Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    It seems going cable would be the last resort and many don't think it would happen.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,767
    Last year or so, on Hulu, "FOX has chosen to limit access to catch-up episodes of current shows to viewers that have subscribed to a participating pay-TV service. Paying subscribers will be able to watch these episodes the day after they air online; otherwise, episodes will usually be available on Hulu.com 8 days after they air on TV. Currently, only DISH, Verizon, AT&T U-verse, Mediacom, Blue Ridge Communications, Suddenlink and Cable One subscribers are eligible to see FOX shows day-after-air for free on FOX.com and hulu.com."

    So, if you're using an antenna and missed a Fox show last night, or if you're subscribed to cable but not one of those providers, you can't use free Hulu or you'll have to wait 8 days to watch the episode... or better yet, just download the friggin' episode and be done with it!

    There's been reports in the past that some shows came with a copyright flag where the show will auto-delete itself after 3 days on the cable customer's PVR. Did I mention that some cable companies in the U.S. force PVR owners to pay an extra 8$ to enable PVR functions on their machine ?

    Obviously, Fox already wanted to restrict access to their content, expecting Hulu users to pay for a subscription, expecting their own affiliates to give them almost 100% of subcriber revenues they collect from BDUs otherwise they lose affiliation, and now expecting to collect money from Aereo. They're just money-hungry.

    Bottom line, Fox just wants money, as for CBS and Univision, they know that if the courts don't agree with them, many Aereo clones will pop up around the internet and they'll completely lose control on their shows distribution.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    In the U.S. the rules are actually fair and the companies who distribute local stations have to pay for what they use. ALL the U.S. networks agree that local television needs both carriage fees and advertising to remain viable and if it comes to the point where it makes sense for CBS and FOX to give up OTA broadcasting it will make sense for NBC and ABC as well. It's more likely steps will be taken to get Aereo to stop stealing signals as opposed to the Government just sitting back as all the networks move from OTA to cable. They can't stop them from moving from OTA to cable but they can make it so OTA is viable with both advertising and carriage fees, and that's far more likely than any network going to cable.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,767
    But, TVViewer, you KNOW that the root of the problem with Fox is MONEY, yes, that carriage fee money that you praise so much.
    If that carriage fee for free OTA stations didn't exist, Fox wouldn't be crying out loud like a baby right now.

    The other problem is there's a current need for people living in New York to go out of their homes and be able to watch live TV on their smartphone, tablets and laptops. WNYW (Fox New York) does not offer this, and Aereo does. And since Aereo doesn't belong to them and ain't their own invention, they'll just use the courts and scare tactics to get what they want : money.

    What a bunch of crying babies. Just provide the customer what they want already !
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;61868]

    But, TVViewer, you KNOW that the root of the problem with Fox is MONEY,

    FOX is a business, of course they care about money. They want to make money, that's kind of the point of running a business, sorry you had to find out this way.

    yes, that carriage fee money that you praise so much.
    If that carriage fee for free OTA stations didn't exist, Fox wouldn't be crying out loud like a baby right now.

    Over-the-air television is NOT viable with only advertising as a source of revenue, if carriage fees for OTA stations didn't exist OTA stations wouldn't exist, all the networks would have switched to the cable model of advertising/subscriber fees long ago. Carriage fees are keeping these networks OTA.

    The ONLY reason we don't have this problem in Canada is because our broadcasters were purchased by billion dollar cable conglomerates who can accept razor thin profit margins for OTA television networks if it means not eating into their cable/satellite profits. Local Over-the-air television would not exist even remotely close to how it does now had CTVglobemedia and Canwest not been purchased by Bell and Shaw. Vertical integration didn't just improve local television, it saved OTA television, the only other thing which would have saved local television was carriage fees.


    The other problem is there's a current need for people living in New York to go out of their homes and be able to watch live TV on their smartphone, tablets and laptops. WNYW (Fox New York) does not offer this, and Aereo does. And since Aereo doesn't belong to them and ain't their own invention, they'll just use the courts and scare tactics to get what they want : money.
    All of the other companies distributing their programming pay them for access to their programming, Aereo is taking their programming for free. Of course FOX and ALL the other broadcast networks are going to have a problem with some company making money off their programming without paying them, to be okay with what Aereo is doing would be absurd.

