dslreports logo
 story category
CBS Still 'Threatening' Internet Video Service if Aereo Wins

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. It's an empty threat designed primarily to try and get lawmakers to pass laws constricting Aereo, just in case CBS can't stop them in the Supreme Court.

Despite the fact that CBS has been resistant to change of any kind, another threat/promise they've been making for months is that if Aereo wins in the Supreme Court, they'll offer an over the top Internet video service. CBS CEO Les Moonves has been talking about this seemingly every day, and the Wall Street Journal this week quotes a source that says CBS has the potential to make it happen quickly:

quote:
Mr. Moonves hasn't provided details, but a person familiar with the situation said CBS has the ability to launch a service that would stream its programming over the Web simultaneously with its television broadcasts.

CBS would charge a few dollars a month and show ads, the person said. Such a service would also likely offer on-demand programming. It could include Showtime, the CBS-owned premium cable channel, which would increase the subscription fee, the person said. CBS would use technology company Syncbak, in which it owns a minority stake, to power streaming of local TV stations' signals over the Web, the person said.
It's worth remembering that Moonves is also on record stating that an Aereo win wouldn't technically hurt CBS financially at all, as they could simply offer such a service directly to users. CBS's threat simply isn't much of a threat, the worst case scenario would be more Internet video options, and a bevy of public airwaves that surely somebody, somewhere could put to good use.
view:
topics flat nest 

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Mnn hMn

People are simply in denial that these Networks will just sit idle with an Aereo "win". 24-7 infomercials , here we come. Maybe we'll get some Gilligan Island reruns and local News.

Brian_M
join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA

Brian_M

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

My initial thought is "who cares" But I'm a cable cutter. I don't watch anything on any of the OTA networks (can't receive OTA, tried Aereo and found that after 2 years I could no longer stomach commercials, not to mention the content was, err... lacking of content?)

I'm not the common consumer though. I know I'm a minority in this thought process. I believe that even if CBS yanked their content, owned up to the Gov for their actions and accepted the consequences that they are a Business who needs consumers. They only get paid if they have eyes watching their content (those eyes either pay for it out of their pockets, or through advertising).
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

greedy ass bastards

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to Brian_M

Premium Member

to Brian_M
said by Brian_M:

They only get paid if they have eyes watching their content...

Not true anymore. it's what carriage fees to the locals replaced...lower value commerials.
already neilson and other commercial valuation sources greatly discount web viewers as "likely not watching" and provide very low count numbers, because it is hard to count/determine what "they" see/ how many "they" is...if you can't count it, you can't bill for it.
This really adds nothing to those numbers and probably takes live and CABLE/satellite viewers away (the easiest to count because what the box is tuned to, and it's effectness can be documented. so it will actually lower viewership numbers/ratings= less eyes at a lower value.
like wireline telcos, or your cities printed newspaper, local broadcast is already marginal, and this maybe the final straw.
All the FCC rules to protect LOCAL content can't pay the cost of that business the broadcasts it.

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

said by tshirt:

said by Brian_M:

They only get paid if they have eyes watching their content...

Not true anymore. it's what carriage fees to the locals replaced...lower value commerials.

You may have hit on something, here...

Could it be the reason the offerings from the broadcast networks have become so... lame in recent years is because carriage fees have removed the incentive to compete? After all: Why spend time, money and effort on attracting viewers with quality content when you can shove just any old thing out there and somebody else will reimburse you with buckets of cash for carrying it?

Jim

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Mnn hMn

I think that is sort of reversed, Can no longer compete, is closer 30 years ago the big three had no competition for reruns or movie of the week grade productions so they could get the best scripts (for that level of work) cheap actors producers locations etc.
fast forward to hundreds of channels needing whatever content (filler) they can find. so NO channel has the ten best showsanymore.
HBO with all their extra income can squeeze out a short session of one or 2 shows (maybe 25 total episodes) really worth watching. showtime something similar and so on. it now takes a little bit of each 10-15 channels to assemble, a fully watchable schedule for the end user. This is what Cable and Satellite promised... 500 channels (and nothing is on) Content industry expanded to fill the void.
Also people have become more dependent then ever on TV/video. rather than going to a movie or play once a week and talking/thinking/daydreaming about that with the occasional TV show, its now the first thing people do in the morning , turn on the TV and let it run. But ask some one tomorrow EXACTLY what they saw yesterday and few really remember any detail.
This is the cream of wheat of entertainment, filling, something comfortable, but hardly thrilling, memorable or tasty.

