Aereo Presses Pause, Adopts New Strategy - Page 2 - AVS Forum
1  2
Latest Industry News > Aereo Presses Pause, Adopts New Strategy
atmusky's Avatar atmusky 04:13 AM 07-17-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Aren't negotiations for internet streaming rights often separate from negotiations for cable TV retransmission rights? Does a local station even have the legal right to put the syndicated programs that it airs out onto the internet?

I think cable TV and the internet are completely different. If Aereo truly had a cable TV distribution set-up, then it would be a cable company. But it's not. It's an internet streaming company.
Well the supreme court said they were a cable company. But yes delivering live OTA broadcasts via cable and the Internet use different tech but the end result is the same providing a live stream to your home of OTA channels; just like the tech for Satellite and cable is different but same end result. Oh and it is pretty much the same tech being used by AT&T U-verse.

atmusky's Avatar atmusky 06:24 AM 07-17-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
I disagree.

Aereo is making a big show of trying to be the crusader against "Big Media" in order to garner support in their favor. They're appealing purely to public sympathy in order to provoke some sort of appeasement from the networks.

Further, I suspect this was their goal all along: to sneak in the back door as a new cable company and become just another Comcast or Time Warner.

There was no way they were ever going to survive selling OTA access at $8 a month. They wanted subscribers to multi-channel content beyond that where the real money is. They knew the networks would sue and they new that it was going to be over retransmission fees. Win or lose, they needed a decision that validated a pay model. What they needed was a court decision that gave them permission to be a cable provider, bypassing the blocks that other MSOs would try to put up in their territories.
I assume they are just like any other company and doing what they do because they believe they can make money doing so. Competition is good for consumers so anything that adds competition in this space is good for consumers. In my opinion it would be great for both consumers and Aereo if Aereo could offer offer traditional cable programing, perhaps this is how we will get to an actual A la cart cable option - I could see HBO allowing Aereo to resell their service and I can see lots of people interested in being able to just buy individual premium channels.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV 01:13 PM 07-17-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post
I assume they are just like any other company and doing what they do because they believe they can make money doing so. Competition is good for consumers so anything that adds competition in this space is good for consumers.
The problem is, consumers want a lot of things that aren't profitable for the companies who make the products or violate their ownership of those products. If consumers could stream everything (live TV - including all sports - or delayed material) over the internet for $8 a month, it would be great for the consumers, but there's no way the companies producing the material could do so on those margins without resorting to massive cost-cutting measures that would cheapen everything.

The fact is, what pays for TV and movies is the higher price that some people pay to "watch it sooner", be it on cable/satellite or in a theater in the case of movies. Streaming, right now is only additional revenue and is no where near able to replace traditional revenue. Aereo can't survive at "traditional revenue" pricing because once they get as expensive as cable, you might as well just get cable and get the discount on the broadband.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post
In my opinion it would be great for both consumers and Aereo if Aereo could offer offer traditional cable programing, perhaps this is how we will get to an actual A la cart cable option - I could see HBO allowing Aereo to resell their service and I can see lots of people interested in being able to just buy individual premium channels.
Except you're assuming that those content companies would sell their channels to Aereo ala carte, which is the only way Aereo could sell them ala carte to the customer. I think you're dreaming if you think they wouldn't end up with the same bundling as cable and satellite currently do.

In other words, Aereo isn't going to be offering a channel like ESPN without the other ESPN channels, The Disney Channel, Disney XD, ABC Family and ABC network. They aren't going to be offering Nickelodeon without MTV, VH1, Spike, TV Land, BET, Comedy Central or the other Viacom channels. They also won't get NBC without all the properties owned by Universal or Comcast.Try getting Fox without FX, FXX, Fox Sports 1 or Fox Sports 2.

HBO gets the money they do because people have to buy a package of channels just to be allowed to pay for it. If they negotiated a deal with Aereo where people could just buy HBO without 20 other channels, they would get a ton of pushback from the cable and satellite companies. It's the reason why Go isn't available without a cable or satellite subscription.
veedon's Avatar veedon 08:30 PM 07-17-2014
Does anyone know the answer to the question of whether local stations have the legal right to put syndicated programming that they did not produce themselves onto the internet? I mean, can a local station that shows "Ellen" or one of the other popular daytime shows just go ahead and put the show on the station's web site?

I don't think so. I think the show's production company would have to give permission for that.

The internet is just not the same thing as cable TV or satellite TV retransmission.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV 10:54 PM 07-17-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Does anyone know the answer to the question of whether local stations have the legal right to put syndicated programming that they did not produce themselves onto the internet? I mean, can a local station that shows "Ellen" or one of the other popular daytime shows just go ahead and put the show on the station's web site?

I don't think so. I think the show's production company would have to give permission for that.

The internet is just not the same thing as cable TV or satellite TV retransmission.
Ironically, no they can't.

In other words, Aereo was attempting to do something the stations themselves wouldn't be allowed to do.
atmusky's Avatar atmusky 08:31 AM 07-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Does anyone know the answer to the question of whether local stations have the legal right to put syndicated programming that they did not produce themselves onto the internet? I mean, can a local station that shows "Ellen" or one of the other popular daytime shows just go ahead and put the show on the station's web site?

I don't think so. I think the show's production company would have to give permission for that.

The internet is just not the same thing as cable TV or satellite TV retransmission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Ironically, no they can't.

In other words, Aereo was attempting to do something the stations themselves wouldn't be allowed to do.
Aereo isn't attempting to place OTA broadcasts or content "on the Internet'. They are attempting to do exactly what cable & satellite companies do - rebroadcast the OTA channel's stream to subscribers. They are also providing a back end DVR (versus renting you a front end (in the home) one that cable & Satellite companies provide). Aereo wants the US Copyright Office to consider them a cable company and issue them a license so Aereo can pay the same royalties to stream content from local stations as the cable and satellite companies do. So far it isn't working out well for Aereo the Supreme Court decided Aereo's service is a cable system but the US Copyright Office says Aereo can not be licensed as a cable company under their current regulations.

Regardless if someone has any interest in Aereo's service or not it is in the consumers best interest that competition is increased in this space. Without increase competition (or very strong Government over-site) all consumers will get is more of the same - higher prices, poor service, & no innovation.
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 10:14 AM 07-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post
Aereo isn't attempting to place OTA broadcasts or content "on the Internet'. They are attempting to do exactly what cable & satellite companies do - rebroadcast the OTA channel's stream to subscribers. They are also providing a back end DVR (versus renting you a front end (in the home) one that cable & Satellite companies provide).
Pretty much. While the technology used and means of delivery are slightly different, the Supreme Court decision clearly equates Aereo's business model to that of a cable company as far as copyright law goes, what constitutes retransmission, and the definition of a "public performance". They made it clear that it doesn't matter if you use a single feed and distribute it or individual feeds for each end user, if you provide contemporaneous access to copyrighted content to more than 6 people or even to any 2 people who are not related and do not know each other then you are retransmitting or creating a public performance of said work. Doing so, without the copyright owner's permission, is infringing on the copyright owner's rights, regardless of whether or not you charge people for it and whether or not the end user could have gotten that same content for free, by another means.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV 01:07 PM 07-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post
Aereo isn't attempting to place OTA broadcasts or content "on the Internet'. They are attempting to do exactly what cable & satellite companies do - rebroadcast the OTA channel's stream to subscribers.
The point I was making was that for the broadcast stations to make their content available online for viewing on computers, tablets and phones, it would require them to violate their distribution agreements with the content owners. Aereo does this by default since their service is essentially device agnostic.

That's what I was referring to.

That's why any attempt by the stations to stream their broadcast would require blacking out portions of it they don't have online rights to.
veedon's Avatar veedon 06:12 PM 07-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
The point I was making was that for the broadcast stations to make their content available online for viewing on computers, tablets and phones, it would require them to violate their distribution agreements with the content owners. Aereo does this by default since their service is essentially device agnostic.

