Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Networks Argue That Anything That Causes Viewers to Cut the Cord is Illegal
24 views
Skip to first unread message
BTR1701
May 31, 2012, 8:14:56 PM5/31/12
to
http://tinyurl.com/7cdax66
Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
programming.
But, you know, disrupting the TV networks business model isn't illegal.
Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
our business model."
In a hearing about whether or not the court should issue a preliminary
injunction (as has happened in the similar, but different in important
ways, ivi and Zediva cases) the judge didn't just roll over for the
networks, and allowed Aereo's lawyers to grill an exec from CBS, who
more or less admitted that they think (1) the DVR is a bigger threat
than Aereo and (2) that their main issue is that Aereo may lead to more
cord-cutting.
But, again, getting more people to cut the cord isn't illegal. Their
argument, once again, appears as if they are seriously asserting what
has been jokingly referred to as a "felony interference with a business
model" case. The network exec actually tried to make the argument on the
stand that the fact that someone might cancel their cable subscription
to use Aereo (cord-cutting) is a form of "harm" that requires Aereo be
shut down by preliminary injunction. Thankfully, the judge wasn't buying
that logic:
The judge also got into the act somewhat, addressing
broadcasters' insistence that any customer who cancels
his or her cable service to sign up with Aereo is a problem.
How does subtracting one subscriber impact advertising,
asked the judge, which caused the CBS executive to admit
that it would have to be one Nielsen household that canceled
for impact, and later that it would more likely have to be a
substantial number of defections.
There was some other damning info that came out in the hearing,
including the fact that the TV networks refused to even talk to Aereo,
never sent a cease & desist, and only decided to sue once they found out
that Barry Diller was backing Aereo. Hopefully, the judge refuses the
injunction. At the very least, it's good that he's not willing to just
roll over and kill innovative startups because they mess with the
entertainment industry's business model.
Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
programming.
But, you know, disrupting the TV networks business model isn't illegal.
Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
our business model."
In a hearing about whether or not the court should issue a preliminary
injunction (as has happened in the similar, but different in important
ways, ivi and Zediva cases) the judge didn't just roll over for the
networks, and allowed Aereo's lawyers to grill an exec from CBS, who
more or less admitted that they think (1) the DVR is a bigger threat
than Aereo and (2) that their main issue is that Aereo may lead to more
cord-cutting.
But, again, getting more people to cut the cord isn't illegal. Their
argument, once again, appears as if they are seriously asserting what
has been jokingly referred to as a "felony interference with a business
model" case. The network exec actually tried to make the argument on the
stand that the fact that someone might cancel their cable subscription
to use Aereo (cord-cutting) is a form of "harm" that requires Aereo be
shut down by preliminary injunction. Thankfully, the judge wasn't buying
that logic:
The judge also got into the act somewhat, addressing
broadcasters' insistence that any customer who cancels
his or her cable service to sign up with Aereo is a problem.
How does subtracting one subscriber impact advertising,
asked the judge, which caused the CBS executive to admit
that it would have to be one Nielsen household that canceled
for impact, and later that it would more likely have to be a
substantial number of defections.
There was some other damning info that came out in the hearing,
including the fact that the TV networks refused to even talk to Aereo,
never sent a cease & desist, and only decided to sue once they found out
that Barry Diller was backing Aereo. Hopefully, the judge refuses the
injunction. At the very least, it's good that he's not willing to just
roll over and kill innovative startups because they mess with the
entertainment industry's business model.
Barry Margolin
May 31, 2012, 8:41:03 PM5/31/12
to
In article <atropos-6FAED9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
then redistributing it to their customers? The only difference is that
Aereo is using the Internet to redistribute it, rather than physical
cables.
So it seems like they should be subject to whatever rules apply between
TV networks and cable companies. If the cable companies have to pay
networks for the content, then so should Aereo.
I think copyright law may be the basis for this requirement. I think
the "public performance" clause of copyright law is deemed to include
commercial retransmission of TV signals.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
> letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
> over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
> figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
> their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
> obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
> place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
> that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
> than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
> programming.