Any way the FCC has mostly regulated to keep local content (primarily news/public affairs) alive so you now have a dozen "local" stations putting out minimal content (mostly promoting their own on air personalities)
but that little bit each produces doesn't equal a single good hour or 2 a week of in depth "Public Interest" watching (with "real" stories shunted to a 2 minute blurb on the local news, in between the "Human Interest" and sports crap.)

The system intent on saving actual local content actual homogenized it, and leaves a little Slurpee of goo instead.
waycoolphil
join:2000-09-22
Cathedral City, CA

waycoolphil to Brian_M

Member

to Brian_M
I'm with you Brian_M. I have grown to detest commercials. The only network shows I watch are the few worth watching that eventually get to Netflix. Now that Colbert will be gone from the Comedy Channel I will likely not renew my DIRECTV sub when it expires. It's not worth the money just for the Daily Show. Those are the only two shows with commercials I watch right now. I DVR them and fast forward through the commercials but I find it a disturbing pain in the you know what to have to do it.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

said by waycoolphil:

I'm with you Brian_M. I have grown to detest commercials. The only network shows I watch are the few worth watching that eventually get to Netflix. Now that Colbert will be gone from the Comedy Channel I will likely not renew my DIRECTV sub when it expires. It's not worth the money just for the Daily Show. Those are the only two shows with commercials I watch right now. I DVR them and fast forward through the commercials but I find it a disturbing pain in the you know what to have to do it.

That's over the top. These guys do need to make some money for the shows they put on, commercials are the way they do it. Take commercials out and get to an all pay to view system would be bad for all involved. Look at TV in some foreign country to see what is on......We get what we get because of large companies spending a bunch of money on commercials.. The Netflix model will not work for first run TV shows and movies.

This is a fluid situation and seems to becoming to a head this year and the next few years. I would like to change and I am a cord cutter but so how this stuff does need to make money.

Brian_M
join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA

Brian_M

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

I agree And disagree with you. For broadcast/OTA stuff I'm split, at one time they did make some revenue from commercials but now I'm sure retrans fees FAR eclipse that sum. BUT, when it comes to "cable"/premium channels, the consumer is ALREADY paying for the content. I was alive and old enough (High School/1988) to remember when my town in Wyoming had cable TV made available and my parents bought in. There were some commercials, but NOTHING like today. I think there were ~36 channels back then... mmmm, MTv when the M stood for Music.

You know, it's all a balance ~ make something worth watching, provide it for "free" to me and I'll not mind the commercials. The problem is that there's nothing Worth watching (for me, that I care anything about), so adding the commercials was just insult on top of injury. It's also why I put my money where my mouth is and canceled all TV delivery. It's not like I torrent much of anything either (Top Gear UK is the only exception I can think of), what little content we watch in this house comes from legitimate sources.

Anyway, like I said I'm probably not a good representation for the majority. Though I'm probably fairly average when it comes to those who have opted out of pay-TV. The cost to benefit ratio is just too low to justify.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Mnn hMn

Where they are losing me is with all the repeats. It feels like they only show original material during ratings months. If it is a top show they do two new episodes and then show three or four reruns. I am beginning to enjoy the On Demand Channel to watch the shows. I don't have to put up withe illegal screaming local car dealership commercials.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to Brian_M

Member

to Brian_M
I was in high school in the early 80's and remember cable coming to your street as a big deal. MTV, video jocks 24 X 7. Funny you said you don't do much torrenting except for Top Gear. LOL. I'm about the same. Netflix has back seasons of Top Gear but I just can't resist getting the day of airing on BBC2. Other then that I can wait. I just finished off watching Break Bad on Netflix. There's enough legal content out there to watch.