That's what I was referring to.

That's why any attempt by the stations to stream their broadcast would require blacking out portions of it they don't have online rights to.
OK. But what about a traditional cable company, such as Comcast? When Comcast secures retransmission rights for a local station on one of the Comcast cable systems, does that automatically allow Comcast to put the station's feed onto the internet for use by Comcast subscribers?

And what about security? Isn't it easier for pirates to steal programming from an internet-based system than from a traditional cable system?
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 10:33 PM 07-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
OK. But what about a traditional cable company, such as Comcast? When Comcast secures retransmission rights for a local station on one of the Comcast cable systems, does that automatically allow Comcast to put the station's feed onto the internet for use by Comcast subscribers?
No. Content providers generally don't just agree to allow a broadcaster to do whatever they want with their content. The agreements that are made when negotiating the rights to the content are very specific about what method of delivery the broadcaster may use, what markets they may broadcast that content in, etc. If a cable company wants to provide access to copyrighted content online then they would have have to specifically negotiate for that right.
veedon's Avatar veedon 10:29 AM 07-19-2014
It sounds as though securing streaming rights could be very expensive for Aereo.
olyteddy's Avatar olyteddy 10:53 AM 07-19-2014
Aereo is not 'putting TV on the Internet'. They are streaming TV via IP. The feed is digital just like CATV & OTA. The feed is real time just like OTA & Cable. NO difference. When I watch Under the Dome (in real time) on ComCast I see the same commercials as if I was using an antenna. Same with Aereo. My options to watch it time shifted are also the same. I can PVR it or watch one of these after the fact feeds:

I really don't see a difference between Aereo and 'traditional' CATV. I believe they should be subject to the same fees and regulations (or lack there of ) as CATV is.
veedon's Avatar veedon 02:20 PM 07-19-2014
Paying money for an ad-free experience? That's terrible. Let's have some egalitarianism. No DVRing and no paying to avoid commercials. Let everyone, rich and poor like, watch commercially supported TV or public television.

And watch those commercials, for crying out loud! The commercials are good for you, and they're what pays the bills to keep local stations in business.
CinemaAndy's Avatar CinemaAndy 03:32 PM 07-20-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by porpie View Post
Yes, the airwaves are supposed to be free to RECIPIENTS, because the broadcasters are buying those licenses from the public. Anything owned by the government is supposed to be owned by the public, by the way.

The history of cable companies reveals a bit of irony when looking at what has currently happened with Aereo. In its infancy, cable simply retransmitted OTA broadcasts directly into homes, allowing homeowners to remove rabbit ears or the rooftop antenna, paying the cable company for privilege of tidying up their roofline.

end.
Your own post supports what i have said all along. Aereo did the same thing in the 2010's the cable companies did in the 1970's. They took free OTA content and redistributed it for a fee. The cable companies were making a killing, and not paying the OTA networks a penny. Same thing for Aereo.

And another thing, most if not all, of broadcast netwoks news and shows can be viewed for free at places like,

www.ABC.com
www.NBC.com
www.CBS.com
www.PBS.com
etc,etc,

So WHY pay for content that was free to viewers from the start? I do not think it is a secret commercials pay for the whole OTA thing.

Another point not made, is how do you think Walmart, Sears, Target, GM, Ford, etc, had to say about spending millions on commercial fee's to OTA's to show there content and to have the likes of old school cable companies or Aereo charge a fee that INCLUDES there commercials?

Either satellite or cable up, or put a antenna on your roof, or stream them from the source.
olyteddy's Avatar olyteddy 05:20 PM 07-20-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Your own post supports what i have said all along. Aereo did the same thing in the 2010's the cable companies did in the 1970's. They took free OTA content and redistributed it for a fee. The cable companies were making a killing, and not paying the OTA networks a penny. Same thing for Aereo.

And another thing, most if not all, of broadcast netwoks news and shows can be viewed for free at places like,

www.ABC.com
www.NBC.com
www.CBS.com
www.PBS.com
etc,etc,

So WHY pay for content that was free to viewers from the start? I do not think it is a secret commercials pay for the whole OTA thing.

Another point not made, is how do you think Walmart, Sears, Target, GM, Ford, etc, had to say about spending millions on commercial fee's to OTA's to show there content and to have the likes of old school cable companies or Aereo charge a fee that INCLUDES there commercials?

Either satellite or cable up, or put a antenna on your roof, or stream them from the source.

Not 'free'. Those sites require you to watch commercials. You can not fast forward or ad-block them. They also don't show until a day or two later.

I'd imagine a sponsor would love to have as many eyes as possible see their ads so I'd have to say they'd welcome Cable and Aereo playing these ads for free...
CinemaAndy's Avatar CinemaAndy 09:41 PM 07-20-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
Not 'free'. Those sites require you to watch commercials. You can not fast forward or ad-block them. They also don't show until a day or two later.

I'd imagine a sponsor would love to have as many eyes as possible see their ads so I'd have to say they'd welcome Cable and Aereo playing these ads for free...
Yes it is FREE. If it was not for commercials there would be nothing, commercials pay for the whole show, you think Glee or whatever is shot and broadcast for free? The only getting it for free is you, over the air.
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 08:03 AM 07-21-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Aereo did the same thing in the 2010's the cable companies did in the 1970's. They took free OTA content and redistributed it for a fee. The cable companies were making a killing, and not paying the OTA networks a penny. Same thing for Aereo.

And another thing, most if not all, of broadcast networks news and shows can be viewed for free at places like,

www.ABC.com
www.NBC.com
www.CBS.com
www.PBS.com
etc,etc,

So WHY pay for content that was free to viewers from the start? I do not think it is a secret commercials pay for the whole OTA thing.

Another point not made, is how do you think Walmart, Sears, Target, GM, Ford, etc, had to say about spending millions on commercial fee's to OTA's to show there content and to have the likes of old school cable companies or Aereo charge a fee that INCLUDES there commercials?
I don't follow your logic. You start out by equating what Aereo was doing to what the cable companies did in the 70's. I was not aware that cable companies ever retransmitted OTA broadcasts without paying the network studios for the right to do so. If true, this merely makes the cable companies look more like hypocrites for being plaintiffs in a suit against another company who was doing the same thing. Regardless, the cable companies do pay the network studios for the right to retransmit their content now. If Aereo is going to continue to exist, they will have to do the same.

As for why people choose to pay for a service like Aereo, I think that is rather obvious. They either don't get decent reception of their local channels where they live or perhaps they just prefer the features that come with an Aereo subscription, such as the ability to record what they want and watch it later on just about any device, from their TV to their computer to their phone. It's far cheaper than the alternatives from cable and satellite companies. It's less complicated for the end user than a do-it-yourself OTA DVR system and has a much lower start-up cost. It beats streaming direct from the networks for a variety of reasons. For one, it includes all of the programming you get via. OTA, rather than just selected episodes of selected shows. It includes sporting events which are not available to stream from the major networks. To stream those, you typically need a subscription to a service that has the rights to stream it. And it's a different service for each sport/league. While an annual subscription to a service like NFL Sunday Ticket gets you more games than you can watch OTA or thru a basic cable/satellite subscription, and works out to be pretty reasonable if you look at it from a price per game point of view, the subscription fees start adding up if you watch more than one sport and/or watch both professional and college games. They are more geared towards the sports enthusiast who is willing to pay a lot to get virtually unlimited access. They are not really geared towards the person who just wants to watch their local teams play, but has difficulty picking up one or more of their local OTA stations.

