Aereo - another streaming "cable" option?

[pjpjpjpj]

https://www.aereo.com/

Article in today's Wall Street Journal about this company apparently in talks with major "pay" networks. The online article requires subscription so I won't post a link but you can look it up if you wish. No telling whether they'll have any better luck than Intel or any others. The list of channels they currently have in their plan isn't overwhelming.

[eric3a]

The very reason Comcast and others have caps on their monthly internet contracts.
Eric

[nyplayer]

This is ok if all you do is watch broadcast TV ... which is getting crappier everyday. I have yet to see an online service that will replace Comcast DIRECTV etc... Most of the shows are crap. I would rather pay a little extra to Comcast and get Streaming TV and have all my channels... than subscribe to Hulu, Aereo and other streaming services.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

This is ok if all you do is watch broadcast TV ... which is getting crappier everyday. I have yet to see an online service that will replace Comcast DIRECTV etc... Most of the shows are crap. I would rather pay a little extra to Comcast and get Streaming TV and have all my channels... than subscribe to Hulu, Aereo and other streaming services.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - per the WSJ article, they are talking to "cable" networks to try to get their content. Same as the Intel thread in this forum. They are not a player right now with their limited content but they are trying to get the rights to stream the same stuff your cable/satellite provider does.

I thought about putting this under the "Intel" thread since it's really the same sort of topic, but since it was a separate company and a new WSJ story, I thought I'd start a new thread here (and in case someone knows something about this company to indicate they might have an advantage over any others trying to do this).

[dotheDVDeed]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

broadcast TV ... which is getting crappier everyday.

I have to point out this is all relative. I bounce between the San Diego market and the Los Angeles market. The San Diego affiliates show considerably more infomercials than the Los Angeles affiliates do when it's not prime time.

But even so I have to agree with you--more prime-time programming on the networks seems to be renewed due to budgetary concerns rather than for artistic reasons.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Sorry if I wasn't clear - per the WSJ article, they are talking to "cable" networks to try to get their content. Same as the Intel thread in this forum. They are not a player right now with their limited content but they are trying to get the rights to stream the same stuff your cable/satellite provider does.

I really wonder why the cable networks would do anything with Aereo that is attractive that they wouldn't rather do with Apple, MS XBox, etc. Or offer themselves.

The loophole that makes Aereo's service legal is that they have an actual OTA antenna assigned to each user. So you can only use this trick with OTA stations - with cable companies you have to negotiate a deal and I don't remember organizations like Disney (owners of ESPN) and HBO making it easy for people to get their channels and/or content online when you don't have a cable sub. Doesn't the HBO Go service require you to have a cable or satellite sub?

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by wayner

I really wonder why the cable networks would do anything with Aereo that is attractive that they wouldn't rather do with Apple, MS XBox, etc. Or offer themselves.

The loophole that makes Aereo's service legal is that they have an actual OTA antenna assigned to each user. So you can only use this trick with OTA stations - with cable companies you have to negotiate a deal and I don't remember organizations like Disney (owners of ESPN) and HBO making it easy for people to get their channels and/or content online when you don't have a cable sub. Doesn't the HBO Go service require you to have a cable or satellite sub?

The thing that Apple, Intel and others are trying to get, that the content providers haven't been willing to go for is "a la carte" stations or programs. If Aereo is willing to buy and re-sell bundles of channels (similar to what cable providers do), they could probably make this happen - just don't expect it to be any cheaper than what the other cable providers are charging.

[wayner]

Exactly and the sports leagues don't want their content shown online by the channels as they have their own online services and they want to protect the value of their TV rights that are worth more to cable companies when the only reason to subscribe to cable TV is to watch live sports that are only available on channels like ESPN and/or your local sports channel like NESN, YES, Fox Sports Whatever.

[EdwardATeller]

Before starting a thread, I did a search on Aereo. This is what I was going to post on the thread.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...pands/1817893/

Is there an easy way to get Sage TV to record Aereo?

[wayner]

I doubt that it would be veryeasynto capture in Sageunless you can use somethinglike WebFeedEncoder. Doesn't Aereo have recording functionality? Don't forget that it is currently only available in NYC and you have to prove your address.

[pjpjpjpj]

Yes, basically this is an internet-streaming, cloud-DVR option for people to get their locals in their city (and wayner, the above link lists multiple cities they've added, not just NYC anymore). They set up some array of antennas very near the local OTA towers so they have clear reception, and they package that up with a UI and DVR program, and stream it out cheaply. Content-wise, it's sorta like when you could buy the "ultra entry-level" cable package that was only locals and a few other non-encrypted channels for less than $20/month (basically, the channels available via QAM)... but those deals aren't around most places anymore, plus it's streaming over the internet (which means you can access it remotely).

The legal fight here is whether someone has the right to capture all that TV that is free to anyone with an antenna, package it up, and re-send it out to people with a fee attached. So far (unless I missed another ruling), the court sided with Aereo and said you can do that, since the charges were not for the content, they were for the packaging, streaming, DVR functionality, and software.

Aereo is apparently sniffing around trying to get deals from "cable" networks for their programming, but as was said above and as has been said in multiple other threads here recently (i.e., the Intel thread), it's just not going to happen.

[wayner]

It still says this in the top right corner of their web page:

Aereo is available exclusively in metropolitan New York

But they are planning to rollout to 22 new cities this year.

It is not clear to me what the value is to having someone like Aereo consolidate my "cable" TV channels.

Assuming that channels like HBO and ESPN wanted to offer their channels to online-only customers why would they do it through Aereo rarther than through their own website? Why not keep all of the revenue for yourself un less Aereo would bring in incremental viewers.

The other issue is that the cable TV network may not own internet rights to content that they can show on TV. For example, I am guessing that the NFL has maintained streaming rights to their games.

IMHO sports is the only reason to maintain a cable/sat subscription since everything else is available in other ways and isn't as time sensitive.

[wayner]

Boston will be the second Aereo market and it will go live on May 15.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/23/aereo-boston-may-15/

[bcjenkins]

The sad part is that this could be the death of FTA in the US. The big networks make too much money from D* and Cable Cos.

B