Then lets add some middle men... Network 'A' owns production company 'A'. The production company has a hit show the network wants to carry. The actors/directors/writers/makeup artists/camera operators/editors/etc that all contribute to that show know it's a hit show and they want more money. So that increases the production company's costs. Which increases the network costs, etc, etc, etc.
DISH to partner with Aereo?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 187
- Views 30K
And how do you provide competition though? There's only one NFL. There's only one NBA. There's only a handful of major college conferences. It's not like you can add more product to drive the price down.
That is possible. But it would only work for customers that have internet capable receivers.
Sam you seem to be forgetting that broadcasters are using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES which allows them to run their business.
These OTA signals are supposed to be FREE to the consumer.
What is the difference of me putting up a Antenna and hooking it to a Slingbox and watching my locals, and renting an antenna from Aereo and doing the same thing?
I think the government should take back the frequencies from ANY broadcaster that wants to pull their signals from consumers.
A good show gets good ratings which in turn equals good ad revenue.
Its up to the networks to bankroll what they think are going to be hits.
Its like the stock market, you need to pick the winners. Some perform better then the other.
Scott, you seem to be forgetting I have said broadcasters are making the wrong decision by fighting Aereo. I agree Aereo is operating within the law. I don't want them shut down. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
As far as your last statement... I don't think any broadcaster wants to pull their signals from consumers. First, I feel you are mixing networks (in this case CBS & Fox) with local broadcasters. Yes, the networks own some locals, but that's the exception. Second, they're not "pulling the signals". With rare exception, anyone can put up an antenna and get the signal for free. There's nothing that says broadcasters have to give the signal to consumers however they want it. What ever happened to "let the market decide"?
Umm, yes? A good show gets good ratings which equals good ad revenue. But guess what happens to the people who put the show on? They want more money. It happens in television, movies, and sports. The better performers require more money. And where exactly do you think that money comes from?
You mention the stock market. Pick a good performing stock. If you bought early, you got it cheaply. Once it's performing well, you have to pay more to get the same stock amount, right? That's what happens in the media. The difference is in the stock market, once you purchase a stock, it's yours forever (unless YOU decide to sell it). Not the case in the media. If a broadcaster purchases a show, whether the show is good or bad, the broadcaster only has that show for a finite amount of time. After that time runs out, if a broadcaster wants the show again, they'll have to pay more (assuming it's a good show).
The technology is out there for broadcasters to stream their content themselves. I said before the problem is the contracts the broadcasters have with the program providers. In my opinion, what broadcasters SHOULD do is when it's time negotiate contracts for programs, they get wording allowing the stream. If need be, limit it so you can only stream to devices registered in your DMA (however that would work). Maybe broadcasters have tried but program providers won't agree, or want too much money (in the eyes of the broadcasters) to do so.
A couple months ago I tried to utilize an ESPN app on my Kindle to watch some program. The app would allow you to watch the stream *IF* you were a subscriber to certain cable networks... NOT Dish. You had to put in your account number for them to verify. So, I pay so I can watch ESPN, but I can't watch the live stream? Anyone care to explain that?
A couple months ago I tried to utilize an ESPN app on my Kindle to watch some program. The app would allow you to watch the stream *IF* you were a subscriber to certain cable networks... NOT Dish. You had to put in your account number for them to verify. So, I pay so I can watch ESPN, but I can't watch the live stream? Anyone care to explain that?
Sam honestly read what your posting your speaking out both sides of your mouth.
You keep saying "Let the marketplace decide" and I think they already are and the broadcasters don't like it. If there was no market or no one using Aereo then Aereo would cease to exist. Its really that simple.
It seems to me that the broadcast industry is very anti consumer, as they keep doing all they can to prevent those they are supposed to be serving from actually watching their programming.
The networks are showing they have no regard for the consumer and that the only thing they care about is taking home a fat paycheck... good luck with that its hard to get paid if no ones watching.
You keep saying "Let the marketplace decide" and I think they already are and the broadcasters don't like it. If there was no market or no one using Aereo then Aereo would cease to exist. Its really that simple.
It seems to me that the broadcast industry is very anti consumer, as they keep doing all they can to prevent those they are supposed to be serving from actually watching their programming.
The networks are showing they have no regard for the consumer and that the only thing they care about is taking home a fat paycheck... good luck with that its hard to get paid if no ones watching.
Scott, I'm going to say this one more time... In my opinion, BROADCASTERS. ARE. DOING. THE. WRONG. THING. BY. FIGHTING. AEREO. I have no issues with Aereo. This is at least the third or fourth time I've said this in this thread. Why you keep implying I'm supporting broadcaster's fight over Aereo is beyond me.
I keep saying "let the market decide" because someone here mentioned it earlier. BUT, it seems people here want the "market to decide" only as long as the market supports them.
I don't hate the broadcasters.I just think they are anti consumer.Every time they pull a stunt like we're taking our ball and going home just reiterates that feeling.Instead of fearing change,they need to be innovative,they have sat around far too long,now there are serious threats to their business model.
