Aereo Set to Expand to New Markets Will Launch in Most Major Markets By 2013 Fresh off of their first legal win against the broadcast industry, local channel streaming operation Aereo says they'll soon be expanding their service outside of their original New York City pilot market. “Within a year and a half, certainly by ’13, we’ll be in most major" (sic) markets, says Aereo's Barry Diller -- who originally founded the Fox network. The company, which offers a $12 platter of over the air signals to users who have cut the cord or get poor antenna reception, has beaten back a broadcast injunction but still has a long legal battle against the broadcast industry ahead. “One of my friends at a large broadcaster said you succeeded in dropping my stock 2 percent," Diller said. “I did think we were on the right side of this, and I’m happy the judge agreed with us."
|
 | | Why stop with broadcast channels? Why should Aero stop at just offering broadcast channels? Get out there and cut deals with any programmer that wants to get on board. Hell, put together a channel reminiscent of the old superstations, programmed with old reruns and independently produced programs. Even cut deals to bring in channels from other English-speaking countries, provided their programs can be aired here without violating the rights of those who are already carrying them.
Of course, it needs to air on s set-top box and have good picture quality. Or maybe offer a hybrid IPTV/satellite service, where nationally-broadcast channels are on the bird and available via a small dish, and the locals are streamed online to a set-top box.
Give me a service like that, and I'm there. | |
|  | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why stop with broadcast channels? I have been saying this for a while (although not about Aero specifically). There is no reason streaming companies can't compete with cable/satellite/phone company TV service. Content aggregators can make deals with programmers to provide a much more versatile viewing experience than the too big to take a chance giants.
As for Aero, their business model is based on the idea that they are only leasing its customers an off-air antenna fed into a slingbox-type device that you access over your phone/tablet/laptop/whatever. If they started adding additional not-over-the-air programming, I think it would tend to muddy this model which is already on shaky legal ground.
--
"I've been Romney-boated.... Somebody who will lie to you to get to be president, will lie to you when they are president." Newt Gingrich | |
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Why stop with broadcast channels? said by CXM_Splicer:Content aggregators can make deals with programmers to provide a much more versatile viewing experience than the too big to take a chance giants. Don't confuse your desire for a "versatile viewing experience" with content owners' desires to bundle more channels than people want for more money than people want to spend and then forcing the responsibility of negative customer experiences off on the content distributors.said by CXM_Splicer:If they started adding additional not-over-the-air programming, I think it would tend to muddy this model which is already on shaky legal ground. I seem to remember at least one attempt at racking a bunch of Slingboxes and selling access. I don't believe it turned out favorably. | |
|
| | Finally Finally someone is challenging the ridiculous concept that local TV stations should be paid by cable and satellite for the same thing the broadcasters give away for free. And in many cases, is derived from the off-air signal.
My cable bill went up $2.00 because of the "broadcast TV surcharge". And I can't opt out of locals.
With 90% of the people getting the locals this way, it seems completely bass-ackwards. | |
| | | | Re: Finally As usual, you can thank Congress. Back in the late '80s/early '90s, the cable companies were upset because "must-carry" was forcing them to carry every broadcast station in their markets. OTOH, the broadcasters felt that, if the cable companies were going to make a profit from carrying the local stations, the broadcasters should see some of that money. The cable companies responded that it wouldn't be fair to make them pay for stations that must-carry forced them to pick up. So Congress created a compromise: if a station chose to be carried under must-carry, then it couldn't charge the cable company, but if it opted to try to charge (retransmission-consent), then it lost the right to demand must-carry. Of course, now only the smallest stations opt for must-carry, since the larger ones want their piece of the pay TV pie.
And we, the consumers, get screwed. | |
| | | bdnhsv
join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL | Re: Finally And rightfully so for the local major affiliates. Cable companies have made fortunes from broadcasting the major network programming for years, and now they're just mad because they have to actually pay for what most of their customers watch the most. As for the below the line $2 or $3 fees - that's just the cable companies adding a cost back again that they already had built in. If cable companies are so put upon to pay for this programming then let's see one of them drop all local stations and only offer "actual" cable television programming and see what happens to their subscriber base. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Finally Yeah, I agree. This is not some abstract concept around the fact that broadcast from local stations is OTA and there's no charge to receive their signal. This is business. The local station business model is revenue = advertising + retrans fees.
