DISH to partner with Aereo?

[rajmarie]

I'd guess this is blather at the moment in an attempt to try to condition the battlefield with Aereo. I don't think network OTA has a lot of time left as they are getting killed in the ratings due to diversification in programming from the providers. They no longer have the captive eyeballs they once did not so long ago. They offer their programming for free OTA as a condition of not having to pay a king's ransom for the bandwidth, but still want everyone to pay them some more. I don't blame them for wanting that, but this I'll take my ball and go home seems juvenile. There isn't a lot of programming on Fox I would miss so if they choose to go that route, it'd be interesting. I would also think the affiliates provide a cash stream they might miss if they fold up.

This is basially putting pressure on system for FOX to tilt the scale in their favour. IMO....FOX & all broadcasting station deserve to lose here anyway since they have failed to inovate. What Aereo is doing is thinking out of the box...& staying on the legal side yet providing some service to a few customers who cant receive these channels OTA anyway. So at the end of the day.....these OTA stations are actually winning since their programs are getting watched. But what these executives so...term these as piracy...& when lost the legal case...& crying.

Yes...FOX...pack your bags & go home. Become cable channel & see how you go against the big cable nets including your own FX & soon to be FXX & whatever else you have planned.

Atleast we will have space on our spot beams to add better HD channel

 

[Claude Greiner]

The networks are literally cable stations right now, as they are charging a per subscriber fee for each subscriber that they have on cable and satellite now.

From a Network standpoint, I think Fox is right. They should cease the OTA broadcasts and go exclusivly as a cable channel....

This will solve several issues the networks are facing...

#1 It will kill the Hopper for good, as new agreements will need to be written and they networks will have a no hopper clause in the agreement, or they will demand more money if a hopper is used.

#2 All these silly DMA rules that you have to live in a certain area are thrown out the window.

#3 The networks get to collect a fee from 100% of their subscribers.

 

[zippyfrog]

Fox could become cable channel, News Corp. COO Chase Carey says

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-ct-fox-cable-aereo-20130408,0,4681713.story

I would love to see what the NFL thinks about this. I don't know the language of their contracts, but would FOX lose their Sunday NFL broadcasts if they aren't OTA? I know Roger Goodell in the past has made comments about how the NFL is the only professional sports league that a local market can receive all their team games free OTA.

 

[speedmaster]

LOL!

 

[DustoMan]

Fox could become cable channel, News Corp. COO Chase Carey sayshttp://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-ct-fox-cable-aereo-20130408,0,4681713.story

Ya, FOX... just go nuclear, and see how that works out for you.

 

[sam_gordon]

For the sake of argument, let's say a broadcast network decides to become a cable company. How does that benefit the end user? Presumably, the network would then arrange carriage on as many systems (cable/sat) as they can. But I find it hard to believe they'll give it away. So the network (now cable company) charges the sat&cablecos a retransmission amount. Will that amount be less than what is being paid to local broadcasters now? I'm guessing it depends on the market, but probably averages out across the country. So you're still getting the same programming (some will be different because the network will have to fill the holes locals do now), and still having to pay retrans.

Now, what you're not getting is locally produced content. Some locals don't do any, some just do news, some do a lot. Granted, it may not be important to you, but that doesn't mean viewers (in general) don't care. I'm still convinced D* & E* didn't really "take off" in any given market until LiL was available. So having that LiL *IS* important to viewers.

So go ahead, flame me.

ETA: I do think FOX (and any others if they are doing so) aren't looking at this right. They're still getting viewers. No, they're not getting the retrans money, but they're not getting any retrans money from "Joe OTA" either.

 

[nelson61]

The networks are literally cable stations right now, as they are charging a per subscriber fee for each subscriber that they have on cable and satellite now.

From a Network standpoint, I think Fox is right. They should cease the OTA broadcasts and go exclusivly as a cable channel....

This will solve several issues the networks are facing...

#1 It will kill the Hopper for good, as new agreements will need to be written and they networks will have a no hopper clause in the agreement, or they will demand more money if a hopper is used.

#2 All these silly DMA rules that you have to live in a certain area are thrown out the window.

#3 The networks get to collect a fee from 100% of their subscribers.

