Aereo - what do you think of it?

[linhpham2]

I'm kind of hoping that Aereo wins it's SCOTUS case. If enough broadcasters are forced off of the air due to decreased revenue (retransmission fees), hopefully this will mean more 600 mhz spectrum to auction off.

 

What do you think?

[Dkoellerwx]

I'm kind of hoping that Aereo wins it's SCOTUS case. If enough broadcasters are forced off of the air due to decreased revenue (retransmission fees), hopefully this will mean more 600 mhz spectrum to auction off.

 

What do you think?

 

I would rather not see this. Those re-transmission fees are what keeps the business running. Without them, local TV would basically vanish. 

 

As for the 600Mhz spectrum. I work for one of the channels that uses that spectrum. It's insanely expensive to move off of it, so I'm still not convinced that it will ever be cleared for auction. 

[MacinJosh]

What's with the insane obsession with kicking tv stations off the spectrum they use all the time? For crying out loud, make the government move all it's excess redundant communications systems and auction that spectrum off instead.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[bigsnake49]

What's with the insane obsession with kicking tv stations off the spectrum they use all the time? For crying out loud, make the government move all it's excess redundant communications systems and auction that spectrum off instead.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

 Spare me the tears... Crap stations that serve only to sell commercials. More commercials than content. Annoying as heck.

Edited March 13, 2014 by bigsnake49

[bigsnake49]

I would rather not see this. Those re-transmission fees are what keeps the business running. Without them, local TV would basically vanish. 

 

As for the 600Mhz spectrum. I work for one of the channels that uses that spectrum. It's insanely expensive to move off of it, so I'm still not convinced that it will ever be cleared for auction. 

 

You sell commercials. The re-transmission fees are illegal, unless the cable co adds it's own commercials.

[Dkoellerwx]

 Spare me the tears... Crap stations that serve only to sell commercials. More commercials than content. Annoying as heck.

 

What are you talking about? Not all over-the-air stations operate like that. Sure, a few of them, but most of them are real local stations that would really be hurt by this. We would go out of business if this goes through.

 

 

You sell commercials. The re-transmission fees are illegal, unless the cable co adds it's own commercials.

 

Uh. Yeah, we sell commercials. But there is also a retransmission fee for cable companies. They don't get our channel for free. They are not illegal. You don't know what you're talking about.

[linhpham2]

What's with the insane obsession with kicking tv stations off the spectrum they use all the time? For crying out loud, make the government move all it's excess redundant communications systems and auction that spectrum off instead.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

Not an obsession - just progress/changing with the times. There's growing demand for mobile data and more people are cutting cords/watching less tv.

 

IIRC, the US govt is currently studying how to consolidate their spectrum holdings and share the private sector. But that's like 10+ years off before anything useful.

[swintec]

Uh. Yeah, we sell commercials. But there is also a retransmission fee for cable companies. They don't get our channel for free.

 

I would not word it that simple as it makes the networks look like saints.  The local stations have two options when it comes to cable companies.  Either request payment for the right to rebroadcast the stations signal (and hope the consumer demand of the station causes the cable company to buckle and pay it) OR they can invoke the must carry rule and REQUIRE the cable company to carry the station but they wont get paid for it...they will have to hope the ad revenue among other things keeps them afloat.

 

Which do you think most stations are leaning towards now a days?  Ad revenue is in the toilet the past few years as no one really cares about them.  This is why you see these local disputes so often now with the stations trying to appeal to viewers to put pressure on the cable companies for them.

 

Personally, I think the cable companies having to pay for the locals is incredibly stupid.

 

Not to spook you, but TW has hinted that if Aero passes the test with the Supreme Court they will look to embed the Aero functionality into their cable set top boxes.  You can bet most other cable companies will follow suit.

 

It will be a great day when they can bully the local stations back and give them a big "eff you!".  Then we can see how relevant they really are when they have to operate under the simple must carry rule.

[ericwalton]

The airwaves are a limited resource, and times are a changin'. TV stations don't simply get to hold on to their spectrum for no other reason than "they've had it forever", or even "we'd go out of business." The airwaves are a public resource, and should serve the public, not some archaic business interest. Moreover there are other technologies that may be more suited to distribution of your local news.