Isn't Aereo acting just like a cable TV company: receiving the signal,
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
> letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
> over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
> figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
> their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
> obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
> place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
> that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
> than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
> programming.
then redistributing it to their customers? The only difference is that
Aereo is using the Internet to redistribute it, rather than physical
cables.
So it seems like they should be subject to whatever rules apply between
TV networks and cable companies. If the cable companies have to pay
networks for the content, then so should Aereo.
I think copyright law may be the basis for this requirement. I think
the "public performance" clause of copyright law is deemed to include
commercial retransmission of TV signals.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
thinbluemime
May 31, 2012, 4:11:02 PM5/31/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:14:56 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/7cdax66
>
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole.
Have begun handing out scissors in Syracuse while still praying for a
> http://tinyurl.com/7cdax66
>
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole.
black-out in Boise.
"Running with scissors, screw the networks"
thinbluemime
May 31, 2012, 4:10:56 PM5/31/12
to
> http://tinyurl.com/7cdax66
>
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole.
>
> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
> slight hyperbole.
Invid Fan
May 31, 2012, 9:58:26 PM5/31/12
to
> Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
> claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
> case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> our business model."
>
To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
> claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
> case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> our business model."
>
for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
brings NYC versions of that content in as competition. Unless the
service is limited to those living in NYC...
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Obveeus
May 31, 2012, 10:35:12 PM5/31/12
to
> Of course, the
> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
> programming.
Um, what does 'insanely high' mean here? I've seen the carriage fees for
> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
> programming.
ESPN and I can see why lots of people would consider their carriage fee
insanely high. The big 3&1/2 Networks all bring many more viewers and a
good amount of local news to the cable/satellite companies that carry them,
so I cannot imagine any sane person claiming that their carriage fee
shouldn't be higher...much higher, than even ESPN.
BTR1701
May 31, 2012, 11:12:35 PM5/31/12
to
In article <310520122158269645%in...@loclanet.com>,
Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-6FAED9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
> > claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
> > case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> > our business model."
> >
> To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
> for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
> brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
Yes, but since when is competition illegal?
> In article <atropos-6FAED9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
> > claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
> > case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> > our business model."
> >
> To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
> for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
> brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 1, 2012, 12:38:08 AM6/1/12
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
>>>claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
>>>case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
>>>our business model."
>>To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
>>for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
>>brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
>Yes, but since when is competition illegal?
Since they got the license and FCC designated 35 mile market radii.
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
>>>claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo
>>>case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
>>>our business model."
>>To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
>>for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
>>brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
>Yes, but since when is competition illegal?
BTR1701
Jun 1, 2012, 1:04:45 AM6/1/12
to
In article <jq9gvg$vcn$3...@news.albasani.net>,
The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license is to
broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to regulate what
content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to regulate what
content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 1, 2012, 1:10:57 AM6/1/12
to
around since the first cable operator stuck up an antenna and attempted
to retransmit a signal from outside the 35 mile market radii. The law
applies to satellite subscribers downlinking signals from local television
stations as well and being required to state their television market,
not that anyone checks if they choose to downlink signals from elsewhere.
FCC regulations stymied television competition from the very beginning.
You do understand why fourth networks were unviable for decades, yes?
shawn
Jun 1, 2012, 6:15:25 AM6/1/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:41:03 -0400, Barry Margolin
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <atropos-6FAED9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
>> slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
>> letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
>> over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
>> figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
>> their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
>> obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
>> place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
>> that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
>> than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
>> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
>> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
>> programming.
>
>Isn't Aereo acting just like a cable TV company: receiving the signal,
>then redistributing it to their customers? The only difference is that
>Aereo is using the Internet to redistribute it, rather than physical
>cables.
Not quite. They are distributing the NYC network far beyond their
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <atropos-6FAED9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only
>> slight hyperbole. The TV networks are suing a company called Aereo for
>> letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up
>> over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite
>> figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets
>> their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is,
>> obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that
>> place-shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is
>> that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather
>> than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the
>> networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees
>> they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network
>> programming.
