Why The Networks Are Really Afraid Of Aereo: Time Warner Cable Says It Might Offer Aereo-Like Service
from the getting-around-their-transmission-fees dept
The TV networks' fight against Aereo, including their recent hilarious threats to pull their networks off the air and put them on cable always seemed really exaggerated. Aereo is a tiny startup, with a questionable business model and not that many customers. It does some nice things, but how many people were really going to sign up? Of course, the truth is that the networks aren't that scared of Aereo itself, but if what they're doing is shown to be legal, others might follow. Others like... the big cable companies. Like Time Warner Cable.Time Warner Cable's CEO, Glenn Britt, just admitted that they're watching the Aereo case closely, and might offer an Aereo-like service themselves, if Aereo continues to win its lawsuit.
“What Aereo is doing to bring broadcast signals to its customers is interesting,” Time Warner Cable chief executive Glenn Britt said in an interview with The Washington Post. “If it is found legal, we could conceivably use similar technology.”There's a lot more behind the scenes here. Britt is posturing, in part, because every few months or so we see yet another flare up between the networks and various cable providers over how much the cable guys need to pay to retransmit the networks over their wires. If you have a TV service, you've probably lived through one of these fights, where you're told you might lose (and sometimes actually do) a popular channel for a while if the company doesn't come to its senses. Those fees have gone up and up and up and are a big part of why cable bills are so ridiculously high these days.
What Britt is now saying is that if Aereo is found to be legal, TWC would seriously consider offering their customers a similar service and then they could tell the networks to get lost the next time they demand a crazy amount to be included. This is why the networks are so freaked out about Aereo. They're not so concerned about that one company, but that the cable companies will finally realize they've been paying ridiculous sums of money to rebroadcast those channels, when they might be able to deliver the same content, legally, online for free.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable, glenn britt, retransmission
Companies: aereo, time warner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it really hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The listeners decide they like the poem, so they whip out their recording devices and record. One of them gets the nifty idea of attaching an antenna to the recording device and re-transmitting the poem over the internet, and even charging for it, for other people to hear, who just can't be in the vicinity physically.
At which, you, the guy with the megaphone, get mad, and demand they stop, and give them a cut. After all, without you, there would be no service.
To which I reply: But you didn't do anything to stop me from listening. You in fact might as well have given us an implied licence by shouting (broadcasting) it in the clear. You did nothing to help in the re-transmitting end. You did not provide any of the equipment. You didn't help with maintenance or the electricity or internet bills. If your work is so valuable that you must be paid if someone else makes use of it...DON'T SHOUT IT (BROADCAST) IN THE CLEAR FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO HEAR AND USE. In essence, you are demanding payment for doing nothing at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
Because it's just grifting, I don't see how Aereo could possibly win the case -- and if win in court and the broadcast content is yanked or those go out of of biz, then it CAN'T win in the long run: they'll have killed the host they're leeching off.
If Aereo's notions were legal, it would have been done long ago. -- Guess I'd define legal here as without opposition from the content creators, who have ultimate recourse to just shutting down, which guaranteed to stop Aereo from operating!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let the networks drop OTA and think they're going to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
Lemme just link this for you
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/09080722534/aereo-wins-again-appeals-court-says-its-s ystem-is-not-infringing.shtml
*Walks off, with finger pointing at head rotating*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153467-amd-destroys-nvidia-bitcoin-mining
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Hey, you're catching on, Mike. Good for you. This isn't hard to understand. The networks get paid lots of money for licenses. If Aereo isn't paying, everyone else who is will wonder why they're still paying. Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
Do us all a favour and do a few things.
Grow Up.
Learn how to debate.
Learn to cite sources.
Have a working memory (Aero has been WINNING its court cases so far)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Plus with the 'net you can get real data rather than estimation based on a sample.
The combination should allow for higher advertising fees.
Seems to me like a no-brainer....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let the networks drop OTA and think they're going to
No cable company is gonna shoot themselves in the foot and refuse to carry the most popular channels on the dial indefinitely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
But grifting is clearly Mike Masnick's idea of a good business model.
In the Techdirt world, the definition of innovation is making money off of someone else's content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
If not GTFO grifter, you didn't pay for the privilege you are using this blog for your own purposes and is not even paying for it have you no shame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They already are on cable and satellite. Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
Tell that to the open source folks that are making millions and are a billion dollar market already.
Besides if you don't want others "taking" your content for free what are you doing using OTA transmission are you long in the tooth or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It was hidden for "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
While not strictly "inaccessible" many will skip over it so it is effectively censored. Why? I don't see one thing in his comment that was trolling or offensive. I've brought this up before - it was essentially flagged because it brought a view that does not jive with the "community".