All good points and it will be a chess game. The big four networks act as an oligopoly (just short of monopoly). Economic theory says when one makes a disruptive move increasing customer cost (viewing ability in this case), the others sit back and do nothing figuring they will pick up market share (some 50-60 million sets of eyeballs). So, at least one of them will likely consider any encryption or subscription move an opportunity to gain market at $0 dollar cost by doing nothing. Then they will collectively head to congress and work to amend the regulations. Probably supported by the rural states with poor internet service and lacking cable since over the air is a big deal to their voters. Observing how dysfunctional the congress is, one would expect it to take years for something to work it's way through the system. Meanwhile, technology is racing ahead and the next mountain roadblock will hit the broadcasters. -- Going to be fun to watch this one.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I think the networks would WANT companies like Aereo to succeed, after all they are helping the networks and local channels get their signal into more homes in their DMA. This means more people can watch their signal who live in the area who wouldn't normally be able to watch that channel because they can't pick it up OTA even though they live in that stations footprint.

More eyes watching = more ad revenue which is good for everyone.

Aereo is doing the stations a favor by bringing their signals to people who want to view them.

Now I could see if Aereo would let you watch channels from outside your DMA, then the broadcasters should have an issue with that, but since it is no different then a customer watching the same channel via their OTA antenna its not costing the networks anything... ITS BRINGING THEM MORE VIEWERS.

 

[rajmarie]

It's all money game. Aereo is able to make some money by adopting to way we watch & is providing options to customers.

Networks just want there cut plus abilitity to renegotiate a higher amount every few years for lesser content

 

[Mochuf]

I think the networks would WANT companies like Aereo to succeed, after all they are helping the networks and local channels get their signal into more homes in their DMA. This means more people can watch their signal who live in the area who wouldn't normally be able to watch that channel because they can't pick it up OTA even though they live in that stations footprint.

More eyes watching = more ad revenue which is good for everyone.

Aereo is doing the stations a favor by bringing their signals to people who want to view them.

Now I could see if Aereo would let you watch channels from outside your DMA, then the broadcasters should have an issue with that, but since it is no different then a customer watching the same channel via their OTA antenna its not costing the networks anything... ITS BRINGING THEM MORE VIEWERS.

I think that most locals get more money via re-trans fees than they do from ads. Also Fox has locals pay them a fee for every household in that locals DMA that subscribe to a pay-tv provider. Anything that could give a reason for people to drop pay-tv (re-trans fee payers), even if it's only a lifeline service that provides ota channels, is to be fought. While nobody at a local station will admit it, cord cutting is scary. While people would be dependent on them for live broadcasts, there is more money to be made via re-trans fees than by ads.

It's all money game. Aereo is able to make some money by adopting to way we watch & is providing options to customers.

Networks just want there cut plus ability to renegotiate a higher amount every few years for lesser content

Yep, it's all about protecting their revenue stream and even expanding it.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's all money game. Aereo is able to make some money by adopting to way we watch & is providing options to customers.

Networks just want there cut plus abilitity to renegotiate a higher amount every few years for lesser content

Of course it's a money game. Dish is in the "money" game, as is satelliteguys. Is there any business that doesn't want to make money?

 

[sam_gordon]

I think that most locals get more money via re-trans fees than they do from ads.

I'm not sure about that. Possible? Yes.

 

[sparc]

More eyes watching = more ad revenue which is good for everyone.

up until Aereo offers a new AutoHop-like feature that allows people to wipe out all the commercials out of the shows.....

 

[rdehaven]

I think the networks would WANT companies like Aereo to succeed, after all they are helping the networks and local channels get their signal into more homes in their DMA. This means more people can watch their signal who live in the area who wouldn't normally be able to watch that channel because they can't pick it up OTA even though they live in that stations footprint.

More eyes watching = more ad revenue which is good for everyone.

Aereo is doing the stations a favor by bringing their signals to people who want to view them.

Now I could see if Aereo would let you watch channels from outside your DMA, then the broadcasters should have an issue with that, but since it is no different then a customer watching the same channel via their OTA antenna its not costing the networks anything... ITS BRINGING THEM MORE VIEWERS.