>
>Isn't Aereo acting just like a cable TV company: receiving the signal,
>then redistributing it to their customers? The only difference is that
>Aereo is using the Internet to redistribute it, rather than physical
>cables.
broadcast area which can cause problems with the local broadcasters if
significant numbers of viewers choose to cut the cord and go with
Aereo.
>So it seems like they should be subject to whatever rules apply between
>TV networks and cable companies. If the cable companies have to pay
>networks for the content, then so should Aereo.
Aereo is doing and a cable/satellite company as far as this issue
goes.
>I think copyright law may be the basis for this requirement. I think
>the "public performance" clause of copyright law is deemed to include
>commercial retransmission of TV signals.
outside of their broadcast area? Or is that strictly an issue with the
local stations?
shawn
Jun 1, 2012, 6:18:15 AM6/1/12
to
should be required to get retransmission consent from the local
stations. They have the right to charge a fee in order to carry that
signal. I'm sure the networks would wish for them to prevent
retransmission but I'm not sure that would be allowed. I know it
wouldn't be allowed if Aereo only allowed NYC area residents to
subscribe but I doubt they are limiting their customers to only those
people.
Andes Y.
Jun 1, 2012, 7:59:57 AM6/1/12
to
BTR1701 wrote
True, but in Canada, the word "Fuck" can be said after 9:00 PM, while the same word
cannot be said in FCC ruled America until 10:00 PM.
However, due to how there are numerous affiliates of major networks owned by Clear
Channel and so on, they still carry immense power.
For example. 2004, Veterans Day. The showing of "Saving Private Ryan" was banned
by Clear Channel's ABC affiliates. Not because it showed actors as US soldiers
being shot and blown to bits during the D-Day sequence, but because they were
swearing. Specifically using the word "Fuck".
Note that it was following a "crack down" on "indecency" by the FCC under Michael
Powell (Colon Powell's son) following the Janet Jackson "Wardrobe Malfuction"
during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show.
The same shit that saw Howard Stern move to satellite radio because Powell's FCC
was laying down big fines on his syndicated radio program.
cannot be said in FCC ruled America until 10:00 PM.
However, due to how there are numerous affiliates of major networks owned by Clear
Channel and so on, they still carry immense power.
For example. 2004, Veterans Day. The showing of "Saving Private Ryan" was banned
by Clear Channel's ABC affiliates. Not because it showed actors as US soldiers
being shot and blown to bits during the D-Day sequence, but because they were
swearing. Specifically using the word "Fuck".
Note that it was following a "crack down" on "indecency" by the FCC under Michael
Powell (Colon Powell's son) following the Janet Jackson "Wardrobe Malfuction"
during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show.
The same shit that saw Howard Stern move to satellite radio because Powell's FCC
was laying down big fines on his syndicated radio program.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 1, 2012, 9:05:26 AM6/1/12
to
> BTR1701
it's the content that signal carries that viewers are there for,
content that Aereo doesn't own.
I have to side with the greedy metanational media corporate
shysters on this one.
>
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
But Aereo isn't providing its customers with an "empty" signal,
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
it's the content that signal carries that viewers are there for,
content that Aereo doesn't own.
I have to side with the greedy metanational media corporate
shysters on this one.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 1, 2012, 9:07:42 AM6/1/12
to
> BTR1701
>
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
Barry Margolin
Jun 1, 2012, 10:31:21 AM6/1/12
to
In article <MPG.2a3219983...@reader.albasani.net>,
distinction between broadcasting over the air (regulated) and through
the Internet (not regulated)?
"Andes Y." <ande...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote
> >
> > In article <jq9gvg$vcn$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> > > >>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
> > > >>>claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the
> > > >>>Aereo
> > > >>>case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> > > >>>our business model."
> > >
> > > >>To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
> > > >>for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
> > > >>brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
> > >
> > > >Yes, but since when is competition illegal?
> > >
> > > Since they got the license and FCC designated 35 mile market radii.
> >
> > The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license is to
> > broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to regulate what
> > content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
>
> True, but in Canada, the word "Fuck" can be said after 9:00 PM, while the
> same word
> cannot be said in FCC ruled America until 10:00 PM.
What does that have to do with what BTR1701 said, which was about the
> BTR1701 wrote
> >
> > In article <jq9gvg$vcn$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> > > >>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>Yet, as with the DISH case, where the broadcast networks seem to be
> > > >>>claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the
> > > >>>Aereo
> > > >>>case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts
> > > >>>our business model."
> > >
> > > >>To me the argument would seem to be that Network affiliates have paid
> > > >>for exclusive regional rights to show network programing, and this
> > > >>brings NYC versions of that content in as competition.
> > >
> > > >Yes, but since when is competition illegal?
> > >
> > > Since they got the license and FCC designated 35 mile market radii.
> >
> > The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license is to
> > broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to regulate what
> > content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
>
> True, but in Canada, the word "Fuck" can be said after 9:00 PM, while the
> same word
> cannot be said in FCC ruled America until 10:00 PM.
distinction between broadcasting over the air (regulated) and through
the Internet (not regulated)?
BTR1701
Jun 1, 2012, 1:30:54 PM6/1/12
to
In article <b35hs7l5bqc9499dl...@4ax.com>,
And again, 'causing problems' with a broadcaster's business model isn't
illegal.
The guys who invented the car 'caused problems' with the business models
of the blacksmiths and the buggy whip makers, too. We didn't ban cars to
protect those businesses, however.
illegal.
The guys who invented the car 'caused problems' with the business models
of the blacksmiths and the buggy whip makers, too. We didn't ban cars to
protect those businesses, however.
BTR1701
Jun 1, 2012, 1:31:44 PM6/1/12
to
In article
<a0976a4e-4675-4a02...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
jurisdiction.
<a0976a4e-4675-4a02...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > BTR1701
> >
> > The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> > is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> > regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
>
> But Aereo isn't providing its customers with an "empty" signal,
> it's the content that signal carries that viewers are there for,
> content that Aereo doesn't own.
Perhaps that's a copyright issue, then. It's not a matter of FCC
> > BTR1701
> >
> > The FCC only has jurisdiction over the airwaves and the license
> > is to broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC has no authority to
> > regulate what content can and cannot be sent over the internet.
>
> But Aereo isn't providing its customers with an "empty" signal,
> it's the content that signal carries that viewers are there for,
> content that Aereo doesn't own.
jurisdiction.
David Johnston
Jun 1, 2012, 2:03:22 PM6/1/12
to
On Friday, June 1, 2012 11:30:54 AM UTC-6, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> The guys who invented the car 'caused problems' with the business models
> of the blacksmiths and the buggy whip makers, too. We didn't ban cars to
> protect those businesses, however.
We did, however, make it illegal for anyone with a printing press to reproduce any bestseller they feel like printing. That's an invalid analogy because aerio isn't producing a better product. They aren't building anything. They're just reproducing other people's work. Note that the people like Hulu and other licensed websites are using the same technology. They are just paying for the content they pass on.
>
> The guys who invented the car 'caused problems' with the business models
> of the blacksmiths and the buggy whip makers, too. We didn't ban cars to
> protect those businesses, however.
Barry Margolin
Jun 1, 2012, 3:04:50 PM6/1/12
to
In article <d18c33d3-eba3-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
Actually, I don't think Hulu uses that technology. They're not
receiving the content from a public broadcast, the content providers
send the content to them directly. It's the same thing with cable TV's
On Demand service.
Regular cable TV is actually a mixture of the two mechanisms. For local
affiliates I think the cable company has an antenna, and simply feeds
the broadcast signal through (although they may occasionally override it
with their own commercials). But for nationwide cable networks, they
get the signal from satellites. I assume these signals are encrypted,
so they have to pay the network for the key to decode them, and that's
what forms the basis of the business relationships between cable
companies and providers.
receiving the content from a public broadcast, the content providers
send the content to them directly. It's the same thing with cable TV's
On Demand service.
Regular cable TV is actually a mixture of the two mechanisms. For local
affiliates I think the cable company has an antenna, and simply feeds
the broadcast signal through (although they may occasionally override it
with their own commercials). But for nationwide cable networks, they
get the signal from satellites. I assume these signals are encrypted,
so they have to pay the network for the key to decode them, and that's
what forms the basis of the business relationships between cable
companies and providers.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 1, 2012, 3:23:57 PM6/1/12
to
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Regular cable TV is actually a mixture of the two mechanisms. For local
>affiliates I think the cable company has an antenna, and simply feeds
>the broadcast signal through (although they may occasionally override it
>with their own commercials).
Local tv stations generally uplink their own signal to satellite. The
>Regular cable TV is actually a mixture of the two mechanisms. For local
>affiliates I think the cable company has an antenna, and simply feeds
>the broadcast signal through (although they may occasionally override it
>with their own commercials).
cable head end downlinks it with other satellite channels. If the channel
is a network affiliate receiving network programming in real time, like
news broadcasts or sports, they downlink, mix, uplink, downlink,
distribute to the cable subscriber. You'd think the delay would be
noticeable.
In analog broadcast days, there could be interference if the head end
simply retransmitted an over-the-air signal. Interference is eliminated
with digital (either you get a picture, or it pixilates or can't be
received) so it's not an issue, but their still downlinking.
Before satellite uplink was common, several television stations in my
area built their own circuits to feed specific head ends directly.
At one place I lived, the cable company built a sub-head end and stuck
up an antenna. There was a radio station broadcast antenna not too far
away. Receiving a clear analog signal on certain broadcast channels was
a joke.
Oh: Cable retransmission would be in contract violation if they sold
their own commercials and interserted them. Any local commercials
you see should have been sold by the local station itself.
>But for nationwide cable networks, they get the signal from satellites.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jun 1, 2012, 3:28:18 PM6/1/12
to
On May 31, 8:41 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> So it seems like they should be subject to whatever rules apply between
> TV networks and cable companies. If the cable companies have to pay
> networks for the content, then so should Aereo.
Why should cable companies have to pay anything to relay broadcast
> So it seems like they should be subject to whatever rules apply between
> TV networks and cable companies. If the cable companies have to pay
> networks for the content, then so should Aereo.
TV? Never could understand that.
That is, if I put up an antenna I can get TV for free, perfectly
legally.
But if someone else puts up said antenna and relays me the reception,
why is their now a charge (which gets passed to us consumers)?
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 1, 2012, 3:34:29 PM6/1/12
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>Why should cable companies have to pay anything to relay broadcast
>TV? Never could understand that.
Uh, the National Association of Broadcasters has really good lobbyists.
>Why should cable companies have to pay anything to relay broadcast
>TV? Never could understand that.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jun 1, 2012, 3:33:20 PM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 6:15 am, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't there some issue with the FCC and retransmission of TV signals
> outside of their broadcast area? Or is that strictly an issue with the
> local stations?-
> Isn't there some issue with the FCC and retransmission of TV signals
> outside of their broadcast area? Or is that strictly an issue with the
What exactly is a "broadcast area"?
In Philadelphia, the typical home aerial (later rabbit) ears picked up
Phila stations. But a fair number of people mounted a larger
directional antenna on their roof and could also pick up stations out
of NYC. (I don't think they could get DC.)
Whether it was worth it or not to get NYC was questionable. Network
broadcasts were of course the same. Local news of course was
different, but it wasn't that relevant for Philadelphians to watch NYC
news. Sports fans liked it because they could watch NYC teams as well
as Phila teams.
Anyway, why should a broadcast station object if its signal is being
relayed? It actually benefits since it's getting in more viewers
which is the goal.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jun 1, 2012, 3:37:06 PM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 6:18 am, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> Competition isn't illegal, but as Barry pointed out in his post Aereo
> should be required to get retransmission consent from the local
> stations. They have the right to charge a fee in order to carry that
> signal.
Why should they have a right to charge a fee for something they're
> Competition isn't illegal, but as Barry pointed out in his post Aereo
> should be required to get retransmission consent from the local
> stations. They have the right to charge a fee in order to carry that
> signal.
distributing for free? Indeed, getting mroe viewers is their goal--so
why should they object to someone else helping them out?
If ABC company mails out a free catalog to prospective customers, ABC
would be happy if those recipients passed the catalog along to other
people. More people get to see it which means more potential
customers. Plus it saves on postage and printing.
Indeed, if distant recipients are relaying a broadcast signal, it
could save a station money in refining its transmission signal to
reach more distant points clearly.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 1, 2012, 4:24:10 PM6/1/12
to
A 35 mile radius. I assume the center is the center of the city of license.
The transmitter is licensed separately, and doesn't have to be in the
city of license.
>In Philadelphia, the typical home aerial (later rabbit) ears picked up
>Phila stations. But a fair number of people mounted a larger
>directional antenna on their roof and could also pick up stations out
>of NYC. (I don't think they could get DC.)
Probably some transmitters are in New Jersey.
>Whether it was worth it or not to get NYC was questionable. Network
>broadcasts were of course the same. Local news of course was
>different, but it wasn't that relevant for Philadelphians to watch NYC
>news. Sports fans liked it because they could watch NYC teams as well
>as Phila teams.
>Anyway, why should a broadcast station object if its signal is being
>relayed? It actually benefits since it's getting in more viewers
>which is the goal.
The broadcast station doesn't care where its signal is received. It
cares that another affiliate's signal (or another station broadcasting
the same syndicated programming) would be retransmitted in its broadcast
area, because that hurts its viewership of the same programming. Also,
an affiliate has exclusivity from the network. It has exclusivity with
first-run syndication, too, but rarely with second-run syndication.
The transmitter is licensed separately, and doesn't have to be in the
city of license.
>In Philadelphia, the typical home aerial (later rabbit) ears picked up
>Phila stations. But a fair number of people mounted a larger
>directional antenna on their roof and could also pick up stations out
>of NYC. (I don't think they could get DC.)
>Whether it was worth it or not to get NYC was questionable. Network
>broadcasts were of course the same. Local news of course was
>different, but it wasn't that relevant for Philadelphians to watch NYC
>news. Sports fans liked it because they could watch NYC teams as well
>as Phila teams.
>Anyway, why should a broadcast station object if its signal is being
>relayed? It actually benefits since it's getting in more viewers
>which is the goal.
cares that another affiliate's signal (or another station broadcasting
the same syndicated programming) would be retransmitted in its broadcast
area, because that hurts its viewership of the same programming. Also,
an affiliate has exclusivity from the network. It has exclusivity with
first-run syndication, too, but rarely with second-run syndication.
Barry Margolin
Jun 1, 2012, 6:03:28 PM6/1/12
to
In article
<b6e5d02a-182c-4e35...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
had arrangements with cable and satellite companies to distribute their
signals in those areas. The fees they can charge these distributors
presumably depends on the number of customers they have. If viewers
"cut the cord", the number of viewers will stay the same, but the
distributors will be able to reduce how much they pay.
If Aereo is acting like a cable company, the broadcasters expect it to
pay up like cable companies do.
And the right they have to charge this fee is based on copyright law.
It's the same reason why you can't charge people to watch the Super Bowl
on your TV without consent of the NFL and the network broadcasting the
game, even though you received the signal for free.
<b6e5d02a-182c-4e35...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 1, 6:18 am, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Competition isn't illegal, but as Barry pointed out in his post Aereo
> > should be required to get retransmission consent from the local
> > stations. They have the right to charge a fee in order to carry that
> > signal.
>
> Why should they have a right to charge a fee for something they're
> distributing for free? Indeed, getting mroe viewers is their goal--so
> why should they object to someone else helping them out?
But the networks are not generally getting more viewers. They already
> On Jun 1, 6:18 am, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Competition isn't illegal, but as Barry pointed out in his post Aereo
> > should be required to get retransmission consent from the local
> > stations. They have the right to charge a fee in order to carry that
> > signal.
>
> Why should they have a right to charge a fee for something they're
> distributing for free? Indeed, getting mroe viewers is their goal--so
> why should they object to someone else helping them out?
had arrangements with cable and satellite companies to distribute their
signals in those areas. The fees they can charge these distributors
presumably depends on the number of customers they have. If viewers
"cut the cord", the number of viewers will stay the same, but the
distributors will be able to reduce how much they pay.
If Aereo is acting like a cable company, the broadcasters expect it to
pay up like cable companies do.
And the right they have to charge this fee is based on copyright law.
It's the same reason why you can't charge people to watch the Super Bowl
on your TV without consent of the NFL and the network broadcasting the
game, even though you received the signal for free.
Barb May
Jun 1, 2012, 6:13:23 PM6/1/12
to
network shows to local advertisers. If someone retransmits a local
broadcast of a network show, then people in other areas can see the
network show without watching it via their local station with local
commercials that benefit local merchants and the local station.
--
Barb
Barb May
Jun 1, 2012, 6:13:23 PM6/1/12
to
Barb May
Jun 1, 2012, 6:18:40 PM6/1/12
to
Barb May wrote:
> Here's one problem with it. Local stations sell some commercial time
> on network shows to local advertisers. If someone retransmits a local
> broadcast of a network show, then people in other areas can see the
> network show without watching it via their local station with local
> commercials that benefit local merchants and the local station.
I apologize for the double-post.
> Here's one problem with it. Local stations sell some commercial time
> on network shows to local advertisers. If someone retransmits a local
> broadcast of a network show, then people in other areas can see the
> network show without watching it via their local station with local
> commercials that benefit local merchants and the local station.
--
Barb
Message has been deleted
Remysun
Jun 2, 2012, 4:07:33 PM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 2:26 am, Der Fuzzster <Der_fu...@fuzzy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:35:12 -0400, Obveeus wrote:
> > fee insanely high. The big 3&1/2 Networks all bring many more viewers
> > and a good amount of local news to the cable/satellite companies that
> > carry them,
>
> You assume that there is value in local news.
>
> BZZT... No value. Same for sports, no value.
>
> Time for it to go away... "The networks" all need to kill off their
> affiliates and send their signal to Dish, direcrap, and crapble just like
> every one else via C/Ku feed like USA et al..
You assume there is value in Sci-Fi, Seamus.
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:35:12 -0400, Obveeus wrote:
> > fee insanely high. The big 3&1/2 Networks all bring many more viewers
> > and a good amount of local news to the cable/satellite companies that
> > carry them,
>
> You assume that there is value in local news.
>
> BZZT... No value. Same for sports, no value.
>
> Time for it to go away... "The networks" all need to kill off their
> affiliates and send their signal to Dish, direcrap, and crapble just like
> every one else via C/Ku feed like USA et al..
You assume there is value in Sci-Fi, Seamus.
T-Rex
Jun 2, 2012, 9:07:05 PM6/2/12
to
On 02/06/2012 4:07 PM, Remysun wrote:
23> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
23> You assume there is value in Sci-Fi, Seamus.
Who is "Seamus", Remysun? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
23> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
23> You assume there is value in Sci-Fi, Seamus.
Who is "Seamus", Remysun? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
Message has been deleted
Borg Queen
Jun 12, 2012, 8:48:43 AM6/12/12
to
On 10/06/2012 7:03 PM, Der Fuzzster wrote:
> Star Trek (There is ONLY ONE, it aired in the 60's, anything else is
> dreck!)
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Andromeda - Lexa Doig!
She will be assimilated. Then all men will voluntarily join the
Collective. Resistance is futile!
> As for news and sports, those are the biggest turn offs and of no value
> what so ever in the least... quit wasting resources on them. Just show
> Big Bang Theory re-runs! PENNY PENNY! PENNY! !! !
Penny and Sheldon in an argument! Penny and Sheldon in an argument!
Penny and Sheldon in an argument!
> Star Trek (There is ONLY ONE, it aired in the 60's, anything else is
> dreck!)
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Andromeda - Lexa Doig!
She will be assimilated. Then all men will voluntarily join the
Collective. Resistance is futile!
> As for news and sports, those are the biggest turn offs and of no value
> what so ever in the least... quit wasting resources on them. Just show
> Big Bang Theory re-runs! PENNY PENNY! PENNY! !! !
Penny and Sheldon in an argument! Penny and Sheldon in an argument!
Penny and Sheldon in an argument!
0 new messages