DISH to partner with Aereo?

[rdehaven]

Re: the viewership tracking: This is purely a guess at this point but I doubt that Nielsen is getting that data from Aereo. That's likely a good bargaining chip to start with.

Re: Signal delivery: I think that the decision to use OTA is a cost driven decision. I'd speculate that dedicated fiber would be the primary method IF they wanted to completely abandon OTA. If they chose the encrypted OTA path they would only need to supply the MVPD's with the proper equipment. (guessing that would be about 125 DMA's x 4 providers in each market on average)

Certainly not FREE, but they claim to be losing a lot of money, so they HAVE to be willing to spend some to protect their product.

 

[sam_gordon]

From 2011:



The tradition continues: NFL to remain on broadcast TV

That doesn't say anywhere that broadcasters are contractually obligated to carry the games on free OTA. Maybe it is in the contract, I don't know. But I don't think anyone without knowledge of what's exactly in the contract can say for sure.

 

[sam_gordon]

Re: the viewership tracking: This is purely a guess at this point but I doubt that Nielsen is getting that data from Aereo. That's likely a good bargaining chip to start with.

Re: Signal delivery: I think that the decision to use OTA is a cost driven decision. I'd speculate that dedicated fiber would be the primary method IF they wanted to completely abandon OTA. If they chose the encrypted OTA path they would only need to supply the MVPD's with the proper equipment. (guessing that would be about 125 DMA's x 4 providers in each market on average)

Certainly not FREE, but they claim to be losing a lot of money, so they HAVE to be willing to spend some to protect their product.

I agree fiber would be the solution if broadcasters abandon OTA. However, I'm willing to guess fiber would be MUCH more expensive to implement than OTA (unless you only want to deliver to a single point).

As far as encrypted OTA... again, that equipment costs money. If broadcasters pick up the tab, they're going to want more in retransmission fees. The end user is no better off than they are now.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

That doesn't say anywhere that broadcasters are contractually obligated to carry the games on free OTA. Maybe it is in the contract, I don't know. But I don't think anyone without knowledge of what's exactly in the contract can say for sure.

I don't think it would be emphasized like that if it weren't in the contract. It's doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that could just be a coincidence...

 

[Teehar]

That doesn't say anywhere that broadcasters are contractually obligated to carry the games on free OTA. Maybe it is in the contract, I don't know. But I don't think anyone without knowledge of what's exactly in the contract can say for sure.

I would bet my bottom dollar that there is wording,or stipulations in the contracts,that either prevent CBS,NBC,and Fox from going to pay only,or the NFL can void said contract.The NFL already has it's own cable network,there would be no reason or incentive to have the games on another cable channel.In my opinion,all Fox is doing is posturing.They know they would be in a lose lose situation by going cable only.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't think it would be emphasized like that if it weren't in the contract. It's doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that could just be a coincidence...

I read it as PR. Was there even an INKLING a broadcast network might become a "pay" network when these contracts were written up?

I would bet my bottom dollar that there is wording,or stipulations in the contracts,that either prevent CBS,NBC,and Fox from going to pay only,or the NFL can void said contract.The NFL already has it's own cable network,there would be no reason or incentive to have the games on another cable channel.In my opinion,all Fox is doing is posturing.They know they would be in a lose lose situation by going cable only.

I'm not willing to bet one way or another. For it to be in a contract, someone would have had to think a network going pay only was a possibility (no matter how slim). I'm not sure someone did.

I do agree Fox is posturing.

 

[Teehar]

I'm not willing to bet one way or another. For it to be in a contract, someone would have had to think a network going pay only was a possibility (no matter how slim). I'm not sure someone did.

I'm sure team NFL covered all the bases.They always seem to have all the I's dotted and T's crossed.

 

[rdehaven]

Similar thinking is starting to appear:

Exec: Fox affiliates 'on board' with pay TV plan
http://www.kens5.com/entertainment/202190391.html

"Pruett said that Fox TV stations could send out two signals — one to cable and satellite providers and another out over the free airwaves. Premium Fox programs could be reserved for paying customers, while the free-to-air broadcasts could be of lesser quality. Pruett said it was too early to go into details."

 

[nelson61]

Bloomberg West just interviewed the boss of Aereokiller (Filmonx). This guy says they have had Aereo type service for years, that the Fed California appeals court ruled opposite of the NY court and it will be heading to the big court.

Need the techies and legal beagles to identify why different rulings on opposite sides of country.