Aereo breaks their model in two ways. First, as subs move off cable/satellite to Aereo, cable/sat viewership goes down, and retrans fees are negotiated down. Second, the Aereo subs are not measured by the ratings services, so overall ratings go down, which reduces ad rates the local station can charge.
A responsible venture that wanted to stream local stations would recognize the local stations as partners and negotiate a deal. Aereo instead basically gave a big "F U I'm going to take your signal for nothing, sue me" to their "partners". So guess what, they're being sued. Surprise. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Umm.. your argument wouldn't hold up in court. You can't get a court to rule on what YOU say they're doing. To say that someone is charging for something is your opinion. The cable company can say "it's included at no charge".. who are you to get into the mind of subjective and say what is what? They very well could not have line itemed or even factored a profit on locals at all.. but YOU want to apply the argument that "everything is for profit".. intent comes to play here and it's easy to say that unless they're pushing locals, that their intent was to actually provide it at no charge and that they're just piping in what everyone already is entitled to for free. Maybe in the days where locals on cable WAS a valued service for lack of reception, you'd have an argument.. but it's not always the case. This kind of subjective argument has always bugged me because YOU can't get into the mind of another and say what they're actually thinking.
And if you dropped the locals, I don't think you'd see a defection per say. There are many people that don't watch locals any more. Further, it's the PROVIDERS that have the power of competition because THEY can use satellite to encourage a defect to those that wanted it. However, if you recall, satellite LONG charged $5 for locals too. The only difference is that they let you opt out of locals.
I can't believe you're sitting here supporting screwing over the population. If locals want to charge and make a profit for their product, then they should give up their spectrum. They benefit just as much, and actually MORE by being on cable now that they got the mafia, I mean the giverment, I mean GOVERNMENT to give them this leverage against the cable industry.
Also, I call BS to your "they just added back in the cost they now lost" argument. Before this happened, a basic tier 1 connection in Sacramento CA, as an example, was $7.95 which included 29 channels of service. This was the late 80's when cable TV first started for that market. Seems to me that $7.95, even in that time period, was more kin to a "basic connection charge".. even the power company at the time was charging $6.50 just to be connected to the network, power used or not. There is a basic cost to have a home connected to maintain the system and provide customer service etc. I really don't think cable was making a fortune on the product. They DID benefit from it to a degree by the fact that consumers WANTED locals to come in clear. Many customers got cable for locals because they didn't want to maintain an antenna or simply couldn't get locals. (See the history of the first cable setup in the U.S.) Also, at the time, I can assure you that you got a MUCH clearer picture by using an outdoor antenna to that of traditional cable TV service.
It wasn't until the broadcasters figured out a way to raise revenue that it became an issue for them. Further, cable could argue that more people saw their signal making them more relevant in the market place.. either way it doesn't matter, because it's the consumers that get to now pay for something that's already free. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally Cable companies can't charge "nothing" for locals. Basic service (aka locals only) is the only service regulated by the FCC.
As for giving up their spectrum, it's going to happen sooner rather than later. The Government already thinks broadcast TV is dead and wants the wireless spectrum for broadband. But based on the screams here when a pay TV channel like AMC asks more for its product, I don't think the whining will cease. Besides, many TV stations have fiber feeds to the cable companies. Why bother to fuss with OTA reception when fiber is cheap, and in many cases already there?