My other problem besides cost is I have young kids and what is on cable TV is to much sex and violence. There's a time period where the kids need to be fairly protected so they can figure things out for themselves as opposed to seeing some full on adult behavior. I don't them watch some story on some weirdo who is obsessed with Lord knows what and they make a TV show out of him. I did have the kids watch a few hoarders episodes. LOL> Daughter is a bit of a pack rat. LOL.
waycoolphil
join:2000-09-22
Cathedral City, CA

waycoolphil to Corehhi

Member

to Corehhi
What's over the top? It's how I feel and it's what I do. I could care less if people want to pay for hundreds of channels they never watch and then have to watch commercials on the ones they do watch. I'm doing that with DIRECTV (at least until my contract is up) and I'm more than willing to pay for what I watch. I will no longer pay for what I don't watch.
tabernak4
join:2013-08-10

tabernak4

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

That's essentially how I feel. I prefer the ability to watch shows when I want, even if they feel I need to pay $2-3/episode to buy them to watch the day after they air. Between doing that for a few shows, Hulu plus, Netflix and Amazon Prime, my costs are still ~50% what they were when I paid for cable. Also, I'm no longer supporting content I care nothing about.

I expect all the good shows/channels people enjoy to manage to keep the same profits they're already getting even if we switch models. What will suffer are the crap shows/channels they stuff onto cable/satellite so they can say they have 100's of channels that nobody cares about.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926
As long as it makes financial sense to keep broadcasting OTA, that's what they'll do. The fact that they're threatening to stop isn't really connected to Aereo, even though they want you to think it is. There's been speculation for several years about which network would be first to drop OTA broadcasts, and if there's been speculation, then you can be pretty certain it's being discussed in some network office. So, even if Aereo loses, it really isn't going to stop them from leaving broadcast distribution if they think it makes financial sense to do so.

Now, having said that, what would happen next? If the major networks pull the plug, that doesn't mean these stations will go dark. After all, most of them are owned by companies other than the networks, so they aren't going to simply turn off the transmitters and turn out the lights. They'll find other programming. Will it be infomercials? Yes, on some stations it will, but there's other programming they could look at. Some will pick up programming from the digital netlets, who would love the chance to get on stations with better coverage. Would some of the Canadian networks like to expand south? They might. You'll also likely see the return of the true independent station, many of which had more interesting programming than their network counterparts. Certainly, there would be a shakeout of weaker stations, but you might see some interesting programming come out of this.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

clone (banned) to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926
Give me freaking break. I'm sure there is some lip service in the FCC licenses that broadcasters must "serve the public interest". You will probably see CBS lose their licenses should they decide to take their ball and go home. That being said, broadcast is an extremely powerful and ubiquitous medium.

The ability to reach thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people in some areas from one central location, without the need for a complex infrastructure of networks and switches, without greedy middlemen (telcos) to degrade your connection on a whim, and you think no one will want to leverage that should CBS decide to get all pouty and give up?

Mr Guy
@charter.com

Mr Guy

Anon

Re: Mnn hMn

said by clone:

Give me freaking break. I'm sure there is some lip service in the FCC licenses that broadcasters must "serve the public interest". You will probably see CBS lose their licenses should they decide to take their ball and go home.

If CBS decided to become a cable network what would they need broadcast licenses for anyway?

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus to clone

Member

to clone
Yup, its a total bluff.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926
They'd have to pull Gilligan's Island off of MHz or MeTV ( or whatever that channel was). It was on last night... lol
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

clone (banned)

Member

Re: Mnn hMn

I'd rather watch Gilligan's Island than whatever crap the major networks are trying to pass as entertainment these days, anyway.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD

1 recommendation

devolved to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926
I'd rather watch shows like Gilligan's Island than the regurgitated reality TV and comedy garbage they put out these days.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32

Premium Member

Re: Mnn hMn

I'd rather watch content from this century that was actually shot in high definition and contains more then a 1.0 audio track.

All that old shit needs to go die in a vault somewhere. No reason to waste bandwidth and spectrum on some lame shit from the stone age.

el_huason
@verizon.net

3 recommendations

el_huason

Anon

Re: Mnn hMn

Said the man who loves to be brainwashed and turned into a lemming - all from the comfort of home

"Only two kinds of human beings can be trusted - dead and extinct. All others must be avoided at all costs" me.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

10 recommendations

Jim Kirk to Happydude32

Premium Member

to Happydude32
said by Happydude32:

All that old shit needs to go die in a vault somewhere.

Same could be said about you, my friend.

notsofast
@pacbell.net

notsofast to Happydude32

Anon

to Happydude32
Are you talking about the old movies with real dialog? Yeah, the crap nowadays that rely on special effects is sooo much better. They basically rehash the old stuff anyways.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32
said by Happydude32:
I'd rather watch content from this century that was actually shot in high definition and contains more then a 1.0 audio track.
Well you do realize that most of what was shot for TV was shot on something called

F I L M

»filmschoolonline.com/sam ··· 35mm.htm

And was higher in resolution than at the time the NTSC standard could even hope to achieve.