    What a bunch of crying babies. Just provide the customer what they want already !

    So whatever the consumer wants they should do it? What if the consumer is cheap and doesn't want to pay for the product? If you are running a business it only makes sense to give the consumer what they want if it helps you financially, it makes zero sense to "give the consumer what they want" if the result is your business not turning a profit. Sorry but you can't expect ANY business to "give the consumers want they want" if doing so hurts them financially.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,767
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    FOX is a business, of course they care about money.
    Trying to be funny cutting quotes mid-sentence? Heh...

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Over-the-air television is NOT viable with only advertising as a source of revenue, if carriage fees for OTA stations didn't exist OTA stations wouldn't exist, all the networks would have switched to the cable model of advertising/subscriber fees long ago. Carriage fees are keeping these networks OTA.
    Go back reading your television history books.
    When specialty television began in the 80's, they were given subscription revenues with mandatory carriage but in exchange, they had to maintain a high level of canadian productions, and they are not allowed to sell local advertisements, just national ads are allowed. That was the agreement.

    As far as I can remember, CTV as a cooperative and as CTVglobemedia have always filled their entire schedules with american programming in simulcast. CTVgm brought CHUM Limited with their razor-thin profits.

    Who are you trying to fool here?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    All of the other companies distributing their programming pay them for access to their programming, Aereo is taking their programming for free. Of course FOX and ALL the other broadcast networks are going to have a problem with some company making money off their programming without paying them, to be okay with what Aereo is doing would be absurd.
    Again, history books. Home VHS recorder and Beta in early 80's started with lawsuits until the studios adapted and figured out they can make money selling/renting their movies on VHS. Napster is a good reminder that people wanted music downloaded on their computer. That was in 1999. Legal pay music download services such as iTunes appeared only in 2001. (Songs came with so many restrictions and different prices for different quality/bitrate, but that's another story). Today, many labels prefer selling online as it eliminates the "hardware" (CD making factory, jewel case, complete artwork, distribution). They adapted. Netflix is a reminder that people wanted to access a buffet of movies and series.

    Now, people want to access their local station's live content on their tablets, Aereo is not offering it free for all like Napster, they're offering it for a price only to Newyorkers. Where's the problem? Fox want a huge fat paycheck, off course, they are unable to negociate, so they sue and threaten, unable to adapt, forcing people paying their BDUs and watching TV in their living room while technology is changing that.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    To add to InMontreal's take on this complicated issue ... because I do like many of his points ... Is Aereo the modern day version of Robin Hood?

    You basically have to force the greedy media companies to change their business plans by "stealing" their content. That's just the fastest way to bring about major changes to the industry. People want something, but since you greedy and incompetent bastards won't give it to them, we will!

    And once you also get several smaller ISPs offering unlimited Internet services, eventually the big boys need to offer the same thing (albeit in a more restrictive manner, with several hoops to jump through to get it), so that they can hopefully keep their current customers from jumping ship, as well as making it more difficult for the smaller ISPs to thrive and increase their customer base.

    The Swiss government wants the media industry to stop complaining and simply adapt to the changes in technology. If not, they'll have to be satisfied with their current profits and be thankful that downloaders are still buying more product than those not downloading any music, games or movies.

    http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-d...-legal-111202/
    [Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal]

    --------------------

    If Aereo somehow succeeds in its quest to basically topple the stranglehold that Fox and the gang have on consumers, that should lead the way for Time Warner and other bandwagon jumpers to join the cause. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. It worked for Robbing Hood ... I mean, Robin Hood.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...f44_story.html
    [Time Warner Cable CEO wants to slim cable bundles, eyes Aereo’s technology]

    Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive said his company may consider capturing television content from public airwaves and delivering them to customers over an Internet connection, a practice that has shaken the entertainment industry. The idea was pioneered by a Web start-up called Aereo, whose business model sparked lawsuits from all of the nation’s broadcasters, including NBC, CBS, Fox and ABC. Their complaints in courts have failed.