I've seen almost no mention of the DMA restrictions in the press. I know they are in place. I think it's just better to NOT mention that in the view of the Networks. I too agree that Aereo is helping to mitigate poor reception in some markets and should be considered an ally in those regards. Remember that was the orginal value proposition for Cable in the early days. I also see the potential for partnering between Aereo and the Networks to help them deploy local TV to the devices that tech savvy users want to use.

I suspect that the added Aereo viewers would not be tracked and therefore might not add to the total number of counted viewers.

I think the REAL issue the networks fear is that this COULD be scaled up and used by Cable and Satellite providers in an attempt to avoid the recent rash of re-transmission agreements. Even though this 'revenue stream' is fairly new it is contributing $3B according to an article I read.

I think there are a variety of ways that FOX could be converted to cable only. I think the early conversations thought that they would be a national channel. With that losing the ability broadcast into specific DMA's. I think that they could keep the local affiliates and then have their signal delivered directly to the Cable and Sat providers instead of using OTA with only a loss of 10% viewership.

Another option would be to devalue the primary signal (down res as mentioned earlier in this thread) but Aereo would still technically be allowed to use those signals. I'm not sure if any of the agreements in place require the signals to be passed along in HD. (I would certainly like to THINK that quality of signal is important enough to be included in the contract)

Yet another 'flavor' would be for the primary OTA channel to have different, lower bandwidth and low value content (think re-runs etc), that still meets FCC requirements (so they can retain the free use of the frequency) and then encrypt the HD higher value content and provide receivers to all of the Cable and Sat head ends. Aereo can use the re-runs (building core interest for the Networks) and they maintain 90% of the distribution and local presence.

 

[sam_gordon]

I suspect that the added Aereo viewers would not be tracked and therefore might not add to the total number of counted viewers.

I would be surprised if there was no way to track Aereo viewers.

I think there are a variety of ways that FOX could be converted to cable only. I think the early conversations thought that they would be a national channel. With that losing the ability broadcast into specific DMA's. I think that they could keep the local affiliates and then have their signal delivered directly to the Cable and Sat providers instead of using OTA with only a loss of 10% viewership.

In my market I KNOW D* gets all except 1 local broadcaster via OTA. E* gets ALL local broadcasters OTA. Time Warner gets the locals via fiber. Every other (I think the count is close to 120) cable provider gets the signal OTA. How exactly do you envision local affiliates delivering the signal directly to Cable & Sat providers (and not be available to others)?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

If FOX went to cable only they wouldn't be able to bring the NFL, MLB of Nascar with them.

 

[Neutron]

I would love for Aereo to provide DFW locals. Suddenlink here provides both Tyler and DFW locals on the cable system. This would be a workaround for that stupid law that states that satellite companies can't provide those channels.

 

[sam_gordon]

If FOX went to cable only they wouldn't be able to bring the NFL, MLB of Nascar with them.

Do we know that for sure? Are the contracts really written that the games must be broadcast OTA?

 

[sam_gordon]

I would love for Aereo to provide DFW locals. Suddenlink here provides both Tyler and DFW locals on the cable system. This would be a workaround for that stupid law that states that satellite companies can't provide those channels.

From what I understand, it's not just laws, it's contracts. A local has a contract with a program (or ad agency) that only allows them to provide that show/ad in that market.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Do we know that for sure? Are the contracts really written that the games must be broadcast OTA?

From 2011:

The National Football League has agreed to nine-year extensions of its Sunday broadcast television packages with CBS, FOX and NBC that will keep NFL games on free, over-the-air television, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced Wednesday. The nine-year terms are the longest for NFL television agreements with over-the-air broadcast partners, surpassing the eight-year deals signed with CBS, FOX and ABC from 1998 to 2005.

The new agreements run through the 2022 season. The NFL's current television agreements expire following the 2013 season.

The agreements also enable the NFL to expand its Thursday night package of games on NFL Network beginning next year. The number of additional Thursday night games has not been determined.

The NFL is the only sports league that delivers all of its games -- regular-season and playoffs -- on free, over-the-air television. (ESPN's Monday night and NFL Network's Thursday night cable games are required by contract to be carried on over-the-air, broadcast stations in the cities of the participating teams, subject to local blackout rules).

The tradition continues: NFL to remain on broadcast TV