can no longer accurately represent and count the number of viewers or the quality of the shows(because they use such a small sample size now). Honestly, in the age of internet shows, the ratings system is now completly useless because users can rate shows on the fly, and if one sucks, you will see that. Seriously, I could do without the local broadcast channels, because there is literally nothing of value on them anymore. All the crappy "idol" shows, talent shows, and ad filled sitcoms and dramas? Nothing of value would be lost if broadcast TV went away. Hell, even the news on the TV is no longer reliable because its broadcasting the bias view of the sponsor who paid the most(gotta please those sponsors and get more money!), so, the days of unbias news is long gone. Seriously, the internet is the better place for news now, since if its not showing one side of the argument, you can usually find it very quickly. Broadcast news is less fact based now, and more about the light in which its played to sway "viewers". Its garbage all around, and as content companies continue to produce crappier content, they continue to try and abuse the consumer by charging more for it. Cord cutters are real, and the only reason Nielson(or anyone) claims differently is because they want to keep their stock prices up, and allay the fear that the money train is coming to its last stop. In a few short years, i suspect that Nielson will be out of business because they will become totally irrelevant in doing anything(since they do not rate online content, and anything online is usually viewer rated with instant feedback, which defeats the market swaying power Nielson has).
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
Re: Finally The answer to your question comes with the study of human behavior and thinking... And as for ratings, again, they're numbers that say a lot and don't really mean a lot. American Idol, by the way, touts every episode that they've gotten "a record 250 million votes!" ... (just for example)... but think about it, while impressive, that 250 million also accounts for the fact they let each person vote 10 times per method. There are 300 million people in America.. all but 50 million have note voted. So basically I see that 250 million figure as 2.5 million votes because if 1 vote is really 1/10th of a vote, I'll give them the lowest count possible. Numbers can be what they want them to be.
The fact of why they carry them is because they want to be able to bring into the home services that will fit anyone's needs and it does include the locals. And, since the cable solution (and satellite) available doesn't have a readily easy way to insert a local antenna feed into the cable box, a customer having to switch inputs and settings doesn't sit well with a lazy and stupid average American that can't be bothered to do so.. so they make it EASY for them to have access to the content that they already largely have.
The answer to this debate is of the chicken and the egg... who gets more benefit? the cable operator or the broadcaster? .. it seems rather simple, it's mutually benefiting. The broadcaster gets to have more access to homes with viewers.. the cable companies can say "your locals are included"...
Broadcasters changed the landscape and got ass hurt when they cried foul to someone making a profit on their work. The problem is that they ADDED revenue to a non-business line in the first place that never existed. Yet, I can tell you, local advertising rates on local television remain among the highest form of advertising. I'd think with all that extra revenue they now have that advertising rates are no longer necessary.
Think about it. Broadcasters are making out like bandits. They need to either accept they are pay network and go that rout, or give up revenue and stick with their spectrum.. I think having it both ways is BS.. and with that I want the option to NOT be forced to take and pay for something I can already get for free. Until that Tier 1 buy through goes away I'm going to lay blame directly at the feet of the GREEDY broadcaster.
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
| I've long said the same thing. Access to the public airwaves has always been free in this country. We don't charge an antenna tax like some countries. And we don't allow broadcasters to charge the citizens for the signal. Well, the must carry rules were a gift to the broadcasters right from congress.|
I see some dual standards here. The broadcasters are complaining that their ratings are being hurt and that it hurts their income. Ummmm.. they get a pretty penny per customer from pay TV subscribers already. Did they not argue that along side their neilson gripe? .. no, of course not. I also find it wrong that locals should not be FORCED on pay tv customers at the entry point because subscribers, like me, not only don't want the locals or watch them, I still pay for them because I don't HAVE A CHOICE in the matter. I still believe that if pay for carry is in order then they should be forced out of Tier 1 basic and placed in an alacart tier called "locals" OR sell them ala cart period.
Second, if a TV provider is currently receiving more than 50% of their revenue from subscribers, or more so, if more than 50% of the population is paying for locals via forced buy through, then they should not be able to require payment for their signals at all because it SHOULD be deemed that it's over the air viewership, in the modern day. Let the local carriers use their ratings books all they want. But as I see it, when they've been legislated the ability to charge for their signals, they don't need to have their ratings any longer.
Further, these ass-hat broadcasters also not only charged for their SD feeds, they also charged additional to carry their HD feeds. I think the locals should be removed from the spectrum if they want to make money in the pay TV world, or get the hell out of Tier 1 basic.. Further, I also see this pay for locals as a reason to also unilaterally end the need to transmit them in the clear on tier 1 nationwide.
The local broadcasters have been screwing the citizens for a few decades now.
Re: Finally They do, but not all. DirecTV in Detroit still pulls off-air for HD, fiber for SD. Charter pulls HD for all out of Milford, MI, and then crops to 4:3. In smaller markets, a lot more pull off-air.
If and only if the local broadcasters give up the spectrum, then they are on par with all the other networks and are in a position to ask for for per-subscriber fees. But right now, they're sitting on pretty much an exclusive franchise that is worth a considerable amount of money. And they spew their nonsense into the air for free.
I'm paying the cable/satellite company for the convenience of not having to dick around with multiple feeds and an off-air antenna. The idea that even if I have made that investment (and I have) and can receive the stations over the air, the fact that I'm billed for it annoys me. These people have come up with a new revenue stream off the very companies that are bringing the eyeballs. How I get there should be of no concern to these parasites.
I am surprised that the cable and satellite companies haven't told the locals to go pound sand on their sub channels. It's either we carry it for free, or do without the viewers.
The whole model is wrong. As programming quality descends from bad to downright stupid, I'm willing to pay for less of it.
By the way, I worked in TV related businesses for 15 years. The term "parasites" used above is an endearment toward programming, sales and general management.
Re: Exciting Development
said by WiseOldNerd:Oh stop with the hyperbolic gubment bashing. Media and other corps have too much influence over Washington, not the other way 'round.
Citizens of the USA unite you have nothing to lose but the government applied chains.
Re: Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission
said by civicturbo:Only if your iPhone/pad/pod is there controlling the Roku (says their FAQ). Authentication + geo-location, guesses me.
Just went to their website, says they support Roku too!
Re: Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission
said by FFH:Horrible spew of words that explains practically nothing about the service. Author is selling his rant more than anything else and makes him look like a punk.
Here is a writeup that explains everything wrong with Aereo.
What Aereo has: ease, mobility, PC-TV convergence. There's definitely a market: busybody apt dwellers wanting the easy recording then pause and resume of their shows as they move around town. Read: youth.
I'm not defending Aereo. Too many unknowns to make it a good investment: legal + unknown size of market + a gambling that either bandwidth continues it's cost slide or that, in the end, they won't have to 1-to-1 stream discrete copies of everything.
They're going in with pure HTML-5, a costly transition from Flash that everyone is dragging their feet on. Might be Aereo aims to become a distribution sub-contractor for the networks and/or license their technology.
Repeating myself, it is difficult to accept that what we know about Aereo is the entire business model. That's not the same as them being stupid.