• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aereo TV Service

Should Aereo pay for rebroadcast fee's to the Networks?

  • No, there should be a lower cost alternative.

    Votes: 8 80.0%

  • Yes, it's not fair to other providers who pay.

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • It's a cheap service, don't care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (explain)..

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
from what I know this service captures free TV broadcast via the air, and allows the subscriber to record the program to watch at another time.

an example........... is a person getting free TV broadcast via the air and recording it with a VCR, to watch at another time....this is the company's argument, against the major networks.
 
That is one fine idea, the alternative being that cable companies will let you select, and pay, only for those channels you are actually watching. We pay for near 300 channels just to view 5 or 6 that are actually worth our while.
 
Lovebug said:
That is one fine idea, the alternative being that cable companies will let you select, and pay, only for those channels you are actually watching. We pay for near 300 channels just to view 5 or 6 that are actually worth our while.
Click to expand...

Think of all the money people like me & you have wasted on cable and satellite subscriptions, eeeek!
 
Saying that as long as advertisers get the eyes watching their ads they should be happy demonstrates a lack of understanding of advertising.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Saying that as long as advertisers get the eyes watching their ads they should be happy demonstrates a lack of understanding of advertising.
Click to expand...


It's not the advertisers that are suing Aereo, it's the broadcasters.


But I'm a database guy, so please explain to us why an advertiser would not want to have their ads seen by (a) more people, or (b) the same group more often?


Hey, I'm always open to learn something new.


>>>>
 
Hard Truth said:
I tend to support Aereo's position as long as they do not strip out the broadcaster's commercials. The reason broadcasters oppose Aereo is that they can negotiate retransmission fees from cable providers. If Aereo is successful, broadcasters will not be able to obtain as much in retransmission fees from the cable operators. Note that broadcasters have been allowed to successfully shutdown websites retransmitting television broadcasts, although I don't recall the issue going to the Supremes.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: Satellite & Cable can't just "antenna" streams of local stations in airwaves on their cable package for free -- they have to pay the HQ all of that. Of course, they're likely not getting it from antennas but from the broadcaster HQs and just paying the fee that way, etc. But even if they weren't that's beside the point....

Thing is, Cable companies aren't saying "Hey, in order to get your local network channels, you have to lease an antenna from us, and we'll include it in your cable service." There's a big difference between *1* antenna, and you-lease-an-antenna. That's how Aereo's different. So no, it's not the same.

All Aereo is doing is channeling the line from a person's antenna, instead from their roof to their living room, from Aereo's own roof and using the Internet to re-direct it.

If an antenna company said "Hey, don't want to buy one, but instead lease one that we'll install on your roof?" -- would that be bad? No.

Okay, say the company said "Hey, if you don't get the best reception, we'll put your antenna in a prime signal spot -- and instead of a line coming from your own roof to your TV, we'll have the line utilize the Internet through your cable wire to get to your TV. How is that suddenly illegal?

Again, the antenna company WOULD NOT BE SAYING -- "Hey, just use our SOLE antenna that we split a billion ways and feed off it."

They're saying: "Instead of putting your antenna that you're buying or leasing on your roof -- let's put it over Here, outside your residence, and we'll just feed you that stream through the Internet (the remote way of Information) -- and you can get the signal from YOUR antenna that way. You'll be leasing the space where your antenna is, and like some places do anyway, be leasing your separate antenna.

What's illegal about that?

Essentially the networks aren't getting fees for "Re-Broadcasting". But it's not re-broadcasting anymore than an antenna on your roof is wirelessly "broadcasting" the results to your living room.

If satellite or cable companies wanted to this, they could -- but they're Not. They'd have to adjust it where Comcast would have to set up an antenna for you to buy or lease and put it up in your area where you get an optimal signal, and re-route it to a sole device/adapter-to-cable-box to incorporate that. It's a nightmare for them. A Comcast box doesn't have an adapter to get a feed from your own antenna on your roof. What cable companies & satellite companies are doing is NOTABLY DIFFERENT -- So Aereo is not doing the same thing as cable companies w/o paying network fees.

They're just rerouting YOUR stream -- TO YOU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom