1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

DirectTV And Time Warner Cable Might Stream Live TV Over The Internet Just Like Aereo

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by onan38, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. onan38

    onan38 Legend

    308
    6
    Jul 17, 2008
  2. PA GIANTS FAN

    PA GIANTS FAN AllStar

    100
    3
    Mar 28, 2009
    Frackville PA
    The courts and networks shut down ivi.tv.
    What makes aereo so different ?
     
  3. peds48

    peds48 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    18,441
    915
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Aero says that their technology is no difference than that of SlingBox, if that were to be the case, then Aero must have a "TV" or STB per every customer....


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
     
  4. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,085
    165
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Yeah;

    But as the article says with regard to the threat by the FOX COO, even if Aereo ultimately prevails in the courts and thereby set a precedent for cable and satellite to follow suit.

    Before that happens the networks will probably stop OTA broadcasting altogether.
     
  5. medziatkowicz31

    medziatkowicz31 New Member

    25
    0
    Dec 16, 2012
    the guy that owns and founded aereo is barry diller the former ceo of said fox company. He's an insider so he probably knows what is legal and what isn't and has done his homework to make sure aereo passes legal challenges.
     
  6. Drucifer

    Drucifer New Member

    9,371
    239
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Until they carry sports channels, it is not useful for me.

    But it does intrigue me, as I would get some OTA channels that I can't receive now without a monster antenna on my roof.
     
  7. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Aereo's claim is that they are legal because there is an antenna for each and every subscriber. The idea is that they are not "copying" anything (which technically they would be if they had one antenna and multiple viewers) so there's no copyright infringement. It's a very novel idea, and in a day and age of retransmission fees going through the roof, the cable and satellite companies are obviously looking very closely.

    I don't know that I see it completely replacing the way either cable or satellite companies do LiL, because it is a very infrastructure-intensive concept. Each and every subscriber, by definition of their legal argument, gets their own separate stream. The bandwidth required and the number of antennas required would be significant. This would be mitigated, though, by the fact that most people probably aren't watching a local channel all the time. It would be a balancing act to get the mix of available bandwidth and hardware right.

    The way I see it playing out, should Aereo win, is that at the outset providers just use it as leverage to slow down the increase in retrans fees. For station groups that have extremely high fees, I could see them using this as a targeted solution (ABC in your town really expensive? Then we'll provide it to you via broadband instead). It could also be a great way to add in digital subchannels as well. But given the large startup costs in implementing this, I wouldn't expect DirecTV to jump on this immediately. Just use it as a threat. Cable would be much better suited to implement this quickly with their existing set top infrastructure. DirecTV would probably need to roll out new receivers to make it work.

    Aereo is supposedly coming to my city soon, and I'll probably sign up just to play around with it. The one thing I don't understand is why they limit it to your local city. To sign up you have to have a credit card billing zip code in the city you're trying to sign up. Given their legal argument, that shouldn't matter (and they've already pissed off the broadcasters, so why try to avoid "rocking the boat" by keeping locals local). I would hope that eventually after the legal issues are settled you would be able to buy locals from any city.
     
  8. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    If Aereo wins their suit (AND, providers like DirecTV do indeed copy this) a potential recourse for these channels is to go nuclear, and just completely unload their content for free themselves over the internet. This would undercut Aereo's subscription base entirely and nuke their whole premise for existing in the first place.

    So be careful what you wish for...

    One thing, though, I would imagine cable and satellite operators would still pay as a matter of convenience for their customers, although you're right in that they will have increased their negotiating power. However, most consumers will probably still demand that convenience so unless these operators can indeed work such a scheme into their "boxes," who knows what's going to happen.

    Also, it seems ironic that DirecTV and TWC wants to even propose this. I truly believe we are on the precipice of a major change and having these two companies embrace a distribution method that could, in time, completely destroy them is almost poetic and extremely short-sighted. They themselves would be laying the groundwork for their own destruction.
     
  9. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    You're not quite connecting all the dots in your analysis.

