5 ms·

As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think of for t

by cjensen 13y ago

As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think of for this boneheaded move: ABC wants people to have cable because ABC owns ESPN and ESPN makes more money than any other network. In the US, they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.

untog 13y ago
But the public airwaves are still publicly accessible. ABC's app change has nothing to do with the public airwaves.
- cjensen 13y ago
  ABC is trying to control what can be done with a video sent over the public airways, so yes, it has everything to do with public airwaves. No one is arguing here about use of stuff sent over non-public-owned cable systems. The question is, given that it is legal for me to record a show broadcast over the public airwaves, is it also legal for me to pay a company to do that for me.
mbreese 13y ago
Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users. This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees. (Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  ^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though. Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV. Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs. (Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)
  - brownbat 13y ago
    > Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. Definitely. Note though, that this was exactly the concern when cable came out, and got its start by delivering over the air broadcasts from faraway metropolises to subscribers in rural areas or other cities. For anyone interested in the history of telecommunications, definitely check out Tim Wu's "The Master Switch. There's a section on how new cable companies fought against entrenched broadcasters back when the power dynamic was a little different, really shows how often this same battle repeats itself with different players every time.
    - acjohnson55 13y ago
      Unless the cable companies back in the day used separate antennas for each subscriber, it's not quite the same thing. Aereo actually bothers with this step.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
FlyingCocoon 13y ago
True! they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.

by cjensen 13y ago

untog 13y ago

But the public airwaves are still publicly accessible. ABC's app change has nothing to do with the public airwaves.

cjensen 13y ago
ABC is trying to control what can be done with a video sent over the public airways, so yes, it has everything to do with public airwaves. No one is arguing here about use of stuff sent over non-public-owned cable systems. The question is, given that it is legal for me to record a show broadcast over the public airwaves, is it also legal for me to pay a company to do that for me.

mbreese 13y ago

Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users. This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees. (Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)

acjohnson55 13y ago
^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though. Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV. Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs. (Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)
- brownbat 13y ago
  > Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. Definitely. Note though, that this was exactly the concern when cable came out, and got its start by delivering over the air broadcasts from faraway metropolises to subscribers in rural areas or other cities. For anyone interested in the history of telecommunications, definitely check out Tim Wu's "The Master Switch. There's a section on how new cable companies fought against entrenched broadcasters back when the power dynamic was a little different, really shows how often this same battle repeats itself with different players every time.
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    Unless the cable companies back in the day used separate antennas for each subscriber, it's not quite the same thing. Aereo actually bothers with this step.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jamesbritt 13y ago

FlyingCocoon 13y ago

True! they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.