Fox, Univision May Go Subscription To Stop Aereo 306
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."
While you are at it (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.
Hilarious misinterpretation of their license (Score:2, Interesting)
What part of "broadcast in the public interest and convenience" are they failing to understand? A significant portion of the country no longer owns televisions nor are interested in non-time-shifted content.
Good. (Score:5, 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.
Awesome! (Score:5, 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?
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are 2 downsides with that from the TV perspective –
First, time-shifted /place-shifted advertisements are worth less. People pay less attention to them. (Live sports, for example, can charge a premium because people don’t time-shifting watching those vents.)
Secondly, and more importantly, the TV stations would have to share their revenue with Aereo – and more importantly – Aereo would be in the driving seat in terms of negotiations. I think the TV stations would want to go into negotiations in a stronger position.
So I don’t think they are inherently against it – they just want a larger slice of the pie. (Not saying that we should give it them.).
Re:While you are at it (Score:4, Interesting)
History, SyFy and TLC would all be fine:
Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+SD) Week Ending April 7, 2013:
Network (000s)
It would be the rest of the filler station that wouldn't make it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what is this mythical new business model? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm more than willing to pay a dime (or several hundred dimes) if I can actually get easily accessible things that I want to see.
For example, I have a Netflix and Hulu subscription. Why? Because streaming content, my choice of what I see or don't see, no advertisements, and no contract. I'm happy to pay for it, because it gives me what I want, when I want it, and doesn't get in my way.
Conversely, I'll never pay for a cable subscription again. Cable requires (at least in my area) a 2 year contract, gives me 100+ channels of crap with only 3-5 that show something that I'd like to see (but only shows what I want to see at certain times of day), and forces me to watch advertisements. Why would I pay to watch advertisements? I'd be 100% ok with ad supported free channels, but if I'm paying for it, it had better not have ads.
Here's a suggestion for the cable companies out there. Turn your network into the Netflix of TV. Basic premise is that you can watch the last 3, or 5, or maybe the entire season of a specific show. For news, show the last week. Give it to me searchable, and let me pick up from where I was watching last time. Make it available for a reasonable, tiered price (eg, it's ok to charge extra for premium channels like HBO or Starz), and don't force me to sign a contract. Finally, get rid of the advertisements. Or, maybe give people the option to pay 75% the normal subscription price if they'll watch an advertisement at the beginning of the content.