Fox TV 5 NY Going offf Air over tiny antennas

[rr60]

An internet start called Aereo up streaming NY broadcasters is shaking things up.

Fox and Univision threaten move to cable over Aereo's tiny TV antennas | Marketplace.org

 

[mkewman]

They seriously need to chill. Univision and one other big broadcaster have said the same thing. What they don't realize is that only 3,000 people in NYC use that service. The broadcasters all said the same thing about DVRs, VCRs, and a satellite receiver that skips commercials.

What they don't realize is, if they partnered with groups like this, they could make MORE money, and get people watching THEIR PROGRAMMING and therefore THEIR ADS more often.

It's this kind of shortsighted thinking that makes me want to vomit.

Remember when Radio stations wanted to SUE Sirius and XM and prevent them from getting together to compete? Now Sirius and XM transmit several terrestrial radio stations...

It's bad business.

 

[WB4CS]

Let me get this straight... In order to stop a few thousand people in NYC from using this service, the networks are threatening to pull their OTA signal and deny the countless people that use an antenna to watch OTA TV thereby making it impossible for them to watch (the advertisements on) the networks? Wouldn't that be called cutting off your nose to spite your face?

 

[Quickcall]

For those who are confused about how the service works...

 

[quarterwave]

Ok, the whole "Tiny antenna" thing is a gimmick...

They are doing what cable company's have always done, first with antennas of their own, and some now are getting it via fiber...to their head end, and then distributing it to their subscribers. The only difference here is the distribution is in the "cloud"....you use your tablet or phone to access your virtual set to box that provides your live or DVR'd content to that device.

With that said, the local broadcasters have successfully forced the cable companies to PAY them for that "Free" signal for years. Which, I have never understood anyway, if it is free to me on an antenna, what should my cable company have to pay them for it, then pass that charge on to me in the cost of my cable, so that I can view a free signal? Let's say I am too lazy to put up my own antenna or live where I can't and I am slightly out of range of my "martket's" TV channels....why are the broadcasters charging a fee to cable to push their signal where it didn't go before (or could not be received due to conditions or equipment limitations)....seems to me the cable company should be CHARGING the broadcasters to get on their lineup....if anything....but not the other way around.

Anyway...that's the way it is....so why is this delivery method any different? Perplexing, isn't it.

 

[jackj]

quarterwave is right. If a cable company has to pay the broadcaster in order to distribute the broadcaster's signal to the cable company's customers, why can "Tiny Antenna" do the same thing without paying the broadcaster? On the other hand if I can watch over-the-air TV for free then why would a cable company have to pay?

Another thing I don't understand is why I can't buy a stand-alone DVR for recording OTA TV. The only TV we watch anymore is OTA, got tired of paying my cable company $80 / month to watch 6 or 7 channels. A Tivo DVR is available but the programing is $25 a month. After much research I ended up buying a computer running Win7 and a TV turner card. Microsoft supplies the scheduling for free and the DVR app is included in Windows OS.

 

[radioman2001]

I think that's how it initially used to be, broadcasters paid cable so they wouldn't lose their audience. I remember the TV wars where a message would scroll across the bottom of the screen telling you you are going to lose this station signal unless the provider paid. I think they should have held out and let the FCC decide. The cable company had the option to carry it or not, and I think I should have the option to pay for it or not.
Personally, and maybe I should just do the same from my home, I wonder what the broadcasters would have to say about that. Then Aereo would lease me the cloud space to relay it, maybe without commercials if I use a DVR. Phooey on them pftttttttttt.

I like what jackj did, I'm thinking the same thing and drop my satellite provider, they keep raising the prices, not a high as cable and they play games with the packages.

 

[Quickcall]

Another thing I don't understand is why I can't buy a stand-alone DVR for recording OTA TV.

I think the general idea of this is to be able to watch TV on mobile devices such as ipod/ipad/kindle etc, not on a desktop or laptop PC.

Although i dont know if DVRs have the capability to sync to with portable devices. If thats the case then disregard.

 

[RadioDaze]

Am I missing something in all of this? Doesn't this constitute a "rebroadcast" of the content? I thought virtually every network prohibits this sort of thing without permission.

 

[AZScanner]

HA! Let 'em go off the air (literally) if that's what they want to do. Especially Univision - most Latino households watch TV over the air so they'd lose probably 50% or more of their audience to their competitor Telemundo who I'm sure would welcome Aereo viewers with open arms.

Reminds me of when I ran LiveTelevisionFeeds.com years ago. I got a nastygram from some VP over at Clearchannel who said he thought my website was a "neat idea" and then proceeded to threaten me with a lawsuit if I didn't remove nearly half the live news feeds from my site. I decided it wasn't worth the headaches and just shut it all down, but seeing this story makes me want to resurrect that site and tell the networks to get bent if they don't like it. Maybe I'll do that. Aereo has set an interesting precedent here - if the networks are putting their signal out there for free, they can't gripe about someone else grabbing that free signal and then not paying them for privilege of receiving it. I don't see how that wouldn't apply to video streams on the internet just as easily.

-AZ

 

[rdale]

Ok, the whole "Tiny antenna" thing is a gimmick...

They are doing what cable company's have always done, first with antennas of their own, and some now are getting it via fiber...to their head end, and then distributing it to their subscribers. The only difference here is the distribution is in the "cloud"....you use your tablet or phone to access your virtual set to box that provides your live or DVR'd content to that device.
.

Absolutely wrong. The cable system had one antenna and shared it with all subscribers. This system has an antenna for each user. It is a completely different setup than cable and it is not being sent through the cloud.

 

[rdale]

Am I missing something in all of this? Doesn't this constitute a "rebroadcast" of the content? I thought virtually every network prohibits this sort of thing without permission.

No, they aren't rebroadcasting, as the graphic shows. You pay them, and they buy an antenna for you. Then you get all the programming that your antenna receives, but get it online. Since "broadcast" by defaults means one transmission and many receivers, and this is one transmission and one receiver, it is not rebroadcast.

 

[AZScanner]

Am I missing something in all of this? Doesn't this constitute a "rebroadcast" of the content? I thought virtually every network prohibits this sort of thing without permission.

They can prohibit whatever they like but so far what Aereo is doing has held up in court. Just because you're some big huge corporation doesn't mean you can just make up your own rules and force people to abide by them. These corporations still have to abide by the law like everyone else and I find it funny that Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Disney and a bunch of other networks are getting their overlitigious asses handed to them in court by a tiny little NY based startup. Bravo, Aereo. Bravo.

 

[AZScanner]

No, they aren't rebroadcasting, as the graphic shows. You pay them, and they buy an antenna for you. Then you get all the programming that your antenna receives, but get it online. Since "broadcast" by defaults means one transmission and many receivers, and this is one transmission and one receiver, it is not rebroadcast.

Exactly. This is no different than hooking a Slingbox up to your own antenna and transmitting the signal to your own devices yourself. Aereo is just doing that for you and then charging you rent for the equipment and cloud space. Again, let them go off the air, I won't miss 'em. I rarely watch OTA TV anyway.

-AZ

 

[RadioDaze]

Okay, I see. Step #3 in the diagram above, which mentions recording, seemed like a red flag, but apparently it's the end users "own" recording.
If this system is serving users who would otherwise be cable subscribers, I'd think the cable companies would be more upset than the networks.

 

[producermatthew]

Remember when Radio stations wanted to SUE Sirius and XM and prevent them from getting together to compete? Now Sirius and XM transmit several terrestrial radio stations..

XM transmitted terrestrial radio stations at launch under a content partnership agreement with Clear Channel. Unlike Aereo with the broadcasters, Clear Channel was an investor in XM Satellite Radio. Eventually, Clear Channel dropped their terrestrial stations from XM and programmed their own. When the companies merged, Clear Channel returned some large market FM stations to XM, but they're not broadcast on the Sirius platform.

 

[producermatthew]

Am I missing something in all of this? Doesn't this constitute a "rebroadcast" of the content? I thought virtually every network prohibits this sort of thing without permission.

Yes, you're missing a few things:

1. As someone already pointed out, cable and satellite companies use one feed to retransmit content to their customers. Aereo uses a separate antenna for each customer that the customer leases. It would be as if you purchased an antenna from Radio Shack, left the antenna at Radio Shack, ran a long cable from Radio Shack to your house and paid a lease fee to keep your antenna at Radio Shack. The "long cable" in this case is a broadband internet connection.

2. Aereo's argument is that it does not charge customers to view streams. Instead, you must be in a specific geographic area to view streams. Aereo's argument is that it charges customers to (1) lease an antenna and (2) lease hard drive space for DVR functionality. TiVo charges customers for DVR functionality as well -- the difference is TiVo's hardware is local while Aereo's hardware is remote.

3. Aereo's argument that it does not charge customers to view content holds a little water. Aereo started off with just a few channels but has slowly added new channels (like Bloomberg) to its service without raising its fee for customers. Aereo may offer multiple tiers in the future, but it will likely have nothing to do with viewing channels -- instead it may be for additional features (like a third antenna for recording three programs at once, or larger DVR space).

 

[N4DES]

If they drop their OTA signal they would lose their FCC license as they would no longer be "serving the public interest" as by rule they must do a public survey prior to a renewal. No radiating signal then kiss it bye-bye.

 

[producermatthew]

If they drop their OTA signal they would lose their FCC license as they would no longer be "serving the public interest" as by rule they must do a public survey prior to a renewal. No radiating signal then kiss it bye-bye.

They're not going to go off the air. If FOX moves their terrestrial offerings to cable, their programming will likely find a home on either FX or FOX Soccer (which is becoming FXX, with FOX Sports programming moving to FOX Sports 1). FOX Network affiliates will likely become a "window shop" channel for their cable offerings with the hope that people will become hooked on a show or series and then sign up for cable or satellite to watch an entire series on FOX's cable channels.

News Corporation has used terrestrial window shop channels effectively in other countries, and that's likely what will happen here. Affiliates won't be terribly happy -- they'll have to beef up their local programming, syndicated programming and local news offerings to make up for lost revenue from lost viewership. But if FOX carries out on their threat to move programming to cable, it won't be because of Aereo.

 

[rdale]

If they drop their OTA signal they would lose their FCC license as they would no longer be "serving the public interest" as by rule they must do a public survey prior to a renewal. No radiating signal then kiss it bye-bye.

Lets say they do (they won't though.) Why would they need an FCC license if they are no longer on the air? Cable only channels don't need one, do they?