10 ms·

Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2

Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2. Price sensitivity At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand. For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time. During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numbers of people sign up for these day passes. We actually had to stop offering them, because we literally couldn't build out the extra capacity in a cost-effective way (remember, we needed distinct physical antennas and transcoders for every user we served). It was tough enough to get people to pay $8/month for access to live broadcast TV and a cloud-based DVR. I have no idea how YouTube will convince anyone to pay $35. If they can work out the licenses, I'd imagine something like a day pass would work well with consumers – but it's probably hard to get the economics of that to work out.

LargeCompanies 10y ago
Loved Aereo! Though and as of now your hard wired Internet provider makes it impossible to have just affordable Internet without having some type of TV package. Any streaming service who doesn't also provide Internet service is highly disadvantaged! I been paying $55 for 12 months for Internet and a few local and cable channels. Now that's expiring it went up to $70 a month but Internet alone is either $50 for 6Mbps or $85 for 25Mbps. 6Mbps is junk and Comcast knows it and if I added YouTube my expenses would be $85, yet who knows if 6Mbps would support solid streaming? I'm waiting for 5G fixed wireless from Verizon and Att for some competition to Comcast! I'm sure they too will make it equally unaffordable to just have Internet without their DirectTV Now and Fios. Erggh these OTT services have a tough road ahead of them.. they will probably all end up merging with internet providers.
- kevincennis 10y ago
  You'll be happy to know that the Aereo crew (myself included) is currently working on a fixed wireless ISP using millimeter waves and some very fancy active phased array technology. Still doing crazy stuff with antennas. https://starry.com/internet https://starry.com/internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g
  - petra 10y ago
    And naturally, live TV, i.e. multicast, is easy and almost free for any wireless system, for example Starry or Google WebPass. And offers a good launch point for wireless internet services.
res0nat0r 10y ago
I see commercials constantly lately for SlingTV which starts around $20-35 a month so it seems like things are working so far.
- lotsofpulp 10y ago
  I tried it, the quality is quite lacking from the buffering to the terrible blurring during quick action in sports and movies. And I tried it from multiple connections, ATT/Comcast/Verizon fits...although this was summer of last year during Olympics. Maybe it's better now or was too saturated back then.
  - simcop2387 10y ago
    Some of that is definitely there. I still see a 2-5 minute delay on video streams (based on show start times etc.). I don't notice any issues with blurring but I'm usually watching old SD shows (star trek on bbc) or cartoons.
- Stanleyc23 10y ago
  I tried using slingtv and on top of the stream qustream issues, I realized that if I pay for a video service my tolerance for ads becomes super low. Too low to ever switch back to the traditional tv ad model
- yesimahuman 10y ago
  Happy customer of PlayStation Vue. At $29/mo compared to the $80+/mo I was paying for Cable, I think these services will be very disruptive to the traditional cable model.
hkmurakami 10y ago
If anything you'd think that they could be the low cost leader in the market since they'd have the best vertical integration, from low cost infrastructure to ad inventory and targeting.
WWKong 10y ago
There is a third reason. I have always had cable till last year. Then I moved and went through the experience of getting cable from a big cable provider. I wanted them to give my money (typically around $75/month). But it ended with series of very frustrated phone calls and me deciding that sacrificing sports and news is well worth not having to deal with that company.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
  It's unbelievable isn't it? I live in the UK and had the same experience with a big telecom company. I'm calling them up to become a customer and give them money and I'm treated with rudeness and indifference. As someone running a startup it feels totally insane and I wonder if all big companies end up like this. Then when something like this new service comes about the incumbents are up in arms, how do they possibly expect any sympathy.
kevincennis 10y ago
Just to clarify a bit: I do think OTT is going to win out in the long run. But that's really just the underlying technology. The tough part is getting rid of the bundle. I'm not so sure that'll happen, although I really hope it does. All of these giant media companies would much rather sell you 10 channels for $20 than a single channel for $5. If a la carte starts happening in a serious way, it's going to be a huge win for consumers. But almost nobody on the other side really wants it. They're going to fight tooth and nail to keep the bundles.
- singham 10y ago
  Have you seen this talk? Talks exactly about what you mentioned. http://www.recode.net/2017/2/20/14666282/ben-thompson-stratechery-code-media-2017-bundling-unbundling-video http://www.recode.net/2017/2/20/14666282/ben-thompson-strate...
- cloudwalking 10y ago
  Bundling is actually win-win in practice. The economics work pretty well, which is why it's so persistent. It's a bit complex, take a look: http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-buyers/ http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-a...
  - jimhefferon 10y ago
    Bundling results in me having to pay Fox "news." That's a lose.
  - croon 10y ago
    It's only a win-win if in aggregate, people put a value on everything that is bundled. By that I mean that enough singular people put a value on a large subset of all channels. If too many people put a value 0 on too many bundled items, it's most definitely a consumer loss. The author admits this, but claims that collectively it is a win. There's no basis provided for this assumption though, other than that it is the market. I have no problem believing the cable market is flawed though (local monopolies). This is anecdata, but if true hits the core: Traditionally people I know always bought (happy meal or) big mac/quarterpounder & co (this could be inaccurate dollars, because it's not the local currency) for $6, because the sandwich was $4 a la carte, and the fries an additional $2. So sure, even if my value on soda was as low as $0.1 I would still make out ahead. But then the previously unavailable double cheeseburger arrived, which had as much meat and tasted about the same as a quarterpounder, for $2. And the Big Mac sandwich occassionally sold for $2.5. And me who genuinelly always put a negative value on soda (really, I did however trade it for a smaller milkshake) and always drink water, would now instead save 67% since I generally could do without the fries as well. I'm sure I'm an aberration in wanting just a double cheeseburger with water, but I'm not so sure I'm an aberration in getting a raw deal out of bundling. The analogy with a buffét is interesting in both its similarities and its differences. People eat different amounts, sure, but there is a finite amount one could eat, and it's not everything at the buffét. Some will eat more expensive stuff (HBO, ESPN), and some will eat cheaper stuff, but the cost to the restaurant is a finite amount of food. The analogy fails when in bundling TV it would be like sending every buffét customer 10 full dishes, of which they can only eat 1-2 full ones. Another issue is viewer count and measurement. In traditional TV you've got the Nielsen box and all its flaws, as well as scheduled TV giving a LOT of power to broadcasters to dictate popularity by air time (and ads). When I pay for a Netflix bundle, in aggregate with every other customer, our money is directly mapped to exactly what shows we watch, and while they can try to push some shows, they have a lot less power in dictating what people watch. This means that shows no one wants no one pays for, because they will simply not produce it. In traditional TV this was different for a myriad of reasons, including less consumer choice in the bundle (you choose a channel, not a program), no control over air times, etc. TL;DR: I don't disagree with the economics/maths in that link, but I disagree with the premise of the input consumer value, and available choices.
remarkEon 10y ago
If anyone hasn't, I highly recommend reading American Broadcasting et al v. Aereo. A fascinating case, and an interesting run down of telecommunications history. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf
petra 10y ago
Actually this offer is : 3 concurrent users for $35/month. Assuming that for many people, a single stream is enough,shared among friends it's $12/month. That's pretty reasonable.
nrdwavexe 10y ago
There is another main reason for someone not to have a cable subscription: they hate people who have cable subscriptions
beamatronic 10y ago
I thought Aereo was a neat concept. I think the same concept applied to software defined radio would be awesome as well. In particular, I've often wanted to be able to stream far away FM radio stations, complete with the local commercials, as if I were truly there.