    First, I find it highly unlikely that local stations will start streaming their broadcasts online unrestricted. There are so many issues to resolve, the greatest of which is geographic exclusivity. As it stands, they do not have the right to distribute programming they buy from the networks or syndicators outside of their DMA. Quite a few already stream their newscasts online, so they've already gone as far as they can in this regard.

    Second, one of Aereo's major selling points is that they have DVR functionality. You can already get OTA channels free if you want, and you can even stream them for free online if you get yourself a slingbox or a TiVo. The integrated DVR functionality and apps for your phone or Roku are what Aereo are selling. Their novel method of getting around retransmission fees is just a cost management feature.

    Aereo is less of a threat to cable/satellite viewership than it is a threat to retransmission fees. A major portion of viewers are probably not going to drop cable for Aereo simply because all they offer are the networks. To be sure, there will be significant defections, but not a lot. Broadcasters are simply worried that this will become a way that satellite/cable can eliminate retransmission fees. By streaming online for free or somehow trying to out-Aereo Aereo just makes that problem worse. If Aereo wins, simply look for the local stations to become a lot more amenable to the terms and conditions the satellite and cable companies want.

    And finally, TWC and DirecTV wouldn't use the exact model Aereo is using. They would use the same technical method of having a single antenna dedicated to a single customer, but delivery to the customer would be seamless and the same as it is now. For TWC they'd just put an individual stream on the cable line to your set top box, and you'd never even know the difference. For DirecTV it'd be slightly more complicated, but I would assume they'd offer internet delivery for customers who opt in and have an internet connection to their boxes, but also keep satellite distribution since internet delivery of locals would not be a viable option for 100% of their customer base like it would be for TWC. I wouldn't expect DirecTV or TWC to require you to use an app on your phone or Roku or some other method to access your "internet" delivered channels vs. your normal channels.
     
  10. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    There are ways to ensure only local IPs get distribution, just like how Sunday Ticket can still blackout local broadcasts over streaming. That's not an impossible hurdle to overcome, in fact I'm sure it would be rather simple.

    The point I'm making is that they could swallow a poison pill IF they lose the lawsuit that could, potentially, undermine Aereo. That's the only dots I was trying to connect.
     
  11. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    The point is that Aereo itself isn't the threat. The threat is DirecTV et al being able to get around retransmission consent fees. Putting their streams online, if anything, only hastens that. They gain nothing if Aereo wins the legal argument, even if they are ultimately driven out of business.
     
  12. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Of course they gain nothing if Aereo wins; why else would they be fighting it tooth and nail, they don't want Aereo to win. If they do win, the next logical step for these companies would be to stream themselves, not necessarily as a final screw you gesture, but because they would have to.

    Put yourself in their shoes, what would you do? This especially goes double if companies like DirecTV starts retransmitting so to speak. I would say, ok, if they want to "sell" something and we're not getting paid, the only thing left to do is stream it ourselves if everyone else is already doing that.

    To me, that's a poison pill that would undercut Aereo and nuke any local broadcasting fees DirecTV currently collects on both of their behalf (although I'm sure DirecTV et. al. will find a way to not lower everyone's bill regardless, and keep the base package priced the same even though they should lower it accordingly if they are no longer burdened with local affiliates).

    And finally, to me it would indeed be ironic that DirecTV would try and stream. They will be their own worse enemy all for the desire to lower retransmission fees. Be careful what you wish for DirecTV.

    Another company that should be worried as well is Netflix. I could foresee NBC, ABC et. al. pulling all of their shows from Netflix as a result of any fallout.

    Imagine TiVo coming out with an IP capable DVR that is simple to use and cheap. Or AppleTV or Google allowing local customers to store in the cloud up to 1 TB of any streamed content for a one time fee of $50 bucks. Bye bye Netflix.
     
  13. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    "Nuking" the retrans fees that cable and satellite pay is exactly what they're trying to avoid by suing Aereo! I don't think you are understanding my point, and I will only make it one more time. If Aereo wins the legal argument, there is nothing to be gained by trying to force them out of business. That would only cost the broadcasters more money--because they would have to pay for the infrastructure to stream--and they would not make any additional money or gain any additional viewers. As a matter of fact, if Aereo wins the legal argument, it's probably in the broadcasters' best interests (if they don't go to cable-only) for Aereo to stay in business because it would mean more viewers.

