Fox, Univision May Go Subscription To Stop Aereo

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."

Comments

While you are at it

[Sparticus789]

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.

Re:While you are at it

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:While you are at it

[Picass0]

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.

Re:While you are at it

[TubeSteak]

"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.

What am I missing?

[therealkevinkretz]

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?

Re:What am I missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Awesome!

[Antipater]

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.

Fox Corporate Asshole

[SpaceManFlip]

+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....