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

That doesn't say anywhere that broadcasters are contractually obligated to carry the games on free OTA. Maybe it is in the contract, I don't know. But I don't think anyone without knowledge of what's exactly in the contract can say for sure.

The agreement between the leagues and the government prevent them from moving the to cable.

All the games that can be on cable are on cable now.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[nelson61]

Similar thinking is starting to appear:

Exec: Fox affiliates 'on board' with pay TV plan
http://www.kens5.com/entertainment/202190391.html

"Pruett said that Fox TV stations could send out two signals — one to cable and satellite providers and another out over the free airwaves. Premium Fox programs could be reserved for paying customers, while the free-to-air broadcasts could be of lesser quality. Pruett said it was too early to go into details."

And the 50 million free to air viewer market will have plenty of ad supported content. They have free to air for a good reason--- they do not want or can not pay for tv sub.

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[dangue]

Similar thinking is starting to appear:

Exec: Fox affiliates 'on board' with pay TV plan
http://www.kens5.com/entertainment/202190391.html

"Pruett said that Fox TV stations could send out two signals — one to cable and satellite providers and another out over the free airwaves. Premium Fox programs could be reserved for paying customers, while the free-to-air broadcasts could be of lesser quality. Pruett said it was too early to go into details."

They're dreaming if they think there won't be backlash (both public and politically). If they make this move, it would not surprise me to see lawsuits and or steps to strip the transmission licenses from such affiliates.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[nelson61]

Bloomberg West just interviewed the boss of Aereokiller (Filmonx). This guy says they have had Aereo type service for years, that the Fed California appeals court ruled opposite of the NY court and it will be heading to the big court.

Need the techies and legal beagles to identify why different rulings on opposite sides of country.

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

Looks like a west coast appeal was filed on jan 25 2013.

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[nelson61]

Looks like a west coast appeal was filed on jan 25 2013.

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

Looks like the east coast appeals court describes service as "white" and then the west coast district court disagreed and calls it "black".

http://digilaw.edwardswildman.com/?entry=4507

Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Another thing to remember here is this FOX exec who said this has an axe to grind against Aereo and Dish is none other than former Directv CEO. Chase Carey.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[satjay]

Similar thinking is starting to appear:

Exec: Fox affiliates 'on board' with pay TV plan
http://www.kens5.com/entertainment/202190391.html

"Pruett said that Fox TV stations could send out two signals — one to cable and satellite providers and another out over the free airwaves. Premium Fox programs could be reserved for paying customers, while the free-to-air broadcasts could be of lesser quality. Pruett said it was too early to go into details."

Well I guess fox won't have much programming on free to air

 

[Stargazer]

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


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)?

If these other providers are getting their signal OTA like Aereo is then why do they have to pay a fee and Aereo doesn't? Is it all about the signal getting transmitted through an internet connection instead of through coax or satellite? I can see some rules being changed in the near future to include internet as another way that it cannot be retransmitted without consent/payment.

 

[Tampa8]

No that's not it. Read again what Aereo does. They provide an actual antenna for each person who subscribes. Only that one person can use that antenna. That's why it's legal. If I wanted to I could put an antenna in Florida, and watch locals in Connecticut in the same way. As I posted, I DO, using a slingbox. So I can use an antenna that is specifically mine to watch locals through a company because the free signal is not being made a public broadcast, it's private. So you have a legally obtained signal (Via an ota antenna) going to one person. That's exactly the law. Nowhere is it that a company can't make money by tunneling that signal from an antenna over the internet to one person, which once again, is exactly what Sling/Dish has been doing right along. I believe that's why Sling has never allowed more than one person to be signed in at one time.

Now contrast that to what providers do. They take one signal and send it to everyone. Very different and is covered under the law.

 

[sam_gordon]

Shouldn't satcos & cablecos be more nervous about Aereo (and other similar ventures) than broadcasters? Think about it... many people are "cutting" the cord because of the increased cost for sat/cable service. Aereo makes cutting that cord that much easier. How does Aereo help consumers? OK, Dish tells NYC locals (for example) "screw you, we're not paying retrans fees" and has something setup so Dish's subscribers can watch Aereo (if that is legal). So now Dish doesn't pay retrans fees. Does anyone for one second think they'll see their Dish bill drop because Dish no longer pays retrans fees?

Other consumers, now that they can get live local broadcasts without messing with an antenna of their own, decide to cut Dish services (down if not out). So now Dish loses out on that money.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I can get me locals OTA via DISH now.

Cable companies have bandwidth caps, if they worry about AEREO then they are in violation of their Net Nutrality agreements.