CBS Joins Fox in Empty Threats, Pouting Over Aereo
Ploy Appears Aimed At Convincing Congress to Kill Aereo
Earlier this week News Corporation threatened to stop broadcasting Fox over the air
and place the channel on subscription cable if they lose their legal battle against Aereo
, which they claim violates copyright. Aereo is simply offering users the ability to get OTA broadcasts streamed via broadband for a small monthly fee, though this erodes the killing many broadcasters have been enjoying using retransmission fees. Negotiations over such rates have repeatedly resulted in blackouts for users
Not to be outdone, CBS this week joined News Corporation in pretending that yanking broadcasts off the air
is something they are considering -- though the company says they hope it doesn't come to that:
Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he "wholeheartedly supported what Chase said." CBS has already had some exploratory talks with cable operators about taking its local station signals off the air. "For now, we’re talking about the New York-Connecticut area," Mr. Moonves said, because that’s the only area where Aereo now operates. He emphasized that he does not want to go down that path, and said, "Frankly, we don’t think it will get to that point."
It's entirely unclear if broadcasters could even legally or contractually pull their broadcast networks off the air (and many, many people would love the added spectrum), making the threats rather empty. These coordinated empty threats appear to be a ploy to scare Congress into crushing a disruptive competitor by changing the law, something certainly within the realm of possibility given broadcasters' deep pockets and their past collective histories.
Given the hysterical and hyperbolic reaction from broadcasters to services like Dish's Hopper (which simply skips ads automatically) and Aereo (which simply delivers OTA broadcasts over broadband), you start to wonder just how ridiculous the broadcast industry will act when faced with something truly disruptive and innovative.
99 comments .. click to read
Mullica Hill, NJ
|reply to Oh_No |
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.
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
|reply to Smith6612 |
said by Smith6612:Aereo allows people to watch their OTA tv easier by leasing an antenna.
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 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.
|reply to bshelly |
Re: They underestemate the # of cord-cutters
Advertisers are the least of my concern.
I've been without ad supported programming at home for the last 6 years. I can't stand watching traditional programming with the ads. It's demeaning and offputting.
Instead of shoving CRAP in my face, just make good things that I'd want to buy based on it's quality and usefulness.
If it's not on Netflix, Amazon or available via disk. I just won't watch it. Easy enough.
As for this... If the content providers who own Hulu would stop worrying about what will happen if they make Hulu work like every consumer on the planet wants it to there will just more more companies like Aereo looking to fill the gap of people looking to watch (with Ads) but can't get the OTA broadcasts, or can't/won't pay for Cable/Satellite.
Or people will stop watching or pirate - As far as content providers, advertisers and Server providers are concerned Piracy and not watching are the same to their bottom line so why don't they want to keep people hooked up to the media teat by any means necessary?