    The entry of Time Warner Cable into Aereo’s space would be a game changer, with broad implications for how television is created and delivered to households. Unlike Aereo, which serves only two markets, Time Warner is the country’s second-largest cable company and has broad influence over how TV content is delivered into millions of living rooms. “What Aereo is doing to bring broadcast signals to its customers is interesting,” Time Warner Cable chief executive Glenn Britt said in an interview. “If it is found legal, we could conceivably use similar technology.” Part of Britt’s interest in Aereo stems from his belief that the traditional model of television — in which broadcasters bundle together hundreds of channels and force cable companies to buy and distribute them to consumers as a package — is under siege.

    Time Warner Cable’s interest in Aereo’s technology is preliminary, Britt said. The cable giant, which serves 12 million video customers in 29 states, does not have concrete plans but is simply watching the legal battle closely.

    “It’s illegal,” Moonves said of Aereo at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, according to Bloomberg News. “They’re taking our signal and charging people for it.” But Britt argued the current way most consumers pay for their cable television must change. In the interview, he joined a growing chorus of frustrated cable companies, including Verizon and Cablevision, that have been publicly blaming media companies for the unwieldy cable bundle. Cable companies have said the technology in set-top boxes can track what consumers are watching most. So they should be able to buy cheaper and smaller packages of channels according to those interests. “The structure needs more flexibility,” Britt said. A customer should not be required to pay for less popular channels such as VH1 Honors to get Nick Jr. and MTV. “There are fellow citizens who are struggling financially and can’t afford large programming packages. We want the ability to offer those customers smaller, more affordable packages.” For Britt, the remarks are a departure. His business was once a part of a media conglomerate that included powerful assets such as HBO and Warner Bros. films. In 2009, the company broke off its cable and Internet business into an independent concern.

    Britt said Washington should have a role in changing the TV industry. Federal officials need to repeal arcane regulations that date back two decades and check whether there has been a concentration of power among content firms, he said. Media firms, however, have argued that their ability to create high-quality programming depends on the cable bundling model to mitigate the risks of trying out new shows. The Food Network, Bravo and AMC were all subsidized by more popular channels before they became cable channel hits, analysts say.

    A broadcasting trade group said Time Warner and other cable firms share some of the blame for the high consumer bills. “Forgive me Glenn Britt’s hypocrisy over rising cable rates. Time Warner Cable owns regional sports channels that charge viewers as much as $5 per subscriber per month,” said Dennis Wharton, an executive vice president at the National Association of Broadcasters. “The notion that Time Warner Cable has suddenly become ‘pro-consumer’ is laughable.”
    Last edited by PokerFace; 05-04-2013 at 10:03 PM.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;61874]


    Trying to be funny cutting quotes mid-sentence? Heh...

    Go back reading your television history books.
    When specialty television began in the 80's, they were given subscription revenues with mandatory carriage but in exchange, they had to maintain a high level of canadian productions, and they are not allowed to sell local advertisements, just national ads are allowed. That was the agreement.

    As far as I can remember, CTV as a cooperative and as CTVglobemedia have always filled their entire schedules with american programming in simulcast. CTVgm brought CHUM Limited with their razor-thin profits.

    Who are you trying to fool here?

    The agreement back then is no longer viable. Local advertising no longer offsets no carriage fees. Specialty channels are able to make way more money with far fewer viewers because they have carriage fees. That's just the way it is and that's why if you take away carriage fees from OTA stations the U.S. networks will leave OTA for cable. If you don't want to believe this go right ahead but for everyone else those are the facts.



    Again, history books. Home VHS recorder and Beta in early 80's started with lawsuits until the studios adapted and figured out they can make money selling/renting their movies on VHS. Napster is a good reminder that people wanted music downloaded on their computer. That was in 1999. Legal pay music download services such as iTunes appeared only in 2001. (Songs came with so many restrictions and different prices for different quality/bitrate, but that's another story). Today, many labels prefer selling online as it eliminates the "hardware" (CD making factory, jewel case, complete artwork, distribution). They adapted. Netflix is a reminder that people wanted to access a buffet of movies and series.

