DirtyHarry 719 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The telecommunication giants have hated innovation in general, dating back to when RCA head David Sarnoff literally destroyed the inventor of FM transmissions, Edwin Armstrong. Broadcasters are almost assuredly going to win this case (although Chief Justice Roberts' behavior on the bench does not necessarily predict how he rules on a case, as opponents of Obamacare infamously found out) but it will amount to a Pyrrhic victory. Those that stand to lose their Aereo subscriptions will most likely not turn back to cable, or OTA TV in general, but will look for different sources of content delivery. Innovation always finds a way. And Disney, Comcast, CBS and Fox didn't even bother to consider that Aereo was meant to be a lifeline for them. Their loss. My Time Warner Bill now includes a $2.25 charge for local channels. If I have to pay $2.25, I should have the option of deleting them from my cable package. It's not the $30 a year. Well, yeah, it is. And it's also because I resent getting fleeced. It is easier to steal a dollar from a million people than it is to steal a million dollars from one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 My Time Warner Bill now includes a $2.25 charge for local channels. If I have to pay $2.25, I should have the option of deleting them from my cable package. It's not the $30 a year. Well, yeah, it is. And it's also because I resent getting fleeced. It is easier to steal a dollar from a million people than it is to steal a million dollars from one person. Time Warner is not the only provider out there. It's their choice to charge $2.25 extra. If you don't want to pay it switch to another provider... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 My Time Warner Bill now includes a $2.25 charge for local channels. If I have to pay $2.25, I should have the option of deleting them from my cable package. It's not the $30 a year. Well, yeah, it is. And it's also because I resent getting fleeced. It is easier to steal a dollar from a million people than it is to steal a million dollars from one person. TWC is notorious for these kinds of fees. I was reading some comments from some TWC in L.A. who are complaining about the new Dodger Sports Channel, and some were pissed that they were now paying $4.84 more than the previous month. Add those almost 5 bucks to the 2. 25 local channel fee and that is almost $7 more a month that subscribers have to pay, that some don't want to. Something is going to have to give, either the bottom of the barrel falls out completely and cable co.'s start hemorrhaging more subscribers (even more so than now), or the gov.'t steps in and puts and end to these "fees". Yes, theoretically people could switch, but there are those who live in areas where their municipality gives a video provider the exclusive franchise agreement, thus resulting in a monopoly over video services. Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 TWC is notorious for these kinds of fees. [clipped] Yes, theoretically people could switch, but there are those who live in areas where their municipality gives a video provider the exclusive franchise agreement, thus resulting in a monopoly over video services. Then what? Subscribe to satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Subscribe to satellite. A possibility, but then again some homes do not always have that option, whether it be due to cost/contract factors or issues that could interfere with the sattellite signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 TWC's (along most others who do the same thing) goal with the "RSN fees" and "local channel fees" is to call attention to the cost of these channels. They are still a part of you package. They could just as easily build those into the overall cost of the package(s) like they have done for years. But, what they have done (or, attempted to do) is in a sense break out the cost (or, some of the cost) for those channels as a separate line item to illustrate a point. The end game is then consumers become outraged over $x going to "sports channels I don't watch, etc." And, TWC, et al. using that to get consumers to side with them in programming disputes. I'm not sure it's having the desired effect as most folks view it as being nickel & dimed by their CableCo. At least DirecTV's RSN fee makes some sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4225 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Subscribe to satellite. Which would make sense only if the vast majority of cable networks didn't succumb to channel drift, gravitating to lowbrow reality programming because their business model is flawed and apparently unsustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Time Warner is not the only provider out there. It's their choice to charge $2.25 extra. If you don't want to pay it switch to another provider... At least where I am I looked into going from Brighthouse to Comcast, my city has an exclusive contract locking out anyone but Brighthouse as the cable system. A quarter mile away it's all comcast as the town changes. I thought they were not allowed to monopolize to one provider anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 At least where I am I looked into going from Brighthouse to Comcast, my city has an exclusive contract locking out anyone but Brighthouse as the cable system. A quarter mile away it's all comcast as the town changes. I thought they were not allowed to monopolize to one provider anymore? They might be the only "cable" provider but you don't have to get cable. If you must subscribe to pay TV you have Direct, DIsh, the phone company's TV (I don't who the company is where you live but here in S.A. it's AT&T so they have U-Verse; Verizon in the northern states has Fios, etc.). So there's a choice out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 They might be the only "cable" provider but you don't have to get cable. If you must subscribe to pay TV you have Direct, DIsh, the phone company's TV (I don't who the company is where you live but here in S.A. it's AT&T so they have