1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Aereo Internet TV forces Fox, CBS to consider subscription-based model

By Rick · 16 replies
Apr 10, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. Following a recent court decision favoring Aereo's Internet-based, royalty-free retransmission of broadcast television, Fox warned it may pull its freely available NY-area broadcast channel in favor of a subscription-only model. CBS claims it too is mulling over a similar move to...

    Read more
  2. stonarda

    stonarda TS Booster Posts: 143   +18

    'to sustain our business' Pfffff, they make enough money already and don't need any more money than what they got. Its all about the money these days for big coporations, and not about the content they deliver!
  3. Who are you to determine whether or not someone has too much money?
    p51d007 likes this.
  4. Tygerstrike

    Tygerstrike TS Enthusiast Posts: 827   +93

    Sorry to break it to you but its been all about the dollar since the 1950's. Before that it was radio and its advertising. It will always be about how much money the corporations make. Content is irrelevant. Content is simply the product that is used to make the money. IF these TV companies gave two shakes of a rats arse, they would jump on this medium (Internet TV) and make it their own. Offer the same service at half the price. No middlemen,rebroadcasting, or third party makeing money off of someone elses dime. This would allow them to have a leg to stand on as the product that Aereo would be rebroadcasting would in essence be "stolen" from the TV ppl. As Fox, CBS, ect would be offering the same service online they could argue that Aereo would be stealing business from them without paying any royalties.
  5. MrAnderson

    MrAnderson TS Maniac Posts: 488   +10

    I thought the Networks were required to provide free over the air television as part of the spectrum they were given. If they go subscription, they will need to drop commercials and up the number of shows, and better be on demand.

    Good luck.
  6. windmill007

    windmill007 TS Rookie Posts: 307

    These are people who want to watch tv with commercials. I pay for tv but I never watch commercials. You would think they would want these types of services to expland there market. Guess they get paid the same no matter how many people watch those channels they just want more money. Never have enough billions.
  7. I don't need FOX nor CBS that bad to pay for there offerings. As Mr. Anderson pointed out, the people of the U.S. via the government own the airwaves. The people allow Broadcasters to use the airwaves so the broadcast must be free. The way they make money is by selling advertising, which of course is based on the amount of viewers. I think the only way a station could charge a subscription is via cable/internet (non-broadcast). Again, I'm not going to pay for the content as most of it sucks. I think the real thing is that FOX and CBS are saber rattling to help spread FUD against Aereo.
  8. dialogue

    dialogue TS Rookie

    This news is a week old. what gives?

    anyway, how about a quick dose of reality.

    30 years ago I paid a one time fee to have an antenna on my roof to get TV reception. I got to watch all of the content on tv for free- I watched commercials..

    Now Aereo is charging users $80 a year for that same right... and THE NETWORKS are getting
    angry at that?! I don't get it.

    Sorry CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX- you just can't stand competition...get used to it...
  9. The networks want that pieces of $80 too. I understand their agruement about it, but I do not understand their agruement of priate (copyright infringement) though.
  10. SCJake

    SCJake TS Rookie Posts: 80

    It's amazing how everyone instantly cries about the "big corporations" when something comes up like this.

    Lets face it. If Comcast, Time Warner, Walmart, Viacom, Constellation, Ford, Etc just disappear then everything collapses. You people realize how many thousands of jobs those companies make? Yea, they do a lot of things that make us angry, and yes they arguably "unjustly" bill for things, but the fact is that without them we would have so many things collapse. People need to stop whining about them and learn to live with them. They can be changed, we just need to focus on the people who are too damn dumb to understand whats going on and would rather sit on an internet forum whining then actually do something.....

  11. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,477   +644

    So because these companies employ thousands we have to put up with **** service and high prices because they are too big to fail is that what your saying?
  12. Tygerstrike

    Tygerstrike TS Enthusiast Posts: 827   +93

    No what they are saying is that they are not going away and will prolly be around long after we are all dead. So given that information, it falls on us the consumer to vote with our wallets. They may be giants, but once revenue freezes up and drops off then the giant will notice us. And get off the computer and go do something to activly change the situation instead of just whining on a forum.
  13. SCJake

    SCJake TS Rookie Posts: 80

    Thank you. I knew that common sense reigned supreme with at least some of the members here!
  14. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,477   +644

    And how would we vote with our wallet? they control all the content.

    the only way to do that would be to not watch tv?

    And how is revenue going to freeze up? even if you and I and all the people we know stop watching tv its a drop in the bucket which these larges companies don't even notice.

    As for whining in a forum you may want to direct that to the person that posted.
  15. markml

    markml TS Rookie

    In a communist country, perhaps what you are saying is true, but I don't think you really understand how capitalism is supposed to work. When a large company fails, it makes room for 10 new innovative and faster growing companies, that combined will end up employing a lot more people than the "too big to fail" company. That's at least the way an efficient free market is supposed to work.

    Everything has a life cycle. Companies make products that have built-in life cycles, so you need to constantly replace what you own. Why shouldn't the companies themselves also have a life cycle? By allowing innovation to devour the big companies, you permit smarter stronger companies to form in their place.

    Think about gardening. When a tree in your garden starts to grow very sick, the best thing you can do is to cut it down, to save the rest of your garden. That sick tree is sucking up nutrients from the rest of the garden without contributing anything. But if you get rid of the old tree, a new tree will shortly replace it.

    Also, ask yourself how many jobs the big companies are really providing Americans? And how many are they shipping overseas to squeeze profit margins? See, when a company stop innovating, it has to increase its profits somehow, and the main way it does so is by reducing costs. And the biggest cost reduction is labor. Smaller companies actually can't out-source as much as big companies, so they are forced to innovate to make profit. And innovation is good for everyone.
  16. SCJake

    SCJake TS Rookie Posts: 80

    markml Not saying that big corps need to be protected, just that people who always instantly blame them for everything and say that they need to die dont know what they are actually saying. The general population is stupid. This is a fact. And even the intelligent act stupid when around the less intelligent. This has been proven time and time again over the years
  17. markml

    markml TS Rookie

    Perhaps, but the subject of this whole article is about these companies belly-aching over innovation squashing part of their revenue model. Essentially that's what it comes down to.

    They were fine when TV was being distributed freely to everyone who owns an antenna, because the potential viewership made advertisers happy, and they could make a few extra bucks off the fact that not everyone was fortunate enough to have antenna reception. And those people with poor reception were locked into monopolistic cable providers, often by their own local government. People in that situation had no choice.

    Well, along comes someone and offers those people a choice. A way to solve the problem of people not having good antenna reception. 50 years ago, the networks would have been happy about this, because it would mean more viewers (the problem cable was originally supposed to solve). 50 years ago, if a company like Aereo existed, cable TV probably never would have become dominant. And Aereo's model is fully legal -- if I'm allowed to own an antenna, who says I have to place it at my house. That's obvious without a lawsuit.

    I think what angers ordinary Americans about these companies is that they're so willing to waste our tax-payer dollars on lawsuits because they don't like innovation interfering with their business. Of course, they're really just patsies to real villain, the lawyers. It's the American legal system that's messed up.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...