Aereo

[Lakesrider]

I'm just waiting to see the day that Companies like Comcast, Metrocast, Time Warner etc., Block these on their internet services......

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

I'm just waiting to see the day that Companies like Comcast, Metrocast, Time Warner etc., Block these on their internet services......

This has been and will continue to be battled in the courts as we speak/write

[jeffk]

This type of issue is puzzling to me. Broadcast TV makes money by selling ads. The amount they can charge for those ads is determined by the size of their audience. The audience is determined by the size of their viewing market and by the share of the market they reach through the popularity of their programming.

In theory, the more possible people they can reach the more they can charge for ads. Let's say (total speculation) that they can reach 10,000 broadcast viewers, 30,000 cable or satellite viewers, and another 5,000 internet viewers. ALL viewers get to see the ads, right? Shouldn't that allow them to increase their revenue stream by charging more for ads (to businesses) that reach more people? Why should they care how the ad is delivered to the viewer?

Is this just a problem because broadcast TV is greedily trying to pry extra bucks out of cable & internet providers?

[Orion]

JeffK I think you hit the nail on the head, especially your last line.

The cable-co's and sat providers have done a good job selling all these "packages" which contain 99% junk. The astounding thing to me is the percentage of people within 40 miles of major metro areas who have no clue they can get all major networks for FREE with a $30 antenna. For some reason everyone thought when we went digital we had to go "cable". If you have a less than 10 yr old TV, you have a digital receiver built-in. If everyone would wake up to that fact some of this could get turned around.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jeffk

This type of issue is puzzling to me. Broadcast TV makes money by selling ads. The amount they can charge for those ads is determined by the size of their audience. The audience is determined by the size of their viewing market and by the share of the market they reach through the popularity of their programming.

In theory, the more possible people they can reach the more they can charge for ads. Let's say (total speculation) that they can reach 10,000 broadcast viewers, 30,000 cable or satellite viewers, and another 5,000 internet viewers. ALL viewers get to see the ads, right? Shouldn't that allow them to increase their revenue stream by charging more for ads (to businesses) that reach more people? Why should they care how the ad is delivered to the viewer?

Is this just a problem because broadcast TV is greedily trying to pry extra bucks out of cable & internet providers?

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

This is true, but doesn't need to be. There are some video streaming websites that provide ads before they stream your requested video. They stream the add for 10 seconds and allow you to skip it after that. But some of these 10 second clips are so compelling that you don't want to skip. Either it's entertaining, relevant, or both and you end up watching a great targeted ad. That's what "they" need to do. And, with the use of web-streaming, they can more easily target ads of interest to you as opposed to how they are just randomly broadcast today on all media sources.

And, yes, I fast forward through all ads on my DirecTV DVR and my Channel Master OTA DVR.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

I understand what you are saying but skipping ads is nothing new. I usually mute live ads and do something else while they are on. If recorded, I skip over them. I don't think that the method of delivery, cable or internet makes that much difference. If the ads are included with the program, that is all the advertiser can expect. He can't force you to listen. I used to tape shows with a VCR that put up a blue screen and auto fast forwarded through ads. That content was delivered through broadcast TV and I still skipped it.

What you are describing is the ability of new technology to quickly skip over ads. Heck, with the right software you could completely edit them out. The delivery method, which is what this is about, doesn't really matter.

[wifi]

Interesting, on one of my Roku movie channels, I think its "Drive in movies", they lock out the skip buttons during advertising, LOL

[upthesaukee]

I can pee, go get a beer or glass of ice tea, put my hand in the cookie jar, give the cat his treats at 4 o'clock, put my hand back in the cookie jar again while I go get another glass of ice tea or another beer, grab a handful of cashews (fooled you), get another beer or glass of tea, ooooppppsssss, time to pee again, then get..... Ads are great and you don't miss anything on the show or the game.

[Kamper]

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...&siteid=yhoof2

This is a current article on Aereo's court battle. I think they should prevail because the 'antenna rental' argument is similar to Cable's argument that DVR services are the same as viewers renting VCR's and DVD machines to make home recordings.

Many stations and networks have simulcast on their home pages. I know a friend who told me he was watching a baseball game on the leagues website a few years back too.

[Orion]

It'll be great if Aereo can beat this with the cable co's own argument!