    Now, people want to access their local station's live content on their tablets, Aereo is not offering it free for all like Napster, they're offering it for a price only to Newyorkers. Where's the problem
    The problem is Aereo is disturbing their content without paying them!

    Fox want a huge fat paycheck,
    ALL the U.S. networks want to be paid for their product. You will find very few businesses who don't have a problem with someone taking their product without paying them. It's called stealing.

    off course, they are unable to negociate, so they sue and threaten, unable to adapt, forcing people paying their BDUs and watching TV in their living room while technology is changing that.

    They are unable to adapt to a market where they don't get paid for their content. They don't want to adapt to a market where they will lose money.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 05-04-2013 at 10:56 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    If Aereo somehow succeeds in its quest to basically topple the stranglehold that Fox and the gang have on consumers, that should lead the way for Time Warner and other bandwagon jumpers to join the cause. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. It worked for Robbing Hood ... I mean, Robin Hood.

    if Aereo succeeds in distributing OTA content for free it will mean the end of OTA television in the United States. ALL the networks will move to a cable only format where they will receive carriage fees, and that means people like InMontreal wont be able to view network programming for free OTA. So even if Aereo wins their case they wont win in the long run, because their business model relies on the networks broadcasting OTA, if they move to cable Aereo is finished.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463

    David vs Goliath ... Let's get ready to rumble!

    Aereo is certainly making things interesting. Its "theft" is considered legal, at least at this moment. That fact alone, is quite amazing.

    Aereo wants its customers to believe that it's doing them a favour by offering them an alternative to the expensive cable/satellite packages, but if it flourishes, and all the major networks leave OTA for good, then what?

    Will the networks return to OTA if Aereo decides to fold up shop? Or will Aereo's victory in the courts keep the networks away from OTA broadcasts forever? Other Aereo clones will most likely pop up, and you certainly can't let Time Warner and other big players offer the same OTA content via the Internet at reduced prices.

    Video killed the radio star, but will Aereo kill OTA network broadcasts?

    Canadian viewers certainly don't want to risk losing US OTA channels, especially since our chances of getting an Aereo clone are slim to none and slim already left town ages ago.

    However, since I like rooting for underdogs, I want to see Aereo go the distance and then see how long it takes for the US networks and Aereo to come to some sort of compromise that makes both sides happy enough to keep this out of the courts.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,767
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The agreement back then is no longer viable. Local advertising no longer offsets no carriage fees. Specialty channels are able to make way more money with far fewer viewers because they have carriage fees. That's just the way it is
    You gotta stop trying to make me laugh like that !

    CBC, CTV, Global and Citytv are now controlled from Toronto headquarters. Whatever Toronto gets, the rest of the network gets, which results in very imbecile programming. A recent example, since NBC moved Grimm to tuesdays, CTV dumped BBM-rating show Grimm to CTV Two for two weeks so they can air Criminal Minds in pre-release, and on friday they moved Shark Tank from CTV2 to the main network. Hello! Where the heck is CTV Two ? Ah yes, Toronto and Vancouver !

    If I was a local Montreal advertiser, why would I sponsor a show and see it yanked for a few weeks? Not to forget, long-time local "Pulse 12" news program became generic "CTV News". Whatever made the local station local became some generic Toronto brand. Don't get me started on Global Montreal morning show's technical problems: missed cues, awkward dead air moments... I still wondor how local advertisers still want their brand name on a show with such lower quality standards.

    To sum it up, our local stations aren't local anymore, they're a vision of Toronto reflected to the rest of Canada, so local advertisers are walking away. When Global News BC launched, you complained about other news channels being "too much Toronto-centric". Heck, it also applied to OTA stations.

    Specialties. Oh boy. Specialties.
    Do you remember what Bravo used to be about? It was a "category A service who formerly focused on arts programming, including literature, however, it has since morphed into a full-time drama channel with no focus on the arts whatsoever any longer". Bell Media replaced everything "arts" from the channel and turned it into a mainstream specialty to compete Showcase, complete with first-run shows, a small selection of daily reruns and cancon fillers.

