FOX Threatens a Move to Cable

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#1
With the Aereo court decision still fresh, News Corp. President & COO Chase Carey says Fox would consider becoming a subscription-based network if broadcasters are not able to stop streaming services from retransmitting content without compensation.

“We won't just sit idle and let people steal our signal,” Carey said during a Q&A at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas.
Read More: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/66716/fox-if-aereo-wins-net-could-go-cable

For those of us who keep tabs, FOX has shown a total disdane for their affiliates and OTA broadcasting in the last few years. They have been constantly squeezing their affiliates to get more and more retransmission fees out of the pay-TV operators. Now, with Aereo threatening to upset the fruit basket they want to drop their affiliates ratings and profits by going pay only. They need to be careful especially when it comes to their sports contracts (such as the one with the NFL) that the sports league signed with the understanding that the games would be available free OTA.
 
#3
Can you blame them? Aereo is stealing content for profit.
How so if the courts say it's legal? It never becomes Aereo's content. Aereo provides a service to get the content to more users.

When Winegard sells an antenna, enabling yet another cable cutter to go OTA, are they "stealing content"?

Rick
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#4
Can anyone qualified tell me just how a "dime sized antenna" is picking up a perfect signal in a noisy datacenter in Brooklyn? I have been going over my old textbooks and I can't seem to figure it out.

Excuse my dripping sarcasm, but there has to be more to it than "dime sized antennas."
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#5
Go ahead, FOX. I'm calling your bluff.
I assure you, I (and millions of others) will continue to watch FOX for free, no matter what you do. Some of us legally, others not.

Have you heard of the "Internet"?
HULU.
Torrents. (mind you, those people will strip out your commercials!)
And then there's the live streams on hundreds of web sites.

If I have to, I'll get a BUD and watch on C-band.
 
#9
Can anyone qualified tell me just how a "dime sized antenna" is picking up a perfect signal in a noisy datacenter in Brooklyn? I have been going over my old textbooks and I can't seem to figure it out.

Excuse my dripping sarcasm, but there has to be more to it than "dime sized antennas."
Of course there is. I already showed you the dime sized antennas are connected, electrically. I also showed you they are NOT arrayed inside a datacenter. The fact that a single unconnected dime sized antenna can't get a reliable signal has no legal bearing on the issue. Can't you see that? They could connect each little antenna to a huge parabolic monster. The dime sized thing could have NO ability to capture RF waves. It could just be a node. There's NO BEARING.

Calling it an "antenna" (which I'm sure it technically is) just lets the judge feel a little bit better in making the correct legal decision. It's brilliant. This is the future. Aereo is paving the way.

Rick
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#10
Yes, lets lose a significant (although small) proportion of our customer base... that makes sense... no... no wait... no it doesnt...


Worst case scenario is they do it and another broadcaster eventually forms and becomes a replacement OTA network (and then also jumps onto cable to compete with FOX)
 
Last edited:

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#11
Of course there is. I already showed you the dime sized antennas are connected, electrically. I also showed you they are NOT arrayed inside a datacenter. The fact that a single unconnected dime sized antenna can't get a reliable signal has no legal bearing on the issue. Can't you see that? They could connect each little antenna to a huge parabolic monster. The dime sized thing could have NO ability to capture RF waves. It could just be a node. There's NO BEARING.

Calling it an "antenna" (which I'm sure it technically is) just lets the judge feel a little bit better in making the correct legal decision. It's brilliant. This is the future. Aereo is paving the way.

Rick
It's also poisonous for the TV ecosystem. Commercials aren't making as much money these days. The retransmission fees are a significant revenue source. Add to that technologies such as hopper which allows automatic, effortless commercial skipping.

A TV station is a place to sell advertising. The shows are simply to attract you, the viewer to view advertising. Or at least they were. Now that ad revenue is falling short the TV stations have to charge more in retransmission fees.

I personally don't think we'll see a full scale move to cable by OTA networks but what could happen is that a lot of the premium programming could move to cable, leaving the dregs behind. And with less incentive to keep an OTA signal, there is also less incentive to fight the FCC.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#12
Yes, lets lose a significant (although small) proportion of our customer base... that makes sense... no... no wait... no it doesnt...


Worst case scenario is they do it and another broadcaster eventually forms and becomes a replacement OTA network (and then also jumps onto cable to compete with FOX)
Or the spectrum could be sold off to the cell phone carriers and others just like the FCC and the administration wanted in the first place.
 

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#13
Calling it an "antenna" (which I'm sure it technically is) just lets the judge feel a little bit better in making the correct legal decision. It's brilliant. This is the future. Aereo is paving the way.

Rick
Wait, seriously? This is the future? Let people find a technical loophole to rebroadcast other people's works? There are costs associated with producing shows you know.

What is Aereo's contribution here? Yes, they're providing a means of getting television to online viewers...but they're not paying any royalties and charging customers to view the content.
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#14
Or the spectrum could be sold off to the cell phone carriers and others just like the FCC and the administration wanted in the first place.
Frequencies below too far below CH51 arent much use for cell phones as the tiny fractal antennas in them are to inefficient at those frequencies.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#15
Wait, seriously? This is the future? Let people find a technical loophole to rebroadcast other people's works? There are costs associated with producing shows you know.

What is Aereo's contribution here? Yes, they're providing a means of getting television to online viewers...but they're not paying any royalties and charging customers to view the content.
So?! It wasn't that long ago (6 or 7 years) that most TV stations, including the major network affiliates, were still on "must carry" rather than expecting retransmission fees. And, in the digital era the real cost of producing content has come way down. If it wasn't for the high salaries of the "talent" it wouldn't cost much at all. Maybe it is time for Hollywood to get out of local TV! To bad the plan is to just kill local broadcasting off rather than allow people who want to broadcast (either as ad supported or as a public service) to be able to do so.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#16
Frequencies below too far below CH51 arent much use for cell phones as the tiny fractal antennas in them are to inefficient at those frequencies.
But, if you own the licenses no one else can use it, whether it works for your purposes or not. It's a way to create artificial scarcity and drive the competition out.
 
#17
Wait, seriously? This is the future? Let people find a technical loophole to rebroadcast other people's works?
Yes, seriously. The very term "rebroadcast" is a loophole. Once it's on the air waves it belongs to the people, or at least that's precisely what our government told us when the FCC claimed the right to "license" frequency bands. If all you need to watch is an antenna, and a proximate location, then it's public domain.

The government doesn't have the ability to regulate more than that. Government doesn't have infinite resources. They will try, but it's utterly pointless. The government is not God.

Rick
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#18
But, if you own the licenses no one else can use it, whether it works for your purposes or not. It's a way to create artificial scarcity and drive the competition out.
nbound-au,
They intend to use it for broadband as well. But the reality is that the death of free TV is the hidden agenda of the FCC. The FCC is populated by lawyers and friends of the cellular and pay TV industry. Here's an example of the mentality:
Roasting the Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal by Stuart Benjamin :: SSRN
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#19
Once it's on the air waves it belongs to the people,
Wait, what?

Tell that to the NFL when you tell them about your superbowl party with a TV bigger than 55 inches and charge admission.

TV programming delivered OTA is about as public domain as your car is when you park it on a public street. If you don't believe me, start taping episodes of primetime shows and sell them on ebay. Copyright still applies.
 
Last edited:

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#20
Frequencies below too far below CH51 arent much use for cell phones as the tiny fractal antennas in them are to inefficient at those frequencies.
Tell that to the FCC and Obama, they want all of it.

It's not just cellphones either, but broadband cards, and home broadband.
 
Top