For a site that puffs its chest for "free and open", the readers are amazingly thin-skinned. It's the most hypocritical aspect of this website.
-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
Oh wait...you meant a licence. Sorry, but you just suck at making yourself clear. You wrote a completely stupid absolute statement that just happened to include your heroes at the networks, without bothering to fine hone it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your view. Maybe, just maybe, your view isn't the one that matters. Maybe, just maybe, the opinion of the Techdirt community, who individually decide that the opinions you and your ilk spew forth aren't worth the time to read.
"it was essentially flagged because it brought a view that does not jive with the "community". "
In a way - yes. The comment was patronising to say the least and didn't add to the discussion. There was nothing new or original about it (hmm, where have I heard that before?), no new viewpoint or thought to be discussed. Just an insult, and according to the views of the community, insults that have no purpose or deeper meaning are a waste of time. Thus, we mark them. We say "Don't bother reading this".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This particular comment is tamer than his usual but it still adds nothing to the conversation but puerile condescension. This particular comment espouses no views what so ever so it's not even an example of flagging as a result of bringing 'a view that does not jive with the "community".' Not sure what the quotes there are for by the way, it is literally a community.
Not sure I'm following on the thin-skinned. OOTB has directly stated he's a troll before, literally saying sometimes he's just arguing in bad faith to stir up trouble. Not sure what's hypocritical about labeling individual posts as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are all comments treated the same?
You'd be okay with only dissenting comments being displayed fully with all other comments hidden behind a "This comment is preaching to the choir. Click here to show it"?
Maybe you'd be okay with that, but I think the site would be become pretty worthless.
The whole point in having the "flag" is to mark messages that are threatening or obscene or just spam. Sadly it has become a "mark of 'alternate viewpoint'"
-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I do, so we disagree.
But how does that comment not "jive with the community" when it's basic point is agreement with the post? It was not flagged because of the point it made. It was flagged because of how it made it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I've seen it that way for years. The difference between you and I is that I encourage people to question why they're doing something, especially if there is a better way to do it, whereas you seem to think that everyone should keep doing it without thinking critically.
Are re-transmission fees fundamentally a good thing for society? If you say yes, please provide your reasoning. My answer is no, whether it is the cable company or Aereo being told to pay it. The network is already broadcasting advertisements and getting paid that way, thus retransmission is increasing the reach of that advertising (and what they can charge advertisers), so additional fees are double-dipping (and charging twice for the same thing is inefficient). Adding additional transaction costs for copying infinitely copyable stuff is another inefficiency. Artificially limiting who can see or access your content, especially when it costs you nothing to allow it, and you are using your content to sell advertising, makes utterly no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why?
It's easier to fudge bad data and not be caught. If we had real numbers on the viewership of these larger networks there is a good chance they would be much lower than claimed and they should not be pulling in the level of ad dollars they are.
Technology, over time, almost always ends up pulling back the curtain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead of making an argument with sources for why Mike is wrong, whoever wrote it just decided to toss in an insult. If that's the best the "alternative viewpoint" can come up, we've already won the debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh yeah, that's right, its not a free market and its tilted toward existing players, thus they have an intrinsic right to all future innovation in the industry and the profits from it.
The is the system you so openly support.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those discussions where never censored "or flagged" or what-ever you want to spin it.
That time is obviously long gone when the "Insiders" can't even see the irony of their own special blend of censorship.
Granted... TD never claimed to be Fair and Balanced.
Sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually the part that should worry us is in the phrasing
This is the bad news! Areo, the networks etc are small potatoes compared to this seemingly pervasive presumption of illegality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually the part that should worry us is in the phrasing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Actually the part that should worry us is in the phrasing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nowadays - it's all attacks, insults, rushed out comments, and no thought at all. Are you honestly trying to equate that patronising insult that was hidden with an actual attempt at a debate? It's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The usual arguments from the usual suspects are (1) "it's free over-the-air anyway!"; (2) "they'll get more eyeballs so that's more ad revenue!"; and (3) "it's just a longer cord!". All three arguments are pretty dumb. The networks obviously think that they'll get more money from the licensing fees than they will from the ad dollars, or else they wouldn't mind the additional eyeballs. And "length of the cord" is not the legal standard. The standard is public performance under the transmit clause in Section 101 of Title 17. At least now Mike is finally homing in on the actual reason Aereo is problematic. 'Twas obvious to me all along, but the Kool-aiders haven't seen it for some reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or reputable. Or honest. Or trustworthy. Or journalists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only way for comments to be hidden is for many people to individually decide that they should. There is no conspiracy going on at Techdirt HQ. We don't message each other saying "Quick, click on Report on this comment". We, without communicating, decide on a common goal. The reason you don't see our comments getting hidden is because there aren't enough viewers clicking on the Report button for those comments - although it will and can happen (when I said I wished I could kill OOTB with a shotgun, that comment got hidden. I learned my lesson there, not to post death threats. Unlike certain other people I can name who never learn from their mistakes)
"The networks obviously think that they'll get more money from the licensing fees than they will from the ad dollars, or else they wouldn't mind the additional eyeballs."