    Weren't they supposed to get mandatory carriage with guaranteed subscription revenues in exchange for producing shows about arts ? Screw it, let's just sit back in a control room, fill the schedule with american dramas and collect an annual 15 million dollars in profits !

    Worst case scenario : How about Book Television? LOOK at its schedule! It's a DUMP for low-rated shows based on books. No original programming whatsoever. Who the hell watch that channel?
    More complete article from Fagstein : http://blog.fagstein.com/2013/05/01/...ty-television/

    Let's take a look at Book Television financial data for 2012 : with 946k subscribers (channel is bundled with other channels), they made $4.45 millions in subscriber revenues, and sold $82 600 of advertisement... for the whole year ! After expenses, the channel still managed to make $2.7 million in profits ! Easy money! The only reason why Bell hasn't shut it down yet and is asking for a licence change is because it's a Category A specialty making money.

    Off course, your statement "Specialty channels are able to make way more money with far fewer viewers because they have carriage fees" is a no brainer !

    Off course, CTV, Global and Citytv wants to go the easy route, run the channels for the cheapest way possible. They're already going cheap with specialties, why would they collect subscription money (much easier) from BDUs for their conventional stations and run them even more cheaper?

    The only reason Global Montreal and Halifax (money-losing stations) now have a morning show is because Shaw have to do it due to their tangible benefits proposal when they brought Canwest. They wouldn't have done it otherwise on their own initiative, and they know they're currently throwing money out the window.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The problem is Aereo is disturbing their content without paying them!
    Aereo is distributing free-to-air channels over the internet only to residents within the station's OTA footprint. Those residents could otherwise receive those channels with an antenna in their living room, they could otherwise buy a tablet with ATSC-M/H Mobile DTV capabilities... but... neither the iPad or the Android are equiped with it.

    Some cable providers in the US such as Cablevision offer DVR capabilities for 11$ more per month (http://www.optimum.com/digital-cable-tv/dvr/ ). Aereo is offering DVR services of local free-to-air channels for 8 dollars per month. How do you call this stealing ? Most of these customers have money, they brought a tablet and/or a smartphone (!) and more likely already pay for cable and/or satellite, and therefor, Fox and CBS already get their cut. Now they want to double-dip ?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 05-05-2013 at 05:18 PM.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;61880]

    You gotta stop trying to make me laugh like that !

    CBC, CTV, Global and Citytv are now controlled from Toronto headquarters. Whatever Toronto gets, the rest of the network gets, which results in very imbecile programming. A recent example, since NBC moved Grimm to tuesdays, CTV dumped BBM-rating show Grimm to CTV Two for two weeks so they can air Criminal Minds in pre-release, and on friday they moved Shark Tank from CTV2 to the main network. Hello! Where the heck is CTV Two ? Ah yes, Toronto and Vancouver !

    If I was a local Montreal advertiser, why would I sponsor a show and see it yanked for a few weeks? Not to forget, long-time local "Pulse 12" news program became generic "CTV News". Whatever made the local station local became some generic Toronto brand. Don't get me started on Global Montreal morning show's technical problems: missed cues, awkward dead air moments... I still wondor how local advertisers still want their brand name on a show with such lower quality standards.

    To sum it up, our local stations aren't local anymore, they're a vision of Toronto reflected to the rest of Canada, so local advertisers are walking away. When Global News BC launched, you complained about other news channels being "too much Toronto-centric". Heck, it also applied to OTA stations.

    Specialties. Oh boy. Specialties.
    Do you remember what Bravo used to be about? It was a "category A service who formerly focused on arts programming, including literature, however, it has since morphed into a full-time drama channel with no focus on the arts whatsoever any longer". Bell Media replaced everything "arts" from the channel and turned it into a mainstream specialty to compete Showcase, complete with first-run shows, a small selection of daily reruns and cancon fillers.

    Weren't they supposed to get mandatory carriage with guaranteed subscription revenues in exchange for producing shows about arts ? Screw it, let's just sit back in a control room, fill the schedule with american dramas and collect an annual 15 million dollars in profits !