 

Further, the local TV stations, just like all other forms of media (Movies, Radio, Newspaper, Music) are fighting a losing battle. Younger people don't care what you the TV gods think they should have or want, or how they should get it. Just like the Music business..... fight a losing battle, and lose. Either change and adapt or die. You can ramble all sorts of righteous words all day and it won't change a thing. Adapt or die.

 

As far as Aereo, I hope they win.

 

As far as TV stations and their spectrum, if technology can solve a problem in such a way that frees up spectrum and still allows the tv stations to broadcast, they have a duty to do it. If the cost is too much for them to bear, then either find a sugar daddy, or close up shop.

[S4GRU]

I'm kind of hoping that Aereo wins it's SCOTUS case. If enough broadcasters are forced off of the air due to decreased revenue (retransmission fees), hopefully this will mean more 600 mhz spectrum to auction off.

 

What do you think?

 

Back to the premise of the OP, it seems that large markets is where 600MHz is short on supply and needed most.  In large markets, the local stations are more likely to get enough ad revenue to make a go without rebroadcast fees.  And less likely to give up their licenses.

 

It's small markets that have the most to lose.  Communities outside the Top 100, and even worse communities outside the Top 150.  These places likely already have a good amount of 600MHz spectrum to put on the market.  So putting them out of business just removes someone that provides a local benefit to the citizenry with no useful net effect for mobile subscribers.  

 

Small community TV stations that are barely making it, the loss of rebroadcast fees would be terminal.  I could see how some smaller markets could lose coverage by some networks all together or lose their last and only stations.  And these are in places with already plenty of 600MHz available.  It scares me the thought of losing local broadcasters.  Especially living in a small city myself.  We could get down to just one local TV station, and it may just be owned by a large faceless corporation that cares nothing for the local community.  Or even become monoplistic, which is scary when you consider news.

 

I haven't made up my mind what I think about Aereo.  I like the idea in general.  And I also like the idea of 600 spectrum.  But I also think there is a strong public interest in keeping local televisions stations alive and thriving.  I don't know what the solutions are.

 

Robert

[afazel]

I don't understand what keeps local TV stations from streaming their content, commercials and all, over the Internet. With the networks behind it, it would save them all a good amount of money when the day finally comes that it is a viable option for all viewers.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Dkoellerwx]

 

Specifically for my market (no, this doesn't apply to all markets) it wouldn't be possible to expect people to watch an online stream. There's just not enough bandwidth in the areas we cover for people to watch online. Almost half of the viewership is people who watch with antennas because they can't get cable, and don't want or can't afford satellite. 

 

Local TV is a HUGE part of the community here. And even the biggest station in town is just scraping by. My station is the new kid on the block, and we are struggling to compete. 

 

I'm not sure how much 600MHz spectrum is available here, but I do know that we broadcast on that band. And no, we haven't "had the spectrum forever." We've only had the lease since 2007. If forced to move, unless given a grant, we would be forced to shut down. We are a local company, we have no huge conglomerate corporate backer (aka, Hearst, Gannet, Meredith, Tribune, Scripps) so it would be a loss for the community. Not to mention putting a lot of people out of work.

 

Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum out there. In this market, they have already consolidated, putting the local ABC and local CW channel on the same frequency, using the digital "dot 2" for the CW. Plus it's a stretch to expect competing stations (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) to share the same frequency. There's not enough room to put two 1080i channels on the same channel.

 

 

It will be a great day when they can bully the local stations back and give them a big "eff you!".  Then we can see how relevant they really are when they have to operate under the simple must carry rule.

 

For the record, local stations don't get to "bully" the cable companies. For the most part, the cable companies are bullying the local stations. When disputes come up, it's the big corporate companies creating the disputes. The local stations don't get much of a say in that, and have to do what corporate tells them. 

 

I don't understand the mentality that local TV is irrelevant, and the desire to see it go away.

 

When something happens, a big fire, explosions, an amber alert, severe weather, natural disaster, people turn to the local channels for coverage. The vast majority of people still get their local alerts (news, weather) from local TV.

 

Times are changing, yes. And televisions stations have been changing too. It's been a long, hard process, and it's still going on. But putting them out of business because you want more bandwidth on your mobile phone is just dumb.

[swintec]

For the record, local stations don't get to "bully" the cable companies. For the most part, the cable companies are bullying the local stations. When disputes come up, it's the big corporate companies creating the disputes. The local stations don't get much of a say in that, and have to do what corporate tells them.