[Merrymeeting]

Here come the legal challenges.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...dqL/story.html

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by Kamper

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...&siteid=yhoof2

This is a current article on Aereo's court battle. I think they should prevail because the 'antenna rental' argument is similar to Cable's argument that DVR services are the same as viewers renting VCR's and DVD machines to make home recordings.

Many stations and networks have simulcast on their home pages. I know a friend who told me he was watching a baseball game on the leagues website a few years back too.

Looks like Aereo is done for.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothyp...igh-of-relief/

[webmaster]

STATEMENT FROM AEREO CEO AND FOUNDER CHET KANOJIA ON UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION

Court decision denies consumers the ability to use a cloud-based antenna to access free over-the-air television, further eliminating choice and competition in the television marketplace

New York, New York (June 25, 2014) - The following statement can be attributed to Aereo CEO and Founder, Chet Kanojia:

"Today's decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We've said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today's decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, 'to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.' (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?"

"Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country's fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle."

"Justice Scalia's dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority's opinion as 'built on the shakiest of foundations.' (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that 'The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.' (Dissent, page 11)"

"We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world."

Yours truly,
Chet Kanojia
Founder & CEO

It may not be over for Aereo but they'll have to negotiate fees with the networks to continue doing business.

[upthesaukee]

From the Boston Globe today:

http://www.boston.com/business/techn...g9J/story.html

[BroadHopper]

And they renegade. When they sold the TV analog frequencies back in 2008?, they promise no disruption in service and the FCC provided the digital box coupons worth $35. The claim was if you can receive the analog signal you can get the digital. Unfortunately digital travels in a straight line while analog can 'bounce' around. Many if not all in the valleys lost their signal and were force to cable or satellite service costing thousands of $.

When I lost me signal, FCC refer me to a 'model' that I need a 60' tower to receive a signal. Problem is the tower is expensive and no help form the gvt. Also the homeowners association will have none of it. My complaint went to deaf ears.

You would think the lawyers will argue to the fact that there is a cable/satellite monopoly and the little guy needs a break. That will never happens as long as there is PAC money to prevent this break.

[webmaster]

It seems to be over:

A letter to our consumers
The Next Chapter

A little over three years ago, the team at Aereo set out to build a better television experience for the consumer. We began this journey because we were frustrated with a system that we believed was broken and no longer served the consumer. When it came to watching live television, the options were few, the products available were cumbersome and didn’t fit our increasingly mobile lifestyle, and costs were unreasonably high and rising.

With that in mind, we put our collective engineering power to work to create an online technology that was simple, useful, and compelling, and provided consumers with a true alternative to how they watch local live TV. That’s how Aereo came to life.

Our engineering team created the first cloud-based, individual antenna and DVR that enabled you to record and watch live television on the device of your choice, all via the Internet. In less than two years, we went from drawings on a napkin to launching Aereo’s technology in more than a dozen cities across the country.

The enthusiasm we encountered was overwhelming. The sense of frustration consumers expressed reinforced our mission. We knew we had touched a nerve, had created something special, and had a built something meaningful for consumers.

But we encountered significant challenges from the incumbent media companies.

While we had significant victories in the federal district courts in New York and Boston and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the reversal of the Second Circuit decision in June by the U.S. Supreme Court has proven difficult to overcome. The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws that had governed Aereo’s technology, creating regulatory and legal uncertainty. And while our team has focused its energies on exploring every path forward available to us, without that clarity, the challenges have proven too difficult to overcome.

Accordingly, today, we filed for Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings. We also appointed Lawton Bloom of Argus to serve as Aereo’s Chief Restructuring Officer during this period.

Chapter 11 will permit Aereo to maximize the value of its business and assets without the extensive cost and distraction of defending drawn out litigation in several courts.

We have traveled a long and challenging road. We stayed true to our mission and we believe that we have played a significant part in pushing the conversation forward, helping force positive change in the industry for consumers.

We feel incredibly lucky to have had the opportunity to build something as meaningful and special as Aereo. With so many shifts and advances in technology, there has never been a more perfect time to take risks, challenge the status quo and build something special.

Thank you for all of your support. Your emails, tweets, Facebook posts and letters have meant the world to us. We are incredibly grateful to have gone on this journey together.

Yours truly,
Chet Kanojia
November 21, 2014

[trfour]

Aereo loses battle, cord-cutters may win war...

http://www.zdnet.com/aereo-loses-battle-cord-cutters-may-win-war-7000036064/



Terry
_______________________________

[gwhite13]

lived my life "subvert where possible"..