U-Verse; Verizon in the northern states has Fios, etc.). So there's a choice out there. AT&T hasn't laid fiber optics here smack in the heart of Metro Detroit so U-Verse is out although that is the phone option if I could get it and I did ask but got a firm "we can't get to your house from our lines". In a subdivision and everything surrounded by big tall trees, I don't know much about how that effects signal or not, my cell signal from AT&T goes down to almost nothing at home and is 5 bars out of the sub, so that gets affected. Definitely have satellite as an alternative but not sold on it being totally reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 AT&T hasn't laid fiber optics here smack in the heart of Metro Detroit so U-Verse is out although that is the phone option if I could get it and I did ask but got a firm "we can't get to your house from our lines". In a subdivision and everything surrounded by big tall trees, I don't know much about how that effects signal or not, my cell signal from AT&T goes down to almost nothing at home and is 5 bars out of the sub, so that gets affected. Definitely have satellite as an alternative but not sold on it being totally reliable. Probably because there's no demand for it in metro Detroit. AT&T also has a reluctance to replace the older cables... Well if you need some convincing Direct TV says their signal is 99% reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Probably because there's no demand for it in metro Detroit... Well if you need some convincing Direct TV says their signal is 99% reliable Thanks for the link, oddly enough all the AT&T adds and stores harp on U-Verse quite a bit, we even had two hosts at the same radio station here shill one for Xfinity and the other for U-Verse so they sell it here but not right here I guess. Living in this sub I always feel like I have fallen off the face of the earth until I leave it because the services are so oddly choiceless overall. I think my favorite part is the Xfinity ads that run on Brighthouse just to taunt me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d247 43 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 SCOTUS has ruled 6-3 against Aereo. Re/code has posted the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 While Aereo today will go away, I could see someone doing this again with one big change: paying the broadcasters retrans consent. The problem is that the cost of service would be significantly higher and would probably just keep going up. Retrans consent fees are like the universe, constantly expanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvjay 6 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Subscribe to satellite. DirecTV recently added a sports fee. I called and complained and told them to remove it and they said they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 This is bullsh*t. I can't believe they ruled in favor of traditional companies who will continue to rip people off by charging astronomical amounts to watch television. The SCOTUS is destroying broadcasting, they just took the slow way out. In 50 years, linear TV will be dead since they will not have a revenue stream due to all the people switching away from pay TV in droves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4225 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Aereo was never going to be a solution for OTA TV. The linear model of broadcast television is going to become extinct in a few decades, as the millennial generation is shying away from it completely. This ruling only makes OTA TV's decline to be more of a sudden thud as opposed to a graceful exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I've stayed out of this, but there are a number of tech people I follow on Twitter who linked to this article: http://pando.com/2014/06/25/the-supreme-court-appears-to-have-just-killed-the-worlds-most-ridiculous-startup/ Pertinent paragraph is here: In its decision the Supreme Court decided that Aereo was, for all intents and purposes, acting like a cable company. If you ignore the slight differences between the startup company and its legacy predecessors — using applications instead of television channels and antennas instead of cable boxes — you’re left with a company that took free broadcasts and charged people for the right to view them. That’s a cable company. This is 100% accurate. It has nothing to do with cloud computing or any of that. Aereo or not, you're still paying for free TV. You're already doing that with cable, and you get a lot more alongside it. This was just a racket exploiting a loophole. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the TV revolution is already underway, and I think Aereo would have done more harm than good. Maybe Moonves you can laugh at but when Haim Saban threatens to pull the network he owns off of broadcast... let's just say he means it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 874 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 At least Moonves wasn't threatening to make CBS a cable channel, he was threatening to go where the audience was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerseyfla 196 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I agree Matt. Aereo would restrict you to only get OTA channels in your DMA. What's the point, unless you live over 50 miles away from the towers or in the mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1812 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I agree Matt. Aereo would restrict you to only get OTA channels in your DMA. What's the point, unless you live over 50 miles away from the towers or in the mountains. The only good point I've seen about this whole thing is that Aereo provided easy access to mobile DTV. That's it. Everything Aereo did, you can do yourself from your own home for free with a Slingbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewsFan 1 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 RT's reaction on The end of Aereo with Thom Hartmann (starting from 22 minute): http://ow.ly/yshTE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.