 

fair enough, I assume you mean Gannet and Sinclair and the likes?  i agree with you there, they are more or less negotiating FOR their local channels in the local markets.  The problem is, they have the option to be broadcast on the cable systems...they can simply invoke the must carry rule, end of story.  They throw that out and decide to go all out and charge per subscriber and have the local affiliates put crawlers on the bottom of the screens, air commercials, facebook campaigns, etc about how the local citizens need to call Time Warner or Comcast to tell the cable company to keep the station on the air.

 

I just wish it was made more clear to the masses what is actually happening behind the scenes with must carry and declining that to try to get paid per sub.  The retransmission fees are just a money grab to keep a broken distribution model running and was simply lobbied for when the stations realized they could not make the numbers work anymore with ads and must carry.

 

I dont really care so much about the spectrum.  I just want to see Aero win to set precedence and maybe get some innovation going.  These stations will flip out if Aero wins.

[linhpham2]

I don't know what the solutions are.

 

Robert

 

Is spectrum used by radio stations useful at all for broadband? Maybe take off a few religious and low power stations off of the radio dial and sell off their spectrum... I'm only half joking...

[lordsutch]

Let's bear in mind that before the mid-90s, broadcast TV operated only under the must-carry rules and didn't receive anything in return for cable carriage. After all, from the broacasters' perspective, cable ensured that many people in their market area could get good to excellent reception who wouldn't have it otherwise due to signal propagation issues (lack of line-of-sight, transmission distance, cochannel or adjacent channel interference, etc.). Plus the broadcasters (particularly the O and Os in major markets) have used retransmission consent as leverage to ensure carriage of their affiliated cable networks, whether viewers want them or not. And they've used it to play off the cable and satellite providers against each other to increase fees well beyond inflation, largely to spend absurd sums for the rights to carry pro and collegiate sports leagues, and increasingly and most egregiously even to ensure that broadband providers are sending them cash on the odd chance you might want to watch their shows online.

 

Unless broadcasters are suggesting with a straight face that anyone who puts up an antenna to receive their broadcasts (which, after all, they are free to stop doing and go cable-only, and relinquish back their spectrum for use by others) should be sending them a monthly check, I find it very unpersuasive to argue that whether the antenna I use to receive their programming is on my property or my landlord's roof or in Aereo's server farm makes any difference as to whether or not I should have to pay them for their programming, directly or indirectly.

[bigsnake49]

Let's bear in mind that before the mid-90s, broadcast TV operated only under the must-carry rules and didn't receive anything in return for cable carriage. After all, from the broacasters' perspective, cable ensured that many people in their market area could get good to excellent reception who wouldn't have it otherwise due to signal propagation issues (lack of line-of-sight, transmission distance, cochannel or adjacent channel interference, etc.). Plus the broadcasters (particularly the O and Os in major markets) have used retransmission consent as leverage to ensure carriage of their affiliated cable networks, whether viewers want them or not. And they've used it to play off the cable and satellite providers against each other to increase fees well beyond inflation, largely to spend absurd sums for the rights to carry pro and collegiate sports leagues, and increasingly and most egregiously even to ensure that broadband providers are sending them cash on the odd chance you might want to watch their shows online.

 

Unless broadcasters are suggesting with a straight face that anyone who puts up an antenna to receive their broadcasts (which, after all, they are free to stop doing and go cable-only, and relinquish back their spectrum for use by others) should be sending them a monthly check, I find it very unpersuasive to argue that whether the antenna I use to receive their programming is on my property or my landlord's roof or in Aereo's server farm makes any difference as to whether or not I should have to pay them for their programming, directly or indirectly.

 

Thank you lord, thank you J... . What people don't understand is that those airwaves were given to the stations free of charge, and now we have broadcasters threatening to go cable only or internet only because Aereo retransmits their signals, thus extending their reach. Same with cable! If you're going to charge cable and aereo for retransmitting your signals, we will charge you for the airwaves. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Edited March 14, 2014 by bigsnake49

[linhpham2]

News from Fiercewireless: L.A. TV stations show broadcast channel sharing for 600 MHz auction is possible

Read more: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/la-tv-stations-show-broadcast-channel-sharing-600-mhz-auction-possible/2014-03-28#ixzz2xH86ENLZ 
 

Hopefully, this will encourage broadcasters to free up more 600 Mhz spectrum to auction off.