As far as companies who pay to have their commercials aired on OTA broadcasts go, I imagine that they would actually welcome the increased viewership of their commercials brought about by the expansion of OTA broadcasts to people who might not have been able to get them previously. Aereo's service does not automatically skip or remove commercials. So, from that standpoint, it is no different than using any in-home DVR set top box. I wonder if the networks are able to track how many people view their programming thru a service like Aereo. If not then the adoption of services like Aereo could actually benefit advertisers since they could negotiate lower rates for getting their commercials on network channels, due to the lower official viewership numbers that the OTA networks would have, despite the fact that there might actually be more total viewers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Either satellite or cable up, or put a antenna on your roof, or stream them from the source.
For the record, I am a DirecTV subscriber. That said, not everybody cares about all of the extra channels you get with a cable/satellite. If you only intend to watch your local network stations then the subscription fees charged by cable and satellite companies are significantly overpriced. Not everyone can put an antenna on their roof (e.g. apartment dwellers) and some people still can't pick up all of their local stations even with a rooftop antenna. Streaming from the source would be a great option if it offered half of the features and all of the content that a service like Aereo gets you, and if you didn't need to use a different app/website for each channel to do so. In a perfect world, an external service like Aereo would never have existed because the networks would have implemented all of the features Aereo offers themselves.
CinemaAndy's Avatar CinemaAndy 02:52 PM 07-21-2014
[QUOTE=HockeyoAJB;25915553]I don't follow your logic. You start out by equating what Aereo was doing to what the cable companies did in the 70's. I was not aware that cable companies ever retransmitted OTA broadcasts without paying the network studios for the right to do so. If true, this merely makes the cable companies look more like hypocrites for being plaintiffs in a suit against another company who was doing the same thing. Regardless, the cable companies do pay the network studios for the right to retransmit their content now. If Aereo is going to continue to exist, they will have to do the same.

Cable and satellite providers said the same thing, "If we have to pay to show OTA content, Aereo has to pay."

I don't see how or why everyone is making this into rocket science. The rulings, the lawsuits, what the Supreme Court ruled, is as plain as black ink on white paper.

The Supreme Court in its 6-3 decision ruled last month that Aereo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals.

What more do you need?
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 03:40 PM 07-21-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Cable and satellite providers said the same thing, "If we have to pay to show OTA content, Aereo has to pay."

I don't see how or why everyone is making this into rocket science. The rulings, the lawsuits, what the Supreme Court ruled, is as plain as black ink on white paper.

The Supreme Court in its 6-3 decision ruled last month that Aereo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals.

What more do you need?
With regards to the ruling the Supreme Court made, I think most have a basic understanding of what their ruling means for Aereo (though fewer people actually seem to understand exactly how they reached the decision they did, why it wasn't unanimous, and what ramifications the ruling will/won't have in related cases).

I don't see many people arguing whether or not Aereo should have to pay retransmission fees in this thread. That debate was mostly covered in previous threads. What I do see in this thread is a discussion of what Aereo's next step might be, whether or not they should call it quits, and what the future of broadcast television should/will be. Those are all topics that are worth discussing and don't require us to go back to debating whether or not Aereo was breaking copyright law.
veedon's Avatar veedon 06:19 PM 07-21-2014
The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that under the current regulations that interpret and apply existing law, Aereo does not qualify for a compulsory license.

So, in order to survive, Aereo will need action by the FCC, Congress, or a federal court to change things.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...717-story.html
CinemaAndy's Avatar CinemaAndy 01:27 AM 07-22-2014
Aereo should just call it quits, they had a fun run, it's over with now, pack up and go home.
thehun's Avatar thehun 01:19 PM 07-24-2014
I don't think it was "fun" for them, looking at their abysmal subscriber count I doubt if it they made back their initial investment.
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 02:12 PM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by From the L.A. Times
In a letter to Aereo, the Copyright Office told Aereo that because it is not regulated as a cable system by the Federal Communications Commission, it does not qualify for the license. "We do not see anything in the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Broadcasting Cos v. Aereo Inc. that would alter this conclusion."

The FCC launched a proceeding in 2012 to determine whether services such as Aereo should be regulated as cable systems but as of yet there have been no rulings. If the FCC did find that so-called over-the-top services like Aereo were to be regulated as cable is, that would mean broadcasters could demand fees for carrying their TV stations.


The Copyright Office did say that because Aereo has also put the issue before federal court in New York, it will accept Aereo's filings on a provisional basis.