You can argue until you're blue in the face about broadcast TV being relevant, but the fact is that nielsen ratings consistently show the broadcast networks consistently carrying the top 10 shows on TV. So even if you don't like broadcast TV, you're just an anomaly. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Finally Nielson ratings have become less and less relevant since they can no longer accurately represent and count the number of viewers or the quality of the shows(because they use such a small sample size now). Honestly, in the age of internet shows, the ratings system is now completly useless because users can rate shows on the fly, and if one sucks, you will see that. Seriously, I could do without the local broadcast channels, because there is literally nothing of value on them anymore. All the crappy "idol" shows, talent shows, and ad filled sitcoms and dramas? Nothing of value would be lost if broadcast TV went away. Hell, even the news on the TV is no longer reliable because its broadcasting the bias view of the sponsor who paid the most(gotta please those sponsors and get more money!), so, the days of unbias news is long gone. Seriously, the internet is the better place for news now, since if its not showing one side of the argument, you can usually find it very quickly. Broadcast news is less fact based now, and more about the light in which its played to sway "viewers". Its garbage all around, and as content companies continue to produce crappier content, they continue to try and abuse the consumer by charging more for it. Cord cutters are real, and the only reason Nielson(or anyone) claims differently is because they want to keep their stock prices up, and allay the fear that the money train is coming to its last stop. In a few short years, i suspect that Nielson will be out of business because they will become totally irrelevant in doing anything(since they do not rate online content, and anything online is usually viewer rated with instant feedback, which defeats the market swaying power Nielson has). | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Finally Even if you think Nielsen ratings are less relevant, there's nothing else out there that really is. So Nielsen is still better than any of the other ratings systems out there. | |
|
| | | | bdnhsv
join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL | I respect your right to have a different opinion, and I won't even shout at you while disagreeing with you. If the affiliate programming is so useless and valueless I wonder why the cable companies keep coming to agreements to carry it when they aren't legally obligated to do so? Or why don't they offer it as a consumer choosable premium type of programming? | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Finally The answer to your question comes with the study of human behavior and thinking... And as for ratings, again, they're numbers that say a lot and don't really mean a lot. American Idol, by the way, touts every episode that they've gotten "a record 250 million votes!" ... (just for example)... but think about it, while impressive, that 250 million also accounts for the fact they let each person vote 10 times per method. There are 300 million people in America.. all but 50 million have note voted. So basically I see that 250 million figure as 2.5 million votes because if 1 vote is really 1/10th of a vote, I'll give them the lowest count possible. Numbers can be what they want them to be.
The fact of why they carry them is because they want to be able to bring into the home services that will fit anyone's needs and it does include the locals. And, since the cable solution (and satellite) available doesn't have a readily easy way to insert a local antenna feed into the cable box, a customer having to switch inputs and settings doesn't sit well with a lazy and stupid average American that can't be bothered to do so.. so they make it EASY for them to have access to the content that they already largely have.
The answer to this debate is of the chicken and the egg... who gets more benefit? the cable operator or the broadcaster? .. it seems rather simple, it's mutually benefiting. The broadcaster gets to have more access to homes with viewers.. the cable companies can say "your locals are included"...
Broadcasters changed the landscape and got ass hurt when they cried foul to someone making a profit on their work. The problem is that they ADDED revenue to a non-business line in the first place that never existed. Yet, I can tell you, local advertising rates on local television remain among the highest form of advertising. I'd think with all that extra revenue they now have that advertising rates are no longer necessary.
Think about it. Broadcasters are making out like bandits. They need to either accept they are pay network and go that rout, or give up revenue and stick with their spectrum.. I think having it both ways is BS.. and with that I want the option to NOT be forced to take and pay for something I can already get for free. Until that Tier 1 buy through goes away I'm going to lay blame directly at the feet of the GREEDY broadcaster. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Finally Take a look at my post about local station's business model. Throwing around words like "greed" adds zero to the discussion. This is just business and Aereo is not playing nice in the sandbox. They will eventually lose in court, I predict, and then what. Barry dollar et al will have lost a lot of money and so have the broadcasters paying lawyers. For nothing. It is well established that broadcasters own their copyrighted content and a retrans license is needed. Why Aereo did not just get one is a mystery to me. They could have both profited. | |
|
| | | | No, you can thank the cable companies.
Previously they had to carry all local stations but got them FREE OF CHARGE. Then came Ted Turner with superstations and the cable companies wanted to carry those at the expense of local stations. So what did they do? Sued the FCC to strike down must carry. They won.
Now it's a free market, either a station can force must carry and accept no compensation or go for retrans consent. Yes this is the same thing you are saying, but all of what Aereo is carrying falls under retrans consent. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I would tend to agree it is a ridiculous concept if it weren't for the cable companies turning around and charging us for something they were getting for free (now theres a ridiculous concept!)
If every cable/satellite provider gave away the broadcast channels for FREE to everyone who already had a connection (or even a dish and receiver with no subscription!) then I would say the broadcasters are out of line. Until then... they have every right to demand a cut of the profits being made from their content.
--
"I've been Romney-boated.... Somebody who will lie to you to get to be president, will lie to you when they are president." Newt Gingrich | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I've long said the same thing. Access to the public airwaves has always been free in this country. We don't charge an antenna tax like some countries. And we don't allow broadcasters to charge the citizens for the signal. Well, the must carry rules were a gift to the broadcasters right from congress.
I see some dual standards here. The broadcasters are complaining that their ratings are being hurt and that it hurts their income. Ummmm.. they get a pretty penny per customer from pay TV subscribers already. Did they not argue that along side their neilson gripe? .. no, of course not. I also find it wrong that locals should not be FORCED on pay tv customers at the entry point because subscribers, like me, not only don't want the locals or watch them, I still pay for them because I don't HAVE A CHOICE in the matter. I still believe that if pay for carry is in order then they should be forced out of Tier 1 basic and placed in an alacart tier called "locals" OR sell them ala cart period.
Second, if a TV provider is currently receiving more than 50% of their revenue from subscribers, or more so, if more than 50% of the population is paying for locals via forced buy through, then they should not be able to require payment for their signals at all because it SHOULD be deemed that it's over the air viewership, in the modern day. Let the local carriers use their ratings books all they want. But as I see it, when they've been legislated the ability to charge for their signals, they don't need to have their ratings any longer.
Further, these ass-hat broadcasters also not only charged for their SD feeds, they also charged additional to carry their HD feeds. I think the locals should be removed from the spectrum if they want to make money in the pay TV world, or get the hell out of Tier 1 basic.. Further, I also see this pay for locals as a reason to also unilaterally end the need to transmit them in the clear on tier 1 nationwide.
The local broadcasters have been screwing the citizens for a few decades now. | |
| | | | said by desarollo:Finally someone is challenging the ridiculous concept that local TV stations should be paid by cable and satellite for the same thing the broadcasters give away for free. And in many cases, is derived from the off-air signal.
My cable bill went up $2.00 because of the "broadcast TV surcharge". And I can't opt out of locals.
With 90% of the people getting the locals this way, it seems completely bass-ackwards.
Many TV stations deliver locals to cable company via fiber now. The "free off the air signal" argument is largely horseshit, especially when the Gov't finally reclaims all broadcast spectrum. | |
| | | | | Re: Finally They do, but not all. DirecTV in Detroit still pulls off-air for HD, fiber for SD. Charter pulls HD for all out of Milford, MI, and then crops to 4:3. In smaller markets, a lot more pull off-air.
If and only if the local broadcasters give up the spectrum, then they are on par with all the other networks and are in a position to ask for for per-subscriber fees. But right now, they're sitting on pretty much an exclusive franchise that is worth a considerable amount of money. And they spew their nonsense into the air for free.
I'm paying the cable/satellite company for the convenience of not having to dick around with multiple feeds and an off-air antenna. The idea that even if I have made that investment (and I have) and can receive the stations over the air, the fact that I'm billed for it annoys me. These people have come up with a new revenue stream off the very companies that are bringing the eyeballs. How I get there should be of no concern to these parasites.
I am surprised that the cable and satellite companies haven't told the locals to go pound sand on their sub channels. It's either we carry it for free, or do without the viewers.
The whole model is wrong. As programming quality descends from bad to downright stupid, I'm willing to pay for less of it.