But that has, or rather, should have no bearing on whether a particular business is illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the About Page
"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow."
Basically, dumbed down, it says Techdirt reads news stories, analyzes them and offers an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Sane people, upon reading a publication that they believe prints nothing but lies, would quickly decide to avoid that publication. So...are you sane? Or are you insane?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OTA services go hand in hand with local news affiliates because that is how most locally affiliated TV stations receive signals..cable providers basically retransmit that data through cable to us under license with the station and the station's parent and sister stations. The thing is that local stations can opt in to do OTA services for other aflilated stations on their own and outside of the parent company's control. Great example is that here in Central Ohio, our ABC (WSYX Channel 6) and our Fox (WTTE Fox 28) stations share the same studio broadcasting center. Local affiliated providers rely on cable companies to distribute their respective content. The parent company can try to shut off the cable services, but what they cannot stop is the OTA services if there is one..that is only controllable by the local TV station.
Basically this is a good thing and might actually promote healthy competition for Aero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are any of your comments "censored"? As of the time of writing this specific comment, they aren't.
Do you want to know why?
It's because you're debating. You're espousing a more or less valid viewpoint and explaining your reasons for it. So far, you haven't gone off the deep end and started hurling baseless insults (keep an eye on that word, baseless).
Unlike that insult comment you started protecting, your comments here have some sort of value, at least enough that not enough people have clicked on Report, if anyone actually has. I haven't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My favorite Part of the aritcle :-)
I am honestly glad to see that for once....Time Warner will be able to do this again. They might even be able to provide basic cable OTA....which would save us quite a bit on cost. Mike I want to thank you for acknowledging that cable companies in this issue were not to blame for rising costs of cable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but wait...
will they transmit cable over the net instead? there will be a giant slayer and other cable service killer...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hee hee hee
semi-seriously (which is about as much as i can muster), while i do agree with you on principle (that techdirtia can and does 'report'/hide *some* particular posters almost reflexively), i really can't get too worked up about it when the 'censorship' (which i am FIRST in line to decry) is hardly egregious in its form...
*IF* the post was actually disappeared, i would agree with you more...
frankly, *some* posters *almost* deserve to be 'reported'/hidden almost all the time, they are simply thread hijackers who rarely provide any useful counterpoint...
but you are richtig, some techdirtians are pretty quick on the trigger... (be interesting to know if there is an actual number of reports that make it hidden, or if it is some percentage of posters, or what criteria is used...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let the networks drop OTA and think they're going to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did they all forget?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. But remember... if you voted to hide, it's because you already read it; and now you've made that harder for me to do, which makes no sense. "Don't worry your pretty little head," you say. But you've made your decision, let me make mine... less of this juvenile hiding nonsense.
Here endeth the lecture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OOTB, every time. It's tl;dr, auto-report no matter what, just seeing his name. He burned that bridge when he started comparing copyright infringement to murder, and suggested that the copying of stuff was akin to when my niece got raped. Trust me, the 2 are nowhere near the same, on any level, but this is the type of person we are dealing with here. Reality and logic are not in his sphere of reference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Improved Reception Service
Note which case (each case extends the previous one) where the case is not acceptable to you.
Some citizen (Cit) of Manhatten lives in 2nd basement (2 floors under ground) of a popular high-rise. Cit loves to watch Big Bang Theory, but reception does not penetrate to the depth of his apartment.
Case 1.
So an electrical engineer (of which he is not) offers to mount an antenna on the roof, runs a long wire down to the basement and into Cit's TV. The improved performance is great and he gladly pays the EE for his time.
Case 2.
EE was happy to help out Cit for a nominal fee, but the long wire gets cut by maintenance crews and other tenants of the building. So he begin charging Cit a yearly fee for maintaining the antenna.
Case 3.
EE likes the arrangement he has with Cit, but realizes that his repair costs would shrink if he made the antenna connection wireless. So he configures several WAPS to send the digital information from the top of the building to Cit's apartment.
Case 4.
EE realizes that the wireless connection could just as easily run from the top of his building as it could from the top of Cit's building. His building has fewer pigeons that break the antenna, so he moves the antenna and is able to provide Cit with better service.
Case 5.
EE realizes that Cit does have an internet connection, so he configures the setup to provide the signal over the internet instead of a dedicated WLAN.
Case 6.
EE realizes that Cit is not the only one in this predicament, so he start Aereo and offers the service to everyone who lives in the city...each getting their own dedicated antenna.
