Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fox, Univision May Go Subscription To Stop Aereo

Posted by timothy on from the sounds-like-bluffing dept.

GTRacer writes "In response to Aereo's recent win allowing per-user over-the-air antenna feeds to remote devices, Fox COO Chase Carey said, 'We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content. This is not an ideal path we look to pursue [...],' that path being a switch to a subscription model. Spanish-language stalwart Univison may join Fox, per CEO Haim Saban. Aereo replied, in part, 'When broadcasters asked Congress for a free license to digitally broadcast on the public's airwaves, they did so with the promise that they would broadcast in the public interest and convenience, and that they would remain free-to-air. Having a television antenna is every American's right.' A switch to a pay-TV subscription model would stymie Aereo but could hurt affiliate stations."

15 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. While you are at it by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we switch ALL channels to a subscription model? I only watch 5 channels, and I would gladly pay $5 each for those channels and save myself hundreds of dollars per year.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:While you are at it by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On cable that would be fine, but not over the air channels. If they try that, they should indeed lose their broadcast license.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:While you are at it by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The clock is ticking for local over the air affiliates anyway. In a few years expect all the big players like Viacom, NBCUniversal, Fox, Disney, etc... to focus on becoming "apps" with content stores or subscriber libraries. There are constant rumors of HBO GO waiving the cable subscriber requirement and becoming a Netflix or Hulu. Premium channels are not going to standby much longer and watch Amazon Prime and other services steal "their audience". They will get in the game and it will by the end of the status quo for cable tv.

      Smaller local news affiliates will become an afterthought. They will need to figure out how to survive as the business model continues to shift to streaming.

    3. Re:While you are at it by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

      Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939

      /If they want to take their ball and go home, I would encourage them to do so.
      //NBC/CBS/ABC as well. Someone will fill your shoes, if for no other reason than the lucrative sports broadcast.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:While you are at it by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should less popular channels by subsidized? Why should anything ever be subsidized (as far as entertainment)?

      Because mass-market pablum will be the only thing produced?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:While you are at it by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what will REALLY make them shit their pants is when they all switch...and nobody shows up.

      I live in a college town with my oldest in college so I am pretty much surrounded by 20 somethings all damned day and you know what I found? they don't watch TV, in fact more and more of them don't even own a TV. They might have netflix to watch a movie, might catch a clip on YouTube but THAT IS IT, they really don't give a rat's ass about watching traditional TV, they have their social stuff and their games and they just don't have any desire to sit and just passively veg out in front of a TV like previous generations did.

      I always thought I was a bit of an oddball because I dropped TV nearly a decade ago, turns out I was just ahead of the curve. talking to these kids that come into the shop pretty much TV is looked at something for your parents or grandparents, its just not something they care about. They are a HELL of a lot more social oriented, they are getting together with friends and watching a rifftrax on the widescreen one of them uses as a monitor, they are on their FB or in an MMO, regular passive TV really just doesn't hold any appeal to them and I honestly don't blame 'em as when I go out to visit my mother I'm forced to watch it and...fuck is ALL TV this God damned stupid? Is it ALL reality garbage now? Because spinning through the channels that is what it seems like to me, every time I'm exposed to it all I can think is "When is "Ass" or "Oww my balls" coming on?" because it feels THAT stupid.

      So give the OTA bandwidth to cellphones, maybe add a nice free channel for the next gen of WiFi, because honestly even the old folks aren't watching that shit anymore, they have Dish or DirectTV and the kids don't watch any of it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. What am I missing? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they already provide a free over-the-air signal, in order to be available to the most viewers (and therefore to the most advertising targets), isn't another company extending that viewer base at no expense to Fox, Univision, CBS, NBC, ABC a *benefit* to them?

    1. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      SSssshh! They're going to take Fox off the air and we don't have to do anything

    2. Re:What am I missing? by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea I have no idea what they're complaining about. Instead of fighting Aereo maybe they could work with them instead? When you're broadcasting you have no idea who's watching what and what kind of exposure paying advertisers are getting. Aereo likely knows what channel you're watching and at what time, this seems like ENORMOUSLY valuable information to a broadcaster. If everybody setup a TV tuner in their apartment and streamed it to their device of choice then the broadcaster has no clue what kind of market penetration they're getting.

      It's like cutting off your nose to spite the face.

  3. Good. by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Instead of seeing it as a way to increase their viewing area to their advertisers they're alienating their customer base. I quit watching normal TV years ago, if enough stations do this we could reallocate all that useful TV bandwidth to something useful.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  4. Awesome! by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's hope all the like companies do this, it would be great for the American public. Once they do this we can then take the considerable bandwidth that is being allocated on TV and use it for more useful things like next generation wireless devices. I for one must encourage this behavior and the removal of public TV from public airwaves. We also gain the benefit of removing decades old indecency standards from the days of the Model T.

    How many people would sign a petition in support of this measure?

    1. Re:Awesome! by Antipater · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Broadcast TV allows me to watch programming I enjoy, for free, without my stream lagging to hell whenever my ISP arbitrarily decides to throttle me.

      And I would rather have my indecency standards set by a monolithic, slow-as-molasses bureaucracy than by the whims of a media company.

      Until net neutrality is settled, I would ask that you not sign any petition doing away with public TV.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
  5. Cancel it! by simonbp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fox is so good at canceling good shows that they thought they'd cancel themselves!

  6. Fox Corporate Asshole by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 5, Insightful
    +1 for appropriate Heinlein wisdom

    This Fox COO is making dumb threats. As one with an inside-view of how broadcast TV is made available to viewers, I can tell you that this action if taken will result in no good for Fox.

    Basically, there is in many areas at most a 15-20% marketshare for OTA broadcast TV, and the rest get their TV from cable or satellite. For Fox to be able to charge the "freeloaders" viewing by broadcast, they would have to implement some kind of scrambling of the broadcast signal.
    Scrambling the signal would require hardware on both ends: 1 scrambler at the broadcast transmitter, and 1 descrambler at each viewer's house (many).

    How many currently free viewers do you reckon are going to start paying Fox for hardware/subscription to view their 1 broadcast channel that they used to get for free? My bet is nearly none. So their 15-20% share would drop to ~ 2-5% costing them 10+% of their viewers. Look at that number, then think of the nation-wide ad revenue for the corporation it could represent, and plop that figure onto the table of the shareholders' meeting....

    1. Re:Fox Corporate Asshole by internerdj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe I misread but I thought they just meant drop out of broadcast and only air the channels over cable or satelite.