By the way, I worked in TV related businesses for 15 years. The term "parasites" used above is an endearment toward programming, sales and general management. | |
|
| |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Exciting Development said by WiseOldNerd:Citizens of the USA unite you have nothing to lose but the government applied chains. Oh stop with the hyperbolic gubment bashing. Media and other corps have too much influence over Washington, not the other way 'round. | |
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There is nothing remotely close to monopolistic control over content, either entertainment or news. Try flipping through the 200+ channels on a typical cable or sat connection and you will see a wide variety of content producers putting their product out there. Some are produced by the network or affiliate, many others by independents then sold for broadcast. Many others are a cable channel created basically as an outlet for content. It's a complex market with a lot of players.
Also, you act like the Internet is ready right now to stream all content. Not close. The stream quality and ease of use is and infrastructure cost is far from those engineered for decades specifically to deliver video to the home. | |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission According to Aereo every customer has their own little antenna mounted, housed and maintained by them but controlled (their word) by you, the subscriber. Which begs the question what the customer is subscribing to but ..oh.. whatever.
So (ostensibly) they're just converting your discretely captured OTA signal and shoving it down a wire for you. It's a workaround gimmick, really, and not a sustainable data distribution model. Aereo kinda smells like a disruptive toe-in for some other longterm biz objective.
Some current usage info:
+ Apple mobile devices or AppleTV only, for now.
+ No installed app: rendered in HTML-5.
+ Delivery protocol = HLS (thus their unwillingness/sluggishness at supporting non-Apple devices)
+ Highest rez is 720p. User can force selection or allow player to auto-scale by perceived network conditions.
+ uses geo-location to assure you are physically inside OTA broadcast market before allowing stream. Possibly another reason why the Apple iThingy limitation persists?
Aereo will have sooooooome fun not controlling the geo-location. Their real value is getting me up in NH with my 3 OTA stations to buy some major metro service via friendproxy. Guess: they'll move to an installed app (yuck) to at least appear to resist service-area fraud and to reduce browser support calls. | |
| | | | Re: Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission retransmission for business purposes isn't going to be allowed. With or without that antenna gimmick. Even if it gets through the courts, the govt would just pass legislation protecting the broadcast networks.
Even if retransmission fees went away, i'm sure the cable/satellite companies will charge a lot just to deliver them. They're too used to collecting the money | |
| | | | Just went to their website, says they support Roku too! | |
| | | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | Re: Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission said by civicturbo:Just went to their website, says they support Roku too! Only if your iPhone/pad/pod is there controlling the Roku (says their FAQ). Authentication + geo-location, guesses me. | |
|
| | | | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Funny thing how Aereo hopes to get around re-transmission said by Linklist:Here is a writeup that explains everything wrong with Aereo. Horrible spew of words that explains practically nothing about the service. Author is selling his rant more than anything else and makes him look like a punk.
What Aereo has: ease, mobility, PC-TV convergence. There's definitely a market: busybody apt dwellers wanting the easy recording then pause and resume of their shows as they move around town. Read: youth.
I'm not defending Aereo. Too many unknowns to make it a good investment: legal + unknown size of market + a gambling that either bandwidth continues it's cost slide or that, in the end, they won't have to 1-to-1 stream discrete copies of everything.
They're going in with pure HTML-5, a costly transition from Flash that everyone is dragging their feet on. Might be Aereo aims to become a distribution sub-contractor for the networks and/or license their technology.
Repeating myself, it is difficult to accept that what we know about Aereo is the entire business model. That's not the same as them being stupid. | |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| Their legal argument should include... The fact that they are simply "leasing" an antennae and a DVR to a consumer(which it does already). The difference being, that they are leasing an antennae in an "ideal" spot so that better reception can be had. This would be no different than my neighbor leasing roofspace from me so he can put an antenna on my roof because he would get better reception there. Seriously, I hope they win, because if they dont, it means that all the people who have "remote" antennas are violating someones copywrong. | |
| KyL416
join:2005-12-28
Tobyhanna, PA | Antennas Has Aereo demonstrated that one of those tiny antennas alone can recieve the entire DTV spectrum in the NYC market including the WABC, WPIX and WNET who are all on VHF, even one on VHF-2 if they decide to carry one of NYC's LP digitals. | |
|
| |
|
|