"Aereo should be aware that, depending upon further regulatory or judicial developments, and/or based upon the Office's own further review of the issue, the Office may subsequently determine that it is appropriate to take definitive action on Aereo's filings, which could include rejection of the statements," the letter said.
Aereo is not completely done, yet. There is still the matter of the appeal they made to the federal court in New York, regarding the possibility of gaining a compulsory license. There is also the possibility that Congress could grant the FCC he authority to regulate over-the-top services. If that happens then the technicality preventing Aereo from obtaining a compulsory license goes away.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV 06:39 AM 07-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
Aereo is not completely done, yet. There is still the matter of the appeal they made to the federal court in New York, regarding the possibility of gaining a compulsory license. There is also the possibility that Congress could grant the FCC he authority to regulate over-the-top services. If that happens then the technicality preventing Aereo from obtaining a compulsory license goes away.
But then what?

There's no obligation for any company to make a deal with them - and if they don't, there's no product and no business model anyway.

Further, let's say they manage to get retransmission deals done in some of the major cities. The problem is, the pipes they use are owned by companies that provide multi-channel TV services of their own, such as cable or the telcos. Do you really think there won't be some "rate shaping" going on for Aereo's content to make it less appealing to potential cord cutters?

Finally, let's say all the above goes well. They're now a cable company and the major networks and content providers come to the table. What kind of deals are they going to be able to make that doesn't involve them having to buy in to package deals that require them to offer every single channel that the media companies want offered in return for access to the local stations. If Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV with all their clout can't say know to all that stuff, why should Aereo be any different?

The fact is, the broadcast channels in major markets are owned by massive media companies that use those channels as leverage to get carriage for all their cable channels. Now that Aereo wants to be a cable company, I'm not sure they can make a deal for just the broadcast channels.
HockeyoAJB's Avatar HockeyoAJB 09:48 AM 07-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
But then what?

There's no obligation for any company to make a deal with them - and if they don't, there's no product and no business model anyway.

Further, let's say they manage to get retransmission deals done in some of the major cities. The problem is, the pipes they use are owned by companies that provide multi-channel TV services of their own, such as cable or the telcos. Do you really think there won't be some "rate shaping" going on for Aereo's content to make it less appealing to potential cord cutters?

Finally, let's say all the above goes well. They're now a cable company and the major networks and content providers come to the table. What kind of deals are they going to be able to make that doesn't involve them having to buy in to package deals that require them to offer every single channel that the media companies want offered in return for access to the local stations. If Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV with all their clout can't say know to all that stuff, why should Aereo be any different?

The fact is, the broadcast channels in major markets are owned by massive media companies that use those channels as leverage to get carriage for all their cable channels. Now that Aereo wants to be a cable company, I'm not sure they can make a deal for just the broadcast channels.
If Aereo is issued a compulsory license and the networks refuse to negotiate with Aereo at all then either the FCC or the court could order an arbitrator to become involved to determine a fair deal. If that were to happen then the deals that the networks have in place with the existing cable, satellite, and OTA broadcast stations would likely be used as a blueprint.

That seems like a long shot, considering the government doesn't typically issue compulsory licenses unless it considers the benefits of granting the license to be of great import to the best interests of the American people.

Best case scenario for Aereo, as a company, is that they are eventually able to negotiate for the rights to rebroadcast the content of one or more of the major media conglomerates. Even then, I agree that they are unlikely to be able to negotiate a deal that includes only local network stations. They would likely have to pay for the whole bundle and, as a result, would have to sell customers similar packages to what the cable/satellite companies currently offer. They could not afford to pay for the rights to rebroadcast a slew of channels and then offer their customers a discounted rate on local network channels only.

