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!

Supreme Court said Aereo is a cable company, so now it wants to be treated like one

Discussion in 'Cable TV Discussion' started by Athlon646464, Jul 10, 2014.

  1. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Supreme Court said Aereo is a cable company, so now it wants to be treated like one

    (Engadget.com) - Despite Aereo's best efforts, the Supreme Court decided that its service was too much like cable TV and therefore its unlicensed streaming of TV broadcasts were illegal. Now, after putting its service on pause, Aereo has filed a letter with the US District Court saying that since the Court said it's like a cable system, it is entitled to the same statutory license that cable companies pay broadcasters....

    Full Story Here

    [​IMG]
     
  2. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    8,226
    443
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    The plot thickens.
     
  3. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,639
    98
    Nov 18, 2006
    If they pay the local channels just like a cable company there should be no problem. You can buy a device from Audiovox that will let you watch local TV on a device with no monthly fee. It is just a small recever that connects to your IPad etc.
     
  4. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    You can call us cable,
    You can call us pay.
    You can call us subscription

    but ya' doesn't has to call us Aereo.
     
  5. nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    936
    51
    Jul 11, 2006
    If DISH, DirectTV and cale get a retransmission consent, and pay for it, then Aereo should be entitled to do it, as well. It does not matter how the signals are received or sent, as long as they don't skirt the copyright law. Though, if Aereo was charging $12 a month, it is going to be a difficult model to charge more, while at the same time paying TV stations. For example, let's say DISH must pay $4.00 a subscriber for locals; if Aereo pays teh same as DISH, then they have to raise their fee to $16 to retain same profits. At that point they have approached or exceeded life lien service for cable and the base price fro DISH. In a market like New York, with nearly 100 OTA channles/subchannels, this may work; but, for a place like Columbus, Ohio with about 20 channels/subchannels this may not be feasible. Aereo may succeed here, but they will be in limited markets. It will be very hard fro Aereo to succeed in their existing model.
     
  6. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,023
    514
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    If this goes through it would set a precedent on what can qualify as the last mile from the provider to the customer. i.e. being available on any device anywhere you can get an internet connection in the DMA vs tied down to in home only can it override the NFL's exclusive deal with Verizon for national games over mobile phones? Because of this WatchESPN and WatchABC stations like WPVI who carry the Eagles OTA can't show Monday Night Football on mobile phones, while the NFL's mobile app limits the authenticated live streams of the NFL Network and RedZone to Verizon Wireless customers only. Some contracts the networks have with programmers have different terms for television vs internet which is why stations like ESPN, ABC, USA, Syfy and others that have live online streams replace commercials, some programming is limited to certain devices, and some programming has to be blacked out, would this override that? The Sky Angel IPTV service had a limited lineup for mobile devices while their full lineup was only available with an internet connected set top box. Dish's recent deal with Disney gave them rights to use their programming for an IPTV service, it would be interesting to see how that rolls out and if it has any restrictions on devices as it might set a precedent of what Aereo can do.

    It depends on the stations, while NYC has about 100 channels when you include the subchannels, it depends if they chose retransmission consent or must carry as well as if they include their subchannels with the main station or count it as a seperate add on. The major network affiliates and some of the larger independents do retransmission consent, while smaller stations elect must carry and don't charge at all which is what WRNN and WZME does and what KVNV will do when it goes live at the end of the month. A lot of NYC's smaller stations are Low Power or Class A stations which have their own set of rules. They can't use must carry to get on every provider like a full powered station can, it's strictly up to the provider to carry them, but they can still charge providers, the ones that are nothing but brokered time would probably be free, while the MundoFox affiliate WPXO-LD might charge. PBS is its own can of worms.


    Being a cable company also opens up Aereo to more regulations too. The disability act requires the providers in the top 25 markets to carry the SAP feeds for descriptive video and its expanding to the top 60 markets next year. They might have to provide a public/educational/government access channel too. Nielsen uses embedded signals to know what people in their survey are watching, if Aereo is losing that signal when transcoding the channels anyone in the survey using Aereo wouldn't be counted.
     
  7. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The comments are priceless. Still some on engadget who buy into the "renting a small antenna" nonsense.
     
  8. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Never understood why they didn't do this in the first place. Of course, their model will be destroyed because they will actually have to pay for the content and content is very expensive.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    If they stay in the OTA space, they could probably do okay. Not sure why they didn't either. There is still a market for people who have issues picking up OTA within a market but don't want full up cable or satellite or want mobile access. I think that market is still big enough.

    The odd thing about Aereo is that it limits itself to DMAs even more strictly than cable (more like DirecTV). If I were to have it, I would get Baltimore OTA and would be limited in market. Take my iPhone over a county line and - bam- nothing. Yet I can pick up the stations with a portable TV at that point.

    Maybe they can make it geographically mobile in that you get whatever market you are currently in. Go from Baltimore to Washington with a mobile device and your ABC switches from WMAR to WJLA. There may be a market there as well.

    If they intend to go full up cable, they are doomed.
     
  10. James Long

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

    44,925
    867
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So ... are they a cable operator who has to offer local carriage on a certain percentage of the channels they carry or a satellite operator who must offer carry one carry all service? If all they are carrying is locals or a few other channels then as a cable company they will not need to offer every local channel (that is, the primary feed of every local channel).
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Doctor Whom Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,477
    359
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    If they had wanted to be this kind of company, this option was always available to them... they could always have negotiated retransmission rights from the local stations and paid for them just like cable and satellite do.

    This is sort of weird... because they clearly didn't want to pay for what they were transmitting before.
     
  12. James Long

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

    44,925
    867
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Getting the broadcasters to agree to carriage would be the key. Leveraging the negative SCOTUS decision into a positive to be declared the equivalent of a cable company opens the door.

    Satellite did it years ago with PrimeTime 24 and distants on DirecTV and DISH. Provide the channels, get sued for copyright violation, lose, settle and then "partner" to deliver local stations into their own local markets and distant stations under a strict yet permissive law. Perhaps that is what Aereo wanted to emulate?

    Aereo would rather do it without paying the broadcasters ... DirecTV and DISH have expressed the same desire. But one works with the system that exists. No fantasies allowed.

    Will Aereo be successful in getting retransmission agreements? Will they be able to negotiate something or will they need to wait for Congress to write a law? What law are the Fios providers using for broadcast station carriage? It seems that law should already be applicable to Aereo. They just have to follow the rules and get consent.
     
  13. inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,529
    957
    Nov 13, 2006
    Aero needs dvr type functionality as well. If they raised their price to $16 or $17 a month, they will still be very competitive to a tivo system that is ota only, and in some ways maybe even more convenient for most people, if they have dvr functionality for their services at that price. Heck even $20 a month most people would likely prefer that over a tivo I have a feeling. No up front fees would be a big check in their favor.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page