[linhpham2]

According to CNet, the FCC is making things more difficult for broadcasters. The FCC adopted 2 new orders:

 

"In the first order, the FCC voted unanimously to prevent TV broadcasters from coordinating retransmission-consent negotiations with two or more local TV stations in a market. The commission said it was preventing such practices to ensure broadcasters negotiate in good faith.

 

The second order prohibits TV broadcasters from teaming up to sell advertising, a practice that broadcasters say allows them to share operating costs so that they can invest more in local programming. Wheeler said that ending this practice is closing a loophole that has allowed major media groups to circumvent media ownership rules."

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-broadcast-rules-could-affect-upcoming-spectrum-auction/

[bigsnake49]

According to CNet, the FCC is making things more difficult for broadcasters. The FCC adopted 2 new orders:

 

"In the first order, the FCC voted unanimously to prevent TV broadcasters from coordinating retransmission-consent negotiations with two or more local TV stations in a market. The commission said it was preventing such practices to ensure broadcasters negotiate in good faith.

 

The second order prohibits TV broadcasters from teaming up to sell advertising, a practice that broadcasters say allows them to share operating costs so that they can invest more in local programming. Wheeler said that ending this practice is closing a loophole that has allowed major media groups to circumvent media ownership rules."

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-broadcast-rules-could-affect-upcoming-spectrum-auction/

 

I am all for them ending broadcasters' free use of the airwaves. If they are going to charge for restransmission rights we need to charge them for use of the airwaves. We also need to end the Big Two's free use of the 850MHz airwaves.

[Dkoellerwx]

According to CNet, the FCC is making things more difficult for broadcasters. The FCC adopted 2 new orders:

 

"In the first order, the FCC voted unanimously to prevent TV broadcasters from coordinating retransmission-consent negotiations with two or more local TV stations in a market. The commission said it was preventing such practices to ensure broadcasters negotiate in good faith.

 

The second order prohibits TV broadcasters from teaming up to sell advertising, a practice that broadcasters say allows them to share operating costs so that they can invest more in local programming. Wheeler said that ending this practice is closing a loophole that has allowed major media groups to circumvent media ownership rules."

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-broadcast-rules-could-affect-upcoming-spectrum-auction/

 

These rules are to help cut down on duopolies, or tri-opolies, where the same company owns or operates multiple stations in a market. These conglomerates are part of the reason we've had to reach for re-transmission fees, because these groups drive down ad prices to the point where they aren't sustainable for everyone else.

 

 

I am all for them ending broadcasters' free use of the airwaves. If they are going to charge for restransmission rights we need to charge them for use of the airwaves. We also need to end the Big Two's free use of the 850MHz airwaves.

 

I don't know if you just have a vendetta against broadcast TV, but many of your assumptions are flawed. We payed a hefty fee for our license, and have to renew it every 2-3 years. 

[linhpham2]

These rules are to help cut down on duopolies, or tri-opolies, where the same company owns or operates multiple stations in a market. These conglomerates are part of the reason we've had to reach for re-transmission fees, because these groups drive down ad prices to the point where they aren't sustainable for everyone else.

 

Light Reading quotes the FCC: "Tom Wheeler said the Commission was imposing the ban on joint negotiations by the largest TV stations in a market to restore "fair and effective competition of retransmission-consent negotiations, to the ultimate benefit of consumers." Although Congress intended that the deals be negotiated on a one-to-one basis, he said, larger stations have increasingly banded together in the negotiations to gain higher carriage fees from pay-TV providers, leading to higher prices for consumers."

 

http://www.lightreading.com/regulation/fcc-tackles-retrans-reforms/d/d-id/708474?

[Dkoellerwx]

Light Reading quotes the FCC: "Tom Wheeler said the Commission was imposing the ban on joint negotiations by the largest TV stations in a market to restore "fair and effective competition of retransmission-consent negotiations, to the ultimate benefit of consumers." Although Congress intended that the deals be negotiated on a one-to-one basis, he said, larger stations have increasingly banded together in the negotiations to gain higher carriage fees from pay-TV providers, leading to higher prices for consumers."

 

http://www.lightreading.com/regulation/fcc-tackles-retrans-reforms/d/d-id/708474?

 

Oh believe me, I've been reading the articles, since it concerns my job.