Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Aereo TV coming to DC


HOF44

Recommended Posts

If that is the case, it puts all of these sports packages in jeopardy. I'm not going to shell out $300 next year for NFL Sunday Ticket to watch 16 Redskins games if I can pay $8 a month and get the DC Fox and CBS stations online....

Your post confuses me. I live in NC.... is there some way i can get DC FOX and CBS stations online with Aereo? If thats the case, then i'm in a niche of customers would would actually benefit from the service 3-4 months out of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post confuses me. I live in NC.... is there some way i can get DC FOX and CBS stations online with Aereo? If thats the case, then i'm in a niche of customers would would actually benefit from the service 3-4 months out of the year.

No, Aereo would only transmit to you the zone you are in for OTA broadcasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand the business model, AeroTV will provide me 40 hrs of DVR "in the cloud" and live OTA broadcast channels of my viewing area for no less than $8/month?

Could you not download/install DVR function on your computer, hook up a 1TB USB drive and do the same with an antenna/digital tuner (most TVs now have the tuner standard) for WAY less than $8/month? 1 TB drive for $79.99. Over the course of a year, that is $6.66/month. My house has the antenna installed in the attic. Assuming you don't have one, you can get a good one for $50. Over a year, that is a combined $10.30/month. Every year you run, your cost drops a certain percentage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No ESPN, but I could really not care less. As long as I get my Redskins games on live TV that's my only must have in the sports world.

ESPN has a lot of games though... baseball, football, college basketball, etc.

When it gets the ESPN lineup, it may be worth it. Until then, I would miss too many sporting events. (And I'm not referring to sportscenter).

Link to post
Share on other sites
ESPN has a lot of games though... baseball, football, college basketball, etc.

When it gets the ESPN lineup, it may be worth it. Until then, I would miss too many sporting events. (And I'm not referring to sportscenter).

Considering ESPN is the most expensive suite in cable packaging at $4.69/household, I don't see this happening, EVER. TNT is a DISTANT second at $1.16.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ESPN has a lot of games though... baseball, football, college basketball, etc.

When it gets the ESPN lineup, it may be worth it. Until then, I would miss too many sporting events. (And I'm not referring to sportscenter).

For me the Redskins games are my only concern. ESPN is not an issue at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me, as I've done zero research. But the available channels section lists the channels as all being the New York broadcast channels. Like WNBC and WCBS. Would the DC version have WRC and WUSA?

It is supposed to give you what you can pick up OTA in your area. That's why they have won in the courts so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox is currently in a court battle with this company. They are threatening to take the network cable only if they lose. We could be seeing the end of "free" TV as we know it.

It seems like they have a point. They provide content for "free" over the air in exchange for you watching their commercials. Should another company be able to take their content, not pay the networks because it is available for "free" and then turn around and profit off that transmission?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I understand the business model, AeroTV will provide me 40 hrs of DVR "in the cloud" and live OTA broadcast channels of my viewing area for no less than $8/month?

Could you not download/install DVR function on your computer, hook up a 1TB USB drive and do the same with an antenna/digital tuner (most TVs now have the tuner standard) for WAY less than $8/month? 1 TB drive for $79.99. Over the course of a year, that is $6.66/month. My house has the antenna installed in the attic. Assuming you don't have one, you can get a good one for $50. Over a year, that is a combined $10.30/month. Every year you run, your cost drops a certain percentage.

I would imagine that the model would work better as something similar to "pay per view". You're out of town and don't want to miss the Redskins game and so get it streamed to your mobile device or PC in your hotel room. If you are going to get local Over The Air programming on a daily basis, an antenna would do just fine and be higher quality

---------- Post added April-10th-2013 at 08:17 AM ----------

It seems like they have a point. They provide content for "free" over the air in exchange for you watching their commercials. Should another company be able to take their content, not pay the networks because it is available for "free" and then turn around and profit off that transmission?

By doing it through individual antennas, rather than record and mass re-broadcast, it's more like you renting space in a neighbor's yard where there is better signal strength. I don't see how this hurts the content provider. Their programming (which is not sold on a subscription basis currently, and ads will still be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would imagine that the model would work better as something similar to "pay per view". You're out of town and don't want to miss the Redskins game and so get it streamed to your mobile device or PC in your hotel room. If you are going to get local Over The Air programming on a daily basis, an antenna would do just fine and be higher quality.
In reality, you could buy a slingbox, hook it up to your TV, and do the same thing for cheaper (averaged over the course of years). I just don't get why you need to pay a monthly charge to DVR shows in the cloud. Am I missing something? Is all of the OTA content VOD? Can you watch Sun evening shows on Tues night? I would imagine not, otherwise there is no need for DVR capabilities.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I understand the business model, AeroTV will provide me 40 hrs of DVR "in the cloud" and live OTA broadcast channels of my viewing area for no less than $8/month?

If you can get the channels you want from an antenna you don't need this. I am on the fringe and can't pick up all the signals with an antenna.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In reality, you could buy a slingbox, hook it up to your TV, and do the same thing for cheaper (averaged over the course of years). I just don't get why you need to pay a monthly charge to DVR shows in the cloud. Am I missing something? Is all of the OTA content VOD? Can you watch Sun evening shows on Tues night? I would imagine not, otherwise there is no need for DVR capabilities.

Yeah, that's why I think it makes most sense for the casual user when they are out of town but don't need slingbox the rest of the time, or someone who can't currently get OTA signal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like they have a point. They provide content for "free" over the air in exchange for you watching their commercials. Should another company be able to take their content, not pay the networks because it is available for "free" and then turn around and profit off that transmission?

I wouldn't disagree they have a point, but I don't think its really a winner. Remember, the government owns the electromagnetic spectrum and allows them to use it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't disagree they have a point, but I don't think its really a winner. Remember, the government owns the electromagnetic spectrum and allows them to use it too.

Do they allow them to use it for free? I thought the networks licensed the spectrum for a period of time and had to renew every few years. I could be wrong on that.

The bigger issue is if Fox decides to take their ball and go home. If they go cable only and don't see a huge hit to their ratings the other networks will take a look at doing the same. It is all about controlling their content. Nobody, whether its is a TV network, a photographer, or a musician wants someone else to profit off of their content. In the end you could end up with the only "free" OTA TV being PBS and a few rerun stations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they allow them to use it for free? I thought the networks licensed the spectrum for a period of time and had to renew every few years. I could be wrong on that.

Nope it is given to the networks at no charge. When the government forced the conversion to digital they recouped some of the bandwidth allocated to TV and sold it for billions to cellular providers and others.

---------- Post added April-10th-2013 at 11:27 AM ----------

The bigger issue is if Fox decides to take their ball and go home. If they go cable only and don't see a huge hit to their ratings the other networks will take a look at doing the same. It is all about controlling their content. Nobody, whether its is a TV network, a photographer, or a musician wants someone else to profit off of their content. In the end you could end up with the only "free" OTA TV being PBS and a few rerun stations.

They would then be seeding a tremendous amount of power to cable companies as they would control the delivery of their content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they allow them to use it for free? I thought the networks licensed the spectrum for a period of time and had to renew every few years. I could be wrong on that.

The bigger issue is if Fox decides to take their ball and go home. If they go cable only and don't see a huge hit to their ratings the other networks will take a look at doing the same. It is all about controlling their content. Nobody, whether its is a TV network, a photographer, or a musician wants someone else to profit off of their content. In the end you could end up with the only "free" OTA TV being PBS and a few rerun stations.

I don't know. I think its not a big fee, if its one at all, but I could be wrong.

What I was trying to say was that the companies choose to put their products out there for free. This is how they make money. I understand Aereo to be doing nothing more than anyone else can do in so far as "catching" the content. So, if they are putting it out there for free, it should be free to catch it and use it.

Let me put it this way, would it be a good lawsuit for the TV companies to sue the manufacturers of HD antennae? Do antenna manufacturers PAY FOX, NBC, CBS, etc.? I think not. Aren't those antennae capturing a free product and manipulating it into an image? And arent the manufacturers making money off this free content?

What about TV manufacturers? Arent they just making money off NBC's product?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if they are putting it out there for free, it should be free to catch it and use it.

Is there a difference between catch and use and catch and sell? They are catching the signal and charging for you to watch that signal on another platform. I understand that they have a million small antennae and are basically leasing you the antenna, so you are paying for the antenna not the content. But if there was no content you would have no interest in the antenna. The networks are putting it out there for free, should someone be allowed to then make money off of that free product?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope it is given to the networks at no charge. When the government forced the conversion to digital they recouped some of the bandwidth allocated to TV and sold it for billions to cellular providers and others.

---------- Post added April-10th-2013 at 11:27 AM ----------

They would then be seeding a tremendous amount of power to cable companies as they would control the delivery of their content.

The only real issue is if Aero TV was eliminating or replacing the OTA broadcaster's commercials. If they aren't doing that, wouldn't something like this likely broaden the scope of that revenue model?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The networks are putting it out there for free, should someone be allowed to then make money off of that free product?

Like TSF said is it ok for TV antenna manufacturer's to make money and not pay the networks any of it? Also 2 courts have sided with Aereo so they must have some grounds to stand on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...