Case 7.
EE realizes that providing everyone with their own antenna is ridiculous and consolidates it down to one antenna which is then shared with all his customers.
How far down the slipper slope are you willing to go?
(Personally I pick 7, but I'm curious about the Aereo haters).
-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My favorite Part of the aritcle :-)
Sounds like you work for an ISP or WISP. Most of which I have noticed simply resell Satellite service due to the high costs of entry into the market. I've seen a few IPTV services that have offerings but they were severely lacking content and not even worth mentioning. So I can at least concur that it's the licensing deals that are keeping competition from the market, even if my only experience is listening to others complain on mailing lists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well, YEAH! Ya can't compete with free!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It hastens the day
Local affiliates get paid for the use of their broadcasts, which in turn is used in part to pay for their programming, network or syndicated. If the income drops, they will be forced to make choices.
The networks themselves as the main provider of content are likely to consider cutting out the local affiliate as a middleman, and instead offer their content online or via some sort of IP-TV system, or perhaps licensing it directly to the cable companies. What would remain OTA would be an all day Dr Phil-a-thon, not very desirable.
The success of these antenna farm services goes directly against the product they are selling. It's a business model doomed to fail because the two parties involved are working against each other, not together. The success of one is specifically a costly failure for the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: My favorite Part of the aritcle :-)
The whole point is this...while we always complain that the cable and satellite companies have such high prices, we tend to forget that they too have to pay to bring the content they receive from broadcasters...the major network broadcasters demand higher and higher prices each year which is why prices go up for us users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It hastens the day
Considering that they are charging for things that can be grabbed freely by an antenna by any local affiliate or cable provider, I think your point is rather moot. I am not really sure if you realize this but OTA started the television business...they still use it and charge affiliates extra for transmitting the content they receive for free. The affiliates work more closely with the cable companies than they do with their parent affiliations and the problem is that the affiliates catch the public flack when their parent stations make a dick move to get more money. When cable companies finally agree to raising the exorbitant costs being asked of them just because a CEO wants a raise..they get labeled as scum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It hastens the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It hastens the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Did they all forget?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why are you repeating something I've already read? It was dumb the first time and it was just plain annoying the second.
Ya moron...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They should've been wondering that a long time ago. Their stupidity is not our fault, but they make it everyone's problem.
"Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now."
Seeing it now? What condescending nonsense. Like you say, it's simple stuff and I doubt there are many regular TD readers who haven't known this for a long time. What's amazing is that you don't know that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but wait...
Now what Aero is doing is something rather interesting...they are using antennae to not only to pick up OTA signals...but they are also using them to retransmit those signals to other users. This is sort of cool because the more users they have in the region...the more people can watch. It's like a peer 2 peer DLNA service
:-) The beauty of this is that as far as the FCC is concerned, retransmission is completely legal without liscensing as long as they don't interfere with the actual broadcast signals...since they augment OTA signals without interference (as Aero uses boxes to pick up and retransmit them) it is perfect for the use of recording the signal.
Given Time Warner already has the ability to deploy that system to users, it could revolutionize how we connect with our cable modems. I mean could you imagine if Aero's system was deployed as an ISP as well? I'm sure that is what Time Warmer really thought about but the possibility is there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(aereo will clearly win, as they literally aren't breaking any set-in-stone laws)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually the part that should worry us is in the phrasing
Really what he should be saying is, "Unless it is found to be illegal..."
It's not really that far off since there's a court case going on. It will be found legal or illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It hastens the day
horse with no brain is bullshitting as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STOP PAYING FOR CABLE
You don't need a satellite dish, receiver or any other equipment to use our software. All you need is a computer and an internet connection. Simply download our software and you are ready to enjoy over 3,500 channels worldwide.
You can watch TV right from your laptop or desktop computer anytime or anywhere in the world. Or connect your computer directly to your TV set - once you are a member we will show you how!
http://tinyurl.com/cmpb9a6
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Aereo does not let you stream OTA content outside the market where the signal is already available. If you want to put up an antenna, you will receive the same content that Aereo provides in your area. However, if you're in a location where obstructions make this difficult (due to things like tall buildings in New York) or in a community where this is not allowed (such as an apartment complex), Aereo provides a very reasonable service that lets you effectively rent an antenna on their property where there is good signal, and feed it back to you.
Furthermore, if everyone is New York City, Boston, and Atlanta (the major markets getting this service for now) signed up tomorrow, all of the networks would see a significant increase in viewership simply because there would be zero competition from non-local broadcasters. This should boost ad revenues, and possibly even offset the lost re-transmission fees.
Frankly, I think the networks should have offered this themselves. I wouldn't mind paying them for it, just like I won't mind paying Aereo for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]