As for myself,I'm very frugal,I'll never overpay for an item.I don't have the luxury of getting something and passing the cost on to everyone else.
How can the market ie,the consumers decide,when the broadcasters say we'll pull our ota signals,or only have lower quality programming via ota.
As for myself,I'm very frugal,I'll never overpay for an item.I don't have the luxury of getting something and passing the cost on to everyone else.
How can the market ie,the consumers decide,when the broadcasters say we'll pull our ota signals,or only have lower quality programming via ota.
I'm curious if you've been in a position in a business that has knowledge of how they spend their money. Do you really believe they think "oh, let's pay way more than this product is worth, we'll just get our customers to pay for it"? If ANY business increases costs too much to their customers, customers won't buy the product, the company won't make money, and then go out of business.
You want a literal answer to your question? That's EXACTLY how the "market decides". Broadcasters make a demand. Cable/satcos aren't willing to comply. Broadcasters decide not to offer their service. I still think threatening to pull OTA is an empty threat. I could be wrong.
When I read that ESPN paid 16 billion for MNF,and there are many more instances of others doing the same,what else am I to believe?Again in the instance of ESPN/Disney,they know they can pass the cost on,that's why they make such outrageous bids.Almost all sat and cable providers have no option to leave ESPN out of base packages,so their hands are tied.
Let's see ESPN,ABC,FOX,NBC,and CBS,go a la carte,or subscription only.I can guarantee you they would lose a lot of customers.The way it's designed now it's virtually impossible for fair market to determine prices.The broadcasters and many cable channels have a take what we offer and like it,or forget it.That's not allowing the market to decide.That's also why they freak out when someone like aereo comes along.
Obviously,I nor anyone else,will ever convince you that the current system is seriously flawed,so I'm done arguing.
What are you to believe? That ESPN/Disney felt that's what they needed to outbid anyone else. Isn't that how bidding works?
You're not getting it. The fair market *IS* determining prices. Sat & Cablecos decide what they're willing to spend in order to carry that programming. Let's say ESPN came out and said "We want $20/subscriber/month!" Providers need to determine if that's worth it. They're free to turn the offer down. Isn't that the 'Free Market'?
Where did I ever say the current system ISN'T flawed? The impression I get, whether you all mean it or not, is since I don't accept that broadcasters are evil, and everything should be free to the consumer, I must be wrong.
For what it's worth, I'd LOVE to go to an ala carte system. I have 200 channels of which I watch maybe two dozen, but in order to get the stations I want, I need to get all 200. Now, are you blaming that on the "Big Four"?
I do think networks & broadcasters need to embrace new technology. But as I've tried to explain, it's not always a lack of desire to embrace technology on the part of broadcasters that prevent things from being done. You don't think THEY'D like to stream their signal? Oh, that's right, the broadcasters want to "screw the viewers", I forgot.
What "big four" are you referring to? Oh, Disney (ABC), National Amusements (CBS), Comcast (NBC), News Corporation (FOX)...then yeah, we are blaming them.
Last edited:
Just as you said, licensing. In the case of the satellite providers I would think that it could cost them more to stream the content to you because you might not be using an Internet provider that has an agreement to help with the content distribution (think Akamai). I have Cox for TV and Internet. I would expect Cox's agreement with ESPN to place a content cache in a COX facility to allow ESPN to send 1 stream effectively to Cox and then that would send on to all Cox users.
There's a question though... who/what is preventing ala carte?
I'm sorry, I don't follow your explanation. Specifically, it would cost WHO more to stream the content to me? Are you referring to the sat providers or ESPN?
I am of the opinion that the way the market is currently set up makes these dynamics take way to long to 'adjust' to conditions. The friction we're seeing is an indicator that 'change' is being requested by the customers.
The amount of content that is now on TV has grown tremendously. I'm a big sports fan but I think that there's just too much stuff on TV that is of too little interest. I'm not interested in paying for things that I don't think should be on TV, ESPN included. A la carte would provide the clearest data on what people really want to watch. There are too many TV executives agreeing to put too much on TV because they KNOW that they can (up to now anyway) just pass the costs up the food chain.
Err, who was Disney/ESPN bidding against? At that time there was no other company that could have done the job like ESPN. Down the road, Fox and NBCSports could challenge them. But not when that contract was signed. Disney/ESPN gave the NFL everything they wanted because they know that they can pass their irresponsible bid plus a profit down the line.
Here's what I don't get though... why does everyone assume Disney/ESPN would automatically get whatever increase they "pass down the line"? THEIR customers (cable/satcos & advertisers) have to be willing to pay more money. If their customers don't pay, ESPN loses money. Isn't that how the market is supposed to work? A company makes a product (and spends money making that product). They sell that product at a certain cost. If the cost is "right", people buy it. If it isn't, they don't.
ESPN for the streaming bandwidth for sure. I assume that the SatCo's would only need to provide some for of authentication and channel verification to ESPN (just like the CableCo's).
In a normal market that would be the case, but because they know that they can spread that cost over the multiple channels that they own, and extort their customers (MVPDs) into paying those rates contractually bundled together.