And your missing out on tons of much better content. From movies to shows. From Kiss Me Kate (Ann Miller), to Mister Ed to The Thin Man to Casablanca to The Doris Day show to Andy Hardy... I could go on and on and on and on and on..

Compared to the schlock in HD super 2000.200000 who cares. You know what most of what your getting from a good majority of the stations in HD is only 720p, 720p is the most common format of torrents. Yes if you search you can get 1080p versions, and even 720p w/x.y.. It still doesn't improve the content!
said by Happydude32:
All that old shit needs to go die in a vault somewhere. No reason to waste bandwidth and spectrum on some lame shit from the stone age.
No, you need to broaden your horizons. There is vastly more GOOD to FANTASTIC content from 1930 to 1969, than has been created from 1970 to today. And especially in the last 6-10 years. I've steadily went from having tons of shows on all the OTA networks, when there were only 3! To having hardly any on some, and in comparison with 4 (CW,ABC,CBS,Fox) there is still less to watch! Throw in sat channels and there is even more noise than signal.

You want lame, just look at the schedule for this year! Heaps, and heaps of steaming feces all over the schedule! Compared to years past.

Just look at the shows near the top of the list of any ratings list, and a good 80-90% I don't watch. And I am in that prime M/18-49 demographic that the outdated mediaogolpies just can't get their head out of.

I'd rather watch The Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3D with those hokey red/blue glasses, any day, any time. Especially when it is that or some stupid sportscrap or some reality crap like dorqvivor, or dorq race or gawd even that vile 2 vile girls, BLEEEEECHHHH! You know what TCM just ran THEM! At 3AM or something and that was probably one of the best airings I've seen of that in years.

And all of that stuff is in a vault. Most of the originals are stored in various salt mines in several locations around the US, due to climate. Some are stored in various film schools valuts in climate controlled environments.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Mnn hMn

That is why Star Trek TNG cleaned up so nice for Blu-Ray, It was original film stock that they used and merely updated the CG effects by running it through post again since they had the pre-effects film available.

Of course today the networks have no backbone and do not take risks, Why take a risk when you can run another season of Survivor.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05 to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32
said by Happydude32:

I'd rather watch content from this century that was actually shot in high definition and contains more then a 1.0 audio track.

FYI: Most, if not all of that stuff was shot on 35mm film which has a resolution well exceeding even 1080p.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32
Some of that old shit could be upconverted to HD if it was on film. Actually, the really old stuff was... The stuff from the 70s was recorded on BetaMax, and that quality isn't very good. I just want to watch good programming that is interesting, which there hasn't been a lot of in the HD era. It's gotten better for me lately though.

NickD
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ

NickD to ITALIAN926

Premium Member

to ITALIAN926
So basically if Aereo wins, CBS would launch its own service to compete with Aereo. That might be a good thing
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Call their bluff

We are already paying for the OTA over cable so the only people that will lose is OTA and Aereo customers. The airwaves can be better used for other transmission. It may finally bring about a kind of a la carte. They could be shooting themselves in the foot. I am sure the OTA crowd will let their Reps know when their channel disappears.

go for it
@optonline.net

go for it

Anon

Re: Call their bluff

They don't have to balls. Call the bluff.

P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium Member
join:2001-08-29
way way out

P Ness

Premium Member

Huh? help me understand

I put antenna on my roof. get networks free

put antenna on someone's else's "roof".. sent to supreme court?

huh?

is it because aereo is charging because they have a better Line Of Site then I do....and charging for the use of their "roof"?

if my neighbor charged me 10 dollars to use his roof would I get sued?

•••••••••

tmh
@verizon.net

tmh

Anon

I call...

I really hope they make good on their threat and Aero leaves. If the broadcasters stop broadcasting, that leaves a ton of bandwidth for wireless services.

••••

Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere

1 recommendation

Frank

Premium Member

wait a second....... didnt cable start out like this?

Cable TV started in 1948 when some guy who lived in a town with crappy reception built a giant antenna and charged people to connect to it via cable wiring.

Here we are some 60 some odd years later and aereo is trying the modern equivalent of the same thing.

How is this any different? Dont say 'because the networks arent getting a cut of the money' because up until 1992 they didnt get paid at all.
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL

Bob61571

Member

Re: wait a second....... didnt cable start out like this?

Frank.....GREAT POINT!!!

Aereo is sort of an updated 1970's cable company(only Aereo uses the internet to provide channels to its customers now). Back when we all first saw cable TV, we were all awestruck with how cool it was, that there were so many channels!! Of course, that was when my family could only get 4 channels(the 3 networks + PBS).
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to Frank

Premium Member

to Frank
said by Frank:

How is this any different?

Slightly different since each customer has their own antenna, not sharing the same one.

Cable atten
@optonline.net

Cable atten

Anon

Wow

First systems[edit]
It is claimed that the first cable television system in the United States was created in 1948 in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania by John Walson to provide television signals to people who bought sets from his appliance store in that town, charging $100 per hookup and $2 per month.[3] Mahanoy City was ideally suited for CATV services, since broadcast television signals could easily be received via mountaintop antennas and retransmitted by "twin-lead" or "ladder-lead" cable to the valley community below (where broadcast reception was very poor). Walson's "first" claim is highly disputed, however, since his claimed starting date cannot be verified.[4] The United States Congress and the National Cable Television Association have recognized Walson as having invented cable television in the spring of 1948.[3]

••••
mingkee27
join:2013-06-21
Brooklyn, NY

mingkee27

Member

please tell CBS...

...to yield up spectrum and shut down!
You CBS shut down OTA, and please RIH.

••••

Cthen
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

Cthen

Premium Member

They already lost with that statement

quote:
CBS would charge a few dollars a month and show ads
Looks like they intend to lose viewers if they decide to go the internet route. Not enough people will subscribe for them to even cover their costs to stream over the internet. There is already services in place that they just cannot compete with and they certainly cannot compete with those services offering more than what CBS has available on their network.

nonamesleft
join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI

nonamesleft

Member

Do it then see-bs

I ain't going back to pay tv.
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver

Premium Member

What's the big deal?

CBS is a business and if they want to add an over the top service, good for them. If they want to stop sending content to their affiliates (within the constraints of their legal agreements), good for them. Why is this a threat? It sounds more like a business plan to me.

WireHead
I drive to fast
Premium Member
join:2001-05-09
Muncie, IN

WireHead

Premium Member

Just a little snip

I'm never going back to cable. I don't watch TV anyway. Neither do my two kids. Internet from here on out.

The cableco's can deal with it or go extinct, and while their at it they can wish I cared.
RonSMeyer
join:2000-05-12
Saint Louis, MO

RonSMeyer

Member

Typical

They're all for capitalism until they actually have to compete. Then they go crying to the government and the courts to protect their business status quo. This is no different than the networks taking VCR's to court and Hollywood taking VHS tapes of their films to court in the 1980's. Hypocrites. Get off your morbidly obese corporate wallet and come up with something better to compete with Aereo. That's how you're supposed to do it in the U.S.
whoyourdaddy
join:2013-02-20
Honey Brook, PA

whoyourdaddy

Member

go ahead

go ahead cbs take you stuff off the air waves it will only make people cut the cord more and pirate more. I hate company's that have greed on their minds and I hope AEREO wins and if I pay for something I want no ads

SpottedCat
join:2004-06-27
Miami, FL

SpottedCat

Member

WTF!?

I don't get that these networks are fighting services that GET MORE PEOPLE WATCHING.

Aren't they always fighting for ratings anyway? WTF is the reasoning here? Some sort of need to CONTROL EVERYTHING even if it's to their benefit to be rebroadcast?

Is the world going mad?
15444104 (banned)
join:2012-06-11

15444104 (banned)

Member

Corporate Media Borg Aggorance!

Go ahead Viacom.
Pull ALL your programs from OTA.

There are VERY few worthwhile (QUALITY) shows on the major OTA networks anymore, and what little there is littered by so many ads that you don't get much actual program content.

It will be a shock when they leave and virtually NO ONE will care enough to pay for the programming.

I say good riddance to the sh*te that they offer up.

Mr Guy
@charter.com

Mr Guy

Anon

Re: Corporate Media Borg Aggorance!

said by 15444104:

Go ahead Viacom.

Viacom? You mean like Comedy Central, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon to name a few. Those Viacom OTA networks? Oh wait.....