    Worst case scenario : How about Book Television? LOOK at its schedule! It's a DUMP for low-rated shows based on books. No original programming whatsoever. Who the hell watch that channel?
    More complete article from Fagstein : http://blog.fagstein.com/2013/05/01/...ty-television/

    Let's take a look at Book Television financial data for 2012 : with 946k subscribers (channel is bundled with other channels), they made $4.45 millions in subscriber revenues, and sold $82 600 of advertisement... for the whole year ! After expenses, the channel still managed to make $2.7 million in profits ! Easy money! The only reason why Bell hasn't shut it down yet and is asking for a licence change is because it's a Category A specialty making money.

    As usual, you are responding to FACTS with mostly delusional complaints totally unrelated to the facts presented.

    Not only are your theories for why advertising is no longer enough to support local stations are as ridiculous as they are hilarious, but they have nothing to do with the U.S. networks. The U.S. networks have made it very clear that the Canadian OTA model of only advertising without carriage fees is NOT viable. Carriage fees are the only thing keeping U.S. networks OTA, you take those away and they will go to the viable advertising+carriage fees cable model.


    Off course, your statement "Specialty channels are able to make way more money with far fewer viewers because they have carriage fees" is a no brainer !

    It is, just not for the ridiculous reasons you made up. It's not hard for most people to understand that advertising+carriage fees is better than just advertising. Most people don't need to make up baseless reasons to explain why two streams of revenue is more profitable than one stream of revenue.


    Off course, CTV, Global and Citytv wants to go the easy route, run the channels for the cheapest way possible. They're already goign cheap with specialties, why would they collect subscription money (much easier) from BDUs for their conventional stations and run them even more cheaper?
    Bell and Shaw do not run CTV and Global the "cheapest way possible". Their stations produce well above the required amount of local programming (and they do it with several newscasts 7 days a week, they don't just fulfill their requirements with one cheap local program) and maintain properly staffed news operations, and they are willing to do this operating under the broken business model of only advertising with no carriage fees, the same non-viable business model which will result in the U.S. networks ditching OTA for cable.


    The only reason Global Montreal and Halifax (money-losing stations) now have a morning show is because Shaw have to do it due to their tangible benefits proposal when they brought Canwest. They wouldn't have done it otherwise on their own initiative, and they know they're currently throwing money out the window.
    Shaw made the decision to commit to morning shows at these stations. It's a requirement they asked to have and the plan is to continue these morning newscasts after the benefit money is gone. Halifax is certainly a market where it's very likely Morning News will continue long after the benefits. Global Maritimes has already experienced audience growth following the improvements made to the stations other local programming and news operations so it's hard to see why the Morning News wont benefit from these investments as well. They aren't "throwing money out the window", they are making the investments to build a news powerhouse. That's how you improve audience share in the market, you invest and improve. As for Montreal, if it wasn't for Shaw this station would likely not even have a news operation without carriage fees. Shaw not only saved Global Montreal's news operations, they increased the amount of news produced!

    Aereo is distributing free-to-air channels over the internet only to residents within the station's OTA footprint. Those residents could otherwise receive those channels with an antenna in their living room, they could otherwise buy a tablet with ATSC-M/H Mobile DTV capabilities... but... neither the iPad or the Android are equiped with it.

    Some cable providers in the US such as Cablevision offer DVR capabilities for 11$ more per month (http://www.optimum.com/digital-cable-tv/dvr/ ). Aereo is offering DVR services of local free-to-air channels for 8 dollars per month. How do you call this stealing ? Most of these customers have money, they brought a tablet and/or a smartphone (!) and more likely already pay for cable and/or satellite, and therefor, Fox and CBS already get their cut. Now they want to double-dip ?

    It's stealing because Aereo is TAKING SOMETHING WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. Aereo charges customers for their service which relies on programming Aereo didn't pay for. The other companies who distribute this programming pay for it, Aereo does not. The fact that people who subscribe to Aereo may subscribe to another provider does not make it okay for Aereo to not pay broadcasters for their programming. It's not double-dipping because Aereo is not paying them!
    Last edited by TVViewer; 05-05-2013 at 03:02 PM.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    InMontreal is beginning to look like the underdog, so once again, I must jump on the underdog bandwagon.