This is why I think Aereo isn't just in this fight for the money. The opportunity to really make money on this venture pretty much disappeared when the Supreme Court ruled against them in the previous case. The longer they persist in this battle, the more it appears that their CEO actually believes in the principles he avowed during the original court case...to offer consumers a better way to obtain and watch the content they desire at a reasonable rate. It looks like the ultimate goal is still a long way away and may not be realized during Aereo's lifetime. They have certainly raised public awareness of the fact that there are better solutions than those that currently exist.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV 02:04 PM 07-26-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
If Aereo is issued a compulsory license and the networks refuse to negotiate with Aereo at all then either the FCC or the court could order an arbitrator to become involved to determine a fair deal. If that were to happen then the deals that the networks have in place with the existing cable, satellite, and OTA broadcast stations would likely be used as a blueprint.

That seems like a long shot, considering the government doesn't typically issue compulsory licenses unless it considers the benefits of granting the license to be of great import to the best interests of the American people.
I doubt that will happen because if it did, the broadcast lawyer dogs would then build a case that negotiating with Aereo could hurt their relationships with existing distribution outlets (I'm not saying it actually would, just that the lawyers would argue it). At the very least, such a case could tie things up long enough for people to completely forget Aereo ever existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
Best case scenario for Aereo, as a company, is that they are eventually able to negotiate for the rights to rebroadcast the content of one or more of the major media conglomerates. Even then, I agree that they are unlikely to be able to negotiate a deal that includes only local network stations. They would likely have to pay for the whole bundle and, as a result, would have to sell customers similar packages to what the cable/satellite companies currently offer. They could not afford to pay for the rights to rebroadcast a slew of channels and then offer their customers a discounted rate on local network channels only.
The only thing they could potentially do is offer the smallest possible tier for lifeline service that would still potentially be less than lifeline service through cable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
This is why I think Aereo isn't just in this fight for the money. The opportunity to really make money on this venture pretty much disappeared when the Supreme Court ruled against them in the previous case. The longer they persist in this battle, the more it appears that their CEO actually believes in the principles he avowed during the original court case...to offer consumers a better way to obtain and watch the content they desire at a reasonable rate. It looks like the ultimate goal is still a long way away and may not be realized during Aereo's lifetime.
I don't buy that at all.

This isn't a crusade on some principle for the people. Their only interest is finding some way to still make money out of all this. That's why they're trying to get a compulsory license: they still think they can get the upper hand in the end.

Barry Diller isn't the good guy here. He's an opportunist. He only continues down this path because he thinks he can still pad his wallet down the road.

Barry Diller is like a Robin Hood that steals from the rich, then sells the spoils to the poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
They have certainly raised public awareness of the fact that there are better solutions than those that currently exist.
That I agree with.

The problem is, there's a right and wrong way to go about it. Aereo chose the wrong way.

We can all hope this will spur the networks and media companies to at least start a shift toward new media options, if nothing else, to head off future attempts to do similar things.
veedon's Avatar veedon 04:30 PM 07-26-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
We can all hope this will spur the networks and media companies to at least start a shift toward new media options, if nothing else, to head off future attempts to do similar things.
Looking back at things, I'm not sure that the TV industry has ever truly come to grips with what the relationship between broadcasting and the cable/satellite service providers should be.

When cable TV originally got started, it mostly served areas that could not get reliable OTA reception, and at that time the cable systems did not carry much programming other than the local stations. So, the local stations, the broadcast TV networks, and the companies that produced the TV shows had no reason to fuss about not being paid for retransmission rights. From their point of view, the cable companies were actually expanding the viewership of the programs that the local stations were broadcasting, and the advertisers liked that.

It was really only when cable TV started offering programming that was not available OTA (and started using that to draw viewers away from antennas, even in areas where OTA reception was easy) that the broadcasters began to see cable TV as a competitive threat. If a viewer no longer had an antenna, and if it was just as easy for the viewer to watch something other than the local stations on the cable system, then the broadcasters figured (quite rightly) that being on a cable system was playing on a much tougher field than when everyone had an antenna. So it was natural for the broadcasters to seek some compensation in the form of retransmission rights payments. Congress agreed with the broadcasters, and broadcasters became reliant on those payments.
WS65711's Avatar WS65711 07:32 AM 11-21-2014
Tags: frontpage
1  2

Up
Mobile  Desktop