Slashdot Mirror

https://www.aereo.com/

Well, their site doesn't say anything like that anymore, as it's mostly down because of the ruling.

http://blog.aereo.com/2014/06/statement-aereo-ceo-founder-chet-kanojia-united-states-supreme-court-decision/

This sounds like Aereo, which also provides a business model in which physical resources dictate the scarcity. Since they are currently preparing for a trial at the Supreme Court it's probably wise to hold off a bit.

the studios are leaving cash on the table

You must be new here; the studios have always been in the business of fighting progress as long as possible in order to protect existing revenue streams.

The big argument with Aereo streaming content legally received on antennas within a given region where the information is broadcast is that the Aereo subscribers are unlikely to be customers of the local ads which paid (in theory) for the broadcast service to those devices. In other words, it's about regionality for the ads for ad-sponsorred content.

so totally WRONG you should lose your typing license for writing it. that is no 'big argument' -- no argument at all.....

aereo subscribers must reside in the market they are subscribing to, and BE IN THAT MARKET WHEN THEY USE THE SERVICE.

from https://aereo.com/faqs

Is Aereo available to me?
Aereo is available to residents of select areas only. Please see our coverage area for details. To sign up, your credit card must have a billing address within our coverage area.
Where can I use Aereo?
You can use Aereo anywhere within your home coverage area, so long as you have an Internet connection. Aereo is not limited to your home wi-fi or any particular broadband or wireless provider. Please see our coverage area for information about where you can use Aereo.

while you can probably jump through hoops to get around this strict region lock policy, like any other service, regular users won't have the knowledge to do so.....

hulu ads are not nearly as geographically fine-grained or time-sensitive as local broadcast commercials (what aereo's market locking policy preserves value of).. they're more "2014ish u.s. centric" not "spokane washington during last week of april 2014 centric"... and a great percentage of hulu advertisements are for globally recognized brands or products -- and the rest could easily be made to be that way without loss of ad revenue to hulu so that ads do have global appeal and reach and the whole issue of region locking hulu is shot to hell.

Might I suggest you investigate Aereo? They are working on, and legally defending, a service to stream live TV to their customers. Of course, this still is network content, but it's something.

Aereo receives broadcast signals in a market off the air; off the public airwaves to be more politically correct. Aereo then re-encodes (in some fashion) those signals and puts them out over the internet. At your home you subscribe to Aereo and play the re-broadcast signals on the video player device of your choice. (See https://aereo.com/how-it-works)

Aereo seems to claim that their service provides a "virtual antenna" to consumers who could otherwise both receive for free and "DVR" (as verb) those signals to reply them at the time of the consumer's choosing. (Regarding the service provider's DVR feature see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_DVR. It appears to have been determined in court to be a legal business model.)

A similar service called Skitter (see http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/business/media-investment/skitter-aereo-once-again-test-the-virtual-cableco-waters.html, http://www.skitter.tv/html/index.html, or http://www.mediabiz.com/news/morningbridge/?publication_id=17&release_id=1416).

Skitter is attempting to reach agreements with broadcasters, and I presume, paying them a fee. Aereo, it seems, is not, based on their "virtual antenna" claim.

Skitter is carrying some stations without an agreement in its markets under the FCC"s "must carry" provisions (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry). This is likely (IMHO) a losing legal argument.

Both Skitter and Aereo are charging, or are about to start charging, $12 per month to subscribers. While I can see that they have costs, what I can't see is how they can hope to sell someone else's broadcast and reap payments for it without fair compensation to the broadcaster. Apparently Skitter has seen this logic, and Aereo sees it differently today.

Question: Assuming Aereo and Skitter leave the broadcaster's advertising in place, why does this hurt the broadcaster?

Answer: First, the broadcaster will get no "Neilsen Rating" (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_rating) credit for those viewers. Viewers that stop watching on cable and start watching OTT won't be counted by Neilsen and so the station will get lower ratings. Lower ratings in a market means lower commercial charge rates and revenue. I can't judge the impact of this in ratings or in dollars at this time. It's clear to me that if it became a real financial issue, Neilsen could find a way to survey these numbers at the ISP rather easily (as could any of Neilsen's competitors) or at the consumers just as they do today with cable consumers.

Answer: Broadcasters make money off of the carriage by and commercial insert slots bought by the local cable company. While the relationship between these two parties in any market is not often cooperative, it's generally cordial except when the contact carriage rate is up for negotiations. (Again see the Must Carry reference, and the links in it for some examples of carriage disputes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable#Carriage_controversies.) If Aereo and Skitter are allowed to carry channels at rates below what the broadcasters get from the cable companies, especially on a per-subscriber basis, what position will the broadcasters be in the next time their carriage rate is negotiated with the cable company? The broadcasters simply MUST ACT to protect their primary revenue sources (cable carriage fees and advertising rates).

Answer: Any sports franchise that is carried over local (or remote)