    The OTA product is being given away for FREE. Aereo is simply re-distributing it to the masses for a price. If nobody bothered to pay for the service, Aereo would be gone. Take away the desire for a service like Aereo, or simply remove the free OTA product from the airwaves and Aereo will be toast.

    If Fox and the gang want to take away their free product, that's their option, but I'm not so sure it will be as easy as they make it appear.

    The mafia asks for protection money from legitimate businesses that operate in their neighbourhood. Fox and the gang are simply trying to shake down Aereo for protection money. However, in this case, they are going to use the courts and other means to get the job done and wipe out Aereo.

    It doesn't matter what Aereo does or doesn't do because they apparently found a legal loophole that has so far been successful (even though other imitators were shut down) at keeping them alive.

    The networks have a lot of muscle, but as cord cutting becomes more popular, companies like Aereo will look for ways to offer free content to eager subscribers at reduced rates. Throw in some original content and perhaps a few forward-thinking cable channels to the Aereo package, and that's when tiny Aereo becomes a formidable competitor for big cable.

    That simply can't be allowed to happen, so the networks will be screaming bloody murder until nobody is listening. That's when the free content will have to be pulled from the airwaves (at least for a while).

    Just because the other companies were strong-armed into paying for free content, it doesn't mean that Aereo has to ... unless the courts tell them to.

    I think that's why it's so easy to justify "stealing."

    There are also streaming loopholes that allow for the circumvention of geo-blocking. There are many companies that charge for this, and others that do not.

    If another company like Aereo comes along and decides to offer the same (or similar) service for free, the networks would still want to be paid. The Internet is already like a free PVR service that distributes copyrighted content for free (or for a small fee). Most countries consider that to be stealing, but others don't seem to care. Laws change all the time, but are often behind the advances in technology. Aereo is now ahead of the laws that are supposed to protect companies from "theft," so the networks are now scrambling to strong-arm the courts to make things "right," so that they can continue to collect their protection money from legitimate businesses.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 05-05-2013 at 03:46 PM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    921
    This is rare but I actually agree with TVViewer in regards to Aereo. The fact of the matter is the United States has a fee for carriage model for their conventional broadcast networks. If Aereo wants to have this kind of service and is collecting a monthly fee; then the broadcast networks should receive subscriber fees from Aereo customers just as they do from other BDU's in the area such as Time Warner and Cablevision.

    At the end of the day, I think if Aereo wants to stay in business they will likely come to an agreement with the broadcasters in terms of carriage fees.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,048
    John McCain is introducing a bill that would "establish consequences" for broadcasters like Fox and CBS if they follow through on their threats to downgrade their over-the-air service after they lose the court battle against Aereo. He also wants "a la carte" service mandated, and TV blackouts to be not allowed in sports stadiums built with public money.http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/john...on-a-la-carte/
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 05-28-2013 at 10:58 PM.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    I occasionally eat his pizza, but enough with the pepperoni, bacon and ham combinations; I want more choice! Something that isn't carcinogenic would be nice.

    And since the proliferation of pizza-sized dishes in Canada brought about changes in our laws that made DirecTV and Dish Network illegal here (at least that's what we're supposed to believe), I also don't trust pizza.

    And I think it's wrong for Maple Leafs fans to watch the Leafs/Bruins series at Boston Pizza restaurants. It should also be illegal! We should not support the enemy! Our pizza laws make no sense to me!
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,463
    There are many new articles about Aereo, its imitators, and the fact that ABC is beginning to rollout live online streaming for various cities (though a cable subscription is still needed to stream the content).

    Instead of moving to cable, the networks will most likely add live streaming to their repertoire and continue to whine about theft. Judges often rule based on a feeling of what "should" be legal or not, so it's hard to predict if Aereo will continue to win in the courts, or eventually get kicked to the curb.

    Here are two older articles that are quite interesting:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...recedent.shtml
    [Insane business decisions are often necessary to stay "legal."]

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...t-went-insane/
    [Why Johnny can’t stream: How video copyright went insane]
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •