Could networks lose carriage fees for OTA programming.
http://wapo.st/1l1B5Yy


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I really don't understand this:

Quote:The repercussions for the entire broadcast model could be massive if Aereo wins in court. It could mean the NFL’s Thursday night games on CBS could get streamed to the subscribers of Aereo, for example. That could force CBS to take its live shows off the broadcast airwaves and charge only for Internet streaming.

So, they're taking something you can get free over-the-air anyway and streaming it to their subscribers? How is that costing cable company viewers? And they are still watching a CBS feed, so they still see ads, correct?

I do see how this could severely damage the NFL Sunday Ticket, if people can watch local games from any market they choose.

But the high priced deals with the cable companies (Monday Night Football, the Thursday games on NFL Network) would seem immune... and the deals with CBS, Fox and NBC are broadcast over-the-air for free anyway... so... I think it's a much bigger issue for DirecTV than anyone else.

(06-18-2014 06:58 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I really don't understand this:

Quote:The repercussions for the entire broadcast model could be massive if Aereo wins in court. It could mean the NFL’s Thursday night games on CBS could get streamed to the subscribers of Aereo, for example. That could force CBS to take its live shows off the broadcast airwaves and charge only for Internet streaming.

So, they're taking something you can get free over-the-air anyway and streaming it to their subscribers? How is that costing cable company viewers? And they are still watching a CBS feed, so they still see ads, correct?

I do see how this could severely damage the NFL Sunday Ticket, if people can watch local games from any market they choose.

But the high priced deals with the cable companies (Monday Night Football, the Thursday games on NFL Network) would seem immune... and the deals with CBS, Fox and NBC are broadcast over-the-air for free anyway... so... I think it's a much bigger issue for DirecTV than anyone else.

i don't understand how aero could possibly be in violation of copyright. if an individual were to put up an antenna to get their local stations its no problem. then why is it a violation to pay someone a monthly fee to put up an antenna for you?

for sports the nfl is the only one with a dominant presence on OTA channels, so it makes sense they are the league most interested in the outcome of this case.

From the article

“An Aereo win could be a big deal for a brand like the NFL simply because Aereo subscribers effectively don’t pay to watch football,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners. “Money into Aereo’s pocket is money out of the NFL’s pocket.”

OTA viewers don't pay to watch football right now anyways.

(06-18-2014 07:12 AM)solohawks Wrote:  From the article

“An Aereo win could be a big deal for a brand like the NFL simply because Aereo subscribers effectively don’t pay to watch football,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners. “Money into Aereo’s pocket is money out of the NFL’s pocket.”

OTA viewers don't pay to watch football right now anyways.

Would this affect advertising dollars? I'd think it would give advertiser's a larger potential viewership, but there is always the unintended effects.

I'm believing the solution here is for the networks to get with the cable companies and put together low cost streaming packages including their sport affiliates.

If you can get a package like that only 20+ channels for 30 a month that is a better deal than any Roku Box stuff.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-18-2014 06:58 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I do see how this could severely damage the NFL Sunday Ticket, if people can watch local games from any market they choose.

Okay, so I checked out their website - https://aereo.com/about

At first I wondered if this would have a negative affect on something like the Sunday Ticket, if you could say, watch an over-the-air TV station from Dallas in North Carolina. But you can't even do that. You can only watch stations from your home market.

All this is is a substitute for an antenna. That's it! How is this a problem?

It's not the NFL getting hurt, it's the cable companies

(06-18-2014 08:05 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 06:58 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I do see how this could severely damage the NFL Sunday Ticket, if people can watch local games from any market they choose.

Okay, so I checked out their website - https://aereo.com/about

At first I wondered if this would have a negative affect on something like the Sunday Ticket, if you could say, watch an over-the-air TV station from Dallas in North Carolina. But you can't even do that. You can only watch stations from your home market.

All this is is a substitute for an antenna. That's it! How is this a problem?

Its because they are in a sense 'rebroadcasting' the air waves via DVR. Its one thing that you are in your own house with your antenna, but another to have an antenna away from your house where you don't own the antenna.

Not sure if this is a good example. Its like the copyright law you see before a movie. You can own or rent and show it your home and a group of friends, but once you show outside the home and charge people to "rent" the movie then you are in violation of the law and subject to copyright laws.

OTA viewers don't pay a fee but cable/IPTV/sat pay a carriage fee to most local affiliates and I think the nets skim part of that. So if it undermines the local carriage fee that reduces the pool of money.

The other element is that this is the internet and while it is currently limited to home market, I suspect there are few safeguards in place to prevent Joe from Wisconsin who has retired to Florida from claiming Milwaukee as his home market with Aero so he can get the Packers, Brewers, and Bucks without having to pay for out-of-market subscription services.

(06-18-2014 08:14 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's not the NFL getting hurt, it's the cable companies

Who do you think fills the coffers of ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NFL Network?

Cable companies don't lay the golden eggs but they do collect them from the customers every month for redistribution.

(06-18-2014 08:14 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's not the NFL getting hurt, it's the cable companies

Its the OTA stations they are the ones who bring the lawsuit. Per the FCC rule an OTA station can negotiate with the cable company to put their station on cable 1 of 2 ways.
1. The 'Must Carry' rule is where a cable company must put that station on their system but in exchange the OTA stations gives up the rights for fees. (This is mainly used by non-network stations). But there still is a contract between the two entities.
2. The other way is to negotiate with the cable company to show the station for a fee as most of the network stations do. (as most of the popular local TV stations do.)

The cable company under the FCC rule is not allow to rebroadcast an OTA station without one of the agreements above.

So what needs to be decided, is Aero like a 'cable company' or not. Aero is still charging customers for access, so its not like the can't pay .10/subscriber.
I don't have problem with the Aero model as it is new avenue of getting broadcasts via the Internet, but they should fall under the same FCC rules that cable companies have to follow.

Aero is $8 a month. Xfinity in Little Rock with locals only is $12.80 and you get WGN from Chicago with that (no ESPN). For $30 I can get that channel line-up plus internet access and an intro subscription to HBO and HBOGO. With Aero I still have to pay for an internet provider.

Aero can talk about being local market only but the truth is most people can't save enough on Aero to make it competitive with Cable/Sat for there to be a lucrative market, unless people are buying out-of-market content on the sly.

The question is what Aero is paying if anything to lift the content with antennas to the NFL.

If they aren't paying anything to the NFL. If they have an agreement with the NFL then its legal.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-18-2014 07:12 AM)solohawks Wrote:  From the article

“An Aereo win could be a big deal for a brand like the NFL simply because Aereo subscribers effectively don’t pay to watch football,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners. “Money into Aereo’s pocket is money out of the NFL’s pocket.”

OTA viewers don't pay to watch football right now anyways.

If you watch OTA stations through a cable or satellite provider, you are paying for those channels. The carrier fees are really low compared to stations that aren't OTA, but your cable/satellite company still charges a fee for those (because they are charged a fee by those stations).

True OTA viewers (people who only watch TV via antenna) do not pay anything, but tens of millions of people do.

(06-18-2014 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Aero is $8 a month. Xfinity in Little Rock with locals only is $12.80 and you get WGN from Chicago with that (no ESPN). For $30 I can get that channel line-up plus internet access and an intro subscription to HBO and HBOGO. With Aero I still have to pay for an internet provider.

Aero can talk about being local market only but the truth is most people can't save enough on Aero to make it competitive with Cable/Sat for there to be a lucrative market, unless people are buying out-of-market content on the sly.

That's an unreal deal. With TWC, It is $79.99 for local channels, internet access, and HBO.

I mean if they have an agreement in place with the OTA stations. If the OTAs can sell the broadcast rights there is nothing to prevent them from giving them away.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-18-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 07:12 AM)solohawks Wrote:  From the article

“An Aereo win could be a big deal for a brand like the NFL simply because Aereo subscribers effectively don’t pay to watch football,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners. “Money into Aereo’s pocket is money out of the NFL’s pocket.”

OTA viewers don't pay to watch football right now anyways.

If you watch OTA stations through a cable or satellite provider, you are paying for those channels. The carrier fees are really low compared to stations that aren't OTA, but your cable/satellite company still charges a fee for those (because they are charged a fee by those stations).

True OTA viewers (people who only watch TV via antenna) do not pay anything, but tens of millions of people do.

exactly and I am referring the true ota viewers, of which aereo subscribers are. the are paying aereo a fee to handle reception and clouding. getting ota reception is not illegal nor is clouding it. paying someone to handle the details for you should not be a problem.

a key factor buy paying aereo you are renting an individual antenna from them. its not a community antenna. i think that is important! if you were to put an antenna at your house no problem. so what the difference if you pay someone $9 a month for the right to put an antenna in a warehouse?

If the OTAs can't sell the rights they purchased I mean...fat fingering on Tap Talk.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-18-2014 09:12 AM)solohawks Wrote:  a key factor buy paying aereo you are renting an individual antenna from them. its not a community antenna. i think that is important! if you were to put an antenna at your house no problem. so what the difference if you pay someone $9 a month for the right to put an antenna in a warehouse?

I think the problem is that Aereo lets you stream the content. so there's no market restrictions. I could pay for an Aereo account for NYC to watch their stuff in Louisville, for example.

This could break down the whole TV network/Local Station economic model. I can see why networks and their member stations wouldn't like it.

I can't think of any reasons for independent stations to be opposed though.