    And when it comes to "streaming" for DirecTV, you're looking at it as if DirecTV would simply do exactly the way Aereo is doing it and letting you watch it on a phone or with an app or on your computer. The method of getting it to your set top box is irrelevant, just because it is IP based doesn't mean DirecTV would magically start losing customers.It wouldn't be open to Google or TiVo or anyone else grabbing the IP stream and muscling DirecTV out of the equation.
     
  14. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    I don't get your point at all. They're suing them because they want to preserve retransmission fees (of course), but if they lose they will root for Aereo?

    Why? I don't get it? Why sue at all if that's what you're trying to say? There's no major infrastructure involved in allowing their content to be streamed. They already do it to a small extent. Go to any number of affiliates and they allow certain programs to be streamed, mostly local news. How would this be different than what Aereo is trying to do, but for a small fee?

    In fact, if this thing unravels, I can see these big broadcasters start to pivot their business model because of it.
     
  15. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    I don't think they will "root" for Aereo, but there is absolutely nothing to gain by attempting to put Aereo out of business if Aereo wins. The implications for retransmission fees will be set, and if Aereo goes out of business that would do nothing to prevent DirecTV or any cable company from using the ruling against the broadcast stations. At any rate, just opening up their entire broadcast day to streaming on their own sites won't put Aereo out of business since Aereo has phone apps, Roku apps, and DVR functionality.

    And, yes, I can see the networks change their business models...they'll simply take their content off of broadcast TV and go cable only.
     
  16. inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,526
    957
    Nov 13, 2006
    They aren't suing aero because of anything other than trying make sure others don try and follow suit and get around re trans fees.

    I guarantee if aero wins the broadcasters will try another workaround. But.... How big can aero actually ever get? Over the air only. Not that big really, in terms of getting people to leaver pay tv services. They are picking up those that don't pay now more than anything and a few others who want over the air and Netflix. I think they are a bigger threat to TiVo than any established
    Provider. (Not counting the real threat to retrans fees. )

    When ABC has contract talks and Time Warner Cable or dtv are talking about going the aero route ABC will say not if you want these other stations or pay this much more for the other stations. The channels won't lose trust me.

    Anyone think the rumors about dish and ABC negotiations in locking hopper commercial skip aren't true? ;). One way or the other they will get their money. Always have always will. It's just not the music industry.
     
  17. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,085
    165
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    But why all the discussion of these alternative scenarios the broadcasters may take if Aereo ultimately wins in the courts?

    How likely is it that the broadcasters will simply do what Chase Carey (FOX COO) has actually threatened to do for FOX?

    Simply stop the age-old model of OTA broadcasting of their programming altogether and become full fledged pay TV provider?

    Not sure how this would be worked out with their local affiliate stations who they can't order to turn off their OTA transmitters other than preventing them from broadcasting network programs if they choose to remain OTA. Or how local and national emergency broadcasts would be handled if the pay provider systems are down due to natural disaster or some other.

    But anyway, how credible is this threat?
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,925
    867
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Fox is a business ... a big one. As long as they are making money off of their OTA affiliate distribution they will support that model. The same goes for the other major networks. All of them have pay TV distribution backing up their OTA. Any of them could shift all of their OTA programming to a pay TV outlet at any time ... but they all are still making money off of their affiliates.
     
  19. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Who knows how credible it is. It certainly wouldn't be easy. There's no consideration of turning off OTA transmitters or emergency broadcast requirements or any of that stuff, because that's all on the shoulders of the broadcast stations themselves. As far as Fox is concerned, they can do whatever they want with their content. Now, the one thing that WOULD throw a wrench in the works is that Fox has contracts with all of their affiliates, so they would have to work out how to do it without getting sued by those affiliates. Other things to consider are contracts with entities like the NFL and MLB, which are predicated on Fox being a broadcast network, not a cable network.

    Personally, I would say it's not very likely, less than 50% probability, but certainly much higher than no possibility.
     

Share This Page