LargeCompanies 10y ago

Loved Aereo! Though and as of now your hard wired Internet provider makes it impossible to have just affordable Internet without having some type of TV package. Any streaming service who doesn't also provide Internet service is highly disadvantaged! I been paying $55 for 12 months for Internet and a few local and cable channels. Now that's expiring it went up to $70 a month but Internet alone is either $50 for 6Mbps or $85 for 25Mbps. 6Mbps is junk and Comcast knows it and if I added YouTube my expenses would be $85, yet who knows if 6Mbps would support solid streaming? I'm waiting for 5G fixed wireless from Verizon and Att for some competition to Comcast! I'm sure they too will make it equally unaffordable to just have Internet without their DirectTV Now and Fios. Erggh these OTT services have a tough road ahead of them.. they will probably all end up merging with internet providers.

kevincennis 10y ago
You'll be happy to know that the Aereo crew (myself included) is currently working on a fixed wireless ISP using millimeter waves and some very fancy active phased array technology. Still doing crazy stuff with antennas. https://starry.com/internet https://starry.com/internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g
- petra 10y ago
  And naturally, live TV, i.e. multicast, is easy and almost free for any wireless system, for example Starry or Google WebPass. And offers a good launch point for wireless internet services.

res0nat0r 10y ago

I see commercials constantly lately for SlingTV which starts around $20-35 a month so it seems like things are working so far.

lotsofpulp 10y ago
I tried it, the quality is quite lacking from the buffering to the terrible blurring during quick action in sports and movies. And I tried it from multiple connections, ATT/Comcast/Verizon fits...although this was summer of last year during Olympics. Maybe it's better now or was too saturated back then.
- simcop2387 10y ago
  Some of that is definitely there. I still see a 2-5 minute delay on video streams (based on show start times etc.). I don't notice any issues with blurring but I'm usually watching old SD shows (star trek on bbc) or cartoons.
Stanleyc23 10y ago
I tried using slingtv and on top of the stream qustream issues, I realized that if I pay for a video service my tolerance for ads becomes super low. Too low to ever switch back to the traditional tv ad model
yesimahuman 10y ago
Happy customer of PlayStation Vue. At $29/mo compared to the $80+/mo I was paying for Cable, I think these services will be very disruptive to the traditional cable model.

hkmurakami 10y ago

If anything you'd think that they could be the low cost leader in the market since they'd have the best vertical integration, from low cost infrastructure to ad inventory and targeting.

WWKong 10y ago

There is a third reason. I have always had cable till last year. Then I moved and went through the experience of getting cable from a big cable provider. I wanted them to give my money (typically around $75/month). But it ended with series of very frustrated phone calls and me deciding that sacrificing sports and news is well worth not having to deal with that company.

ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
It's unbelievable isn't it? I live in the UK and had the same experience with a big telecom company. I'm calling them up to become a customer and give them money and I'm treated with rudeness and indifference. As someone running a startup it feels totally insane and I wonder if all big companies end up like this. Then when something like this new service comes about the incumbents are up in arms, how do they possibly expect any sympathy.

kevincennis 10y ago

Just to clarify a bit: I do think OTT is going to win out in the long run. But that's really just the underlying technology. The tough part is getting rid of the bundle. I'm not so sure that'll happen, although I really hope it does. All of these giant media companies would much rather sell you 10 channels for $20 than a single channel for $5. If a la carte starts happening in a serious way, it's going to be a huge win for consumers. But almost nobody on the other side really wants it. They're going to fight tooth and nail to keep the bundles.

singham 10y ago
Have you seen this talk? Talks exactly about what you mentioned. http://www.recode.net/2017/2/20/14666282/ben-thompson-stratechery-code-media-2017-bundling-unbundling-video http://www.recode.net/2017/2/20/14666282/ben-thompson-strate...
cloudwalking 10y ago
Bundling is actually win-win in practice. The economics work pretty well, which is why it's so persistent. It's a bit complex, take a look: http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-buyers/ http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-a...
- jimhefferon 10y ago
  Bundling results in me having to pay Fox "news." That's a lose.
- croon 10y ago
  It's only a win-win if in aggregate, people put a value on everything that is bundled. By that I mean that enough singular people put a value on a large subset of all channels. If too many people put a value 0 on too many bundled items, it's most definitely a consumer loss. The author admits this, but claims that collectively it is a win. There's no basis provided for this assumption though, other than that it is the market. I have no problem believing the cable market is flawed though (local monopolies). This is anecdata, but if true hits the core: Traditionally people I know always bought (happy meal or) big mac/quarterpounder & co (this could be inaccurate dollars, because it's not the local currency) for $6, because the sandwich was $4 a la carte, and the fries an additional $2. So sure, even if my value on soda was as low as $0.1 I would still make out ahead. But then the previously unavailable double cheeseburger arrived, which had as much meat and tasted about the same as a quarterpounder, for $2. And the Big Mac sandwich occassionally sold for $2.5. And me who genuinelly always put a negative value on soda (really, I did however trade it for a smaller milkshake) and always drink water, would now instead save 67% since I generally could do without the fries as well. I'm sure I'm an aberration in wanting just a double cheeseburger with water, but I'm not so sure I'm an aberration in getting a raw deal out of bundling. The analogy with a buffét is interesting in both its similarities and its differences. People eat different amounts, sure, but there is a finite amount one could eat, and it's not everything at the buffét. Some will eat more expensive stuff (HBO, ESPN), and some will eat cheaper stuff, but the cost to the restaurant is a finite amount of food. The analogy fails when in bundling TV it would be like sending every buffét customer 10 full dishes, of which they can only eat 1-2 full ones. Another issue is viewer count and measurement. In traditional TV you've got the Nielsen box and all its flaws, as well as scheduled TV giving a LOT of power to broadcasters to dictate popularity by air time (and ads). When I pay for a Netflix bundle, in aggregate with every other customer, our money is directly mapped to exactly what shows we watch, and while they can try to push some shows, they have a lot less power in dictating what people watch. This means that shows no one wants no one pays for, because they will simply not produce it. In traditional TV this was different for a myriad of reasons, including less consumer choice in the bundle (you choose a channel, not a program), no control over air times, etc. TL;DR: I don't disagree with the economics/maths in that link, but I disagree with the premise of the input consumer value, and available choices.

remarkEon 10y ago

If anyone hasn't, I highly recommend reading American Broadcasting et al v. Aereo. A fascinating case, and an interesting run down of telecommunications history. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

petra 10y ago

Actually this offer is : 3 concurrent users for $35/month. Assuming that for many people, a single stream is enough,shared among friends it's $12/month. That's pretty reasonable.

nrdwavexe 10y ago

There is another main reason for someone not to have a cable subscription: they hate people who have cable subscriptions

beamatronic 10y ago

I thought Aereo was a neat concept. I think the same concept applied to software defined radio would be awesome as well. In particular, I've often wanted to be able to stream far away FM radio stations, complete with the local commercials, as if I were truly there.