Aereo is a service that uses a micro antenna you pay for and streams local broadcast television to you over the net. They claim to be going after the "a la carte" market...people who don't want to pay for large cable bundles.
Per Gigaom:
NFL and MLB ask Supreme Court to stop Aereo, warn they will move more games to cable
http://gigaom.com/2013/11/18/nfl-and-mlb-ask-supreme-court-to-stop-aereo-warn-they-will-move-more-games-to-cable/ (http://gigaom.com/2013/11/18/nfl-and-mlb-ask-supreme-court-to-stop-aereo-warn-they-will-move-more-games-to-cable/)
In the latest sign of how Aereo has become a strategic threat to the TV industry, the National Football League and Major League Baseball have joined the four major broadcasters in asking the Supreme Court to stop the upstart service, which lets subscribers stream over-the-air TV to laptops and mobile devices for $8/month.
The sports leagues argue that Aereo is undercutting the value of the deals they sign with TV companies, and that they will have to respond by moving all of their games to cable stations like ESPN and NFL Network. Currently, the NFL distributes 90% of its games via the broadcasters — CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX — while MLB shows 400 games a year and the World Series this way.
In a friend-of-the-court brief, reported by Variety and embedded below, the leagues warn that Aereo: "adversely impacts the more than eleven million households in the United States that do not subscribe to cable or satellite and thus do not receive non-broadcast cable networks."
The leagues and the broadcasters are asking the Supreme Court to step in and overrule a finding by an influential New York appeals courts' repeated findings that Aereo, which relies on tiny antennas to deliver a personal TV stream, does not violate copyright law.
It's uncertain, however, if the Supreme Court will hear the case in the current term which ends in June, or if the Justices will wait until the 2014-15 term. Court watchers note that there is a current split in the law between the east and west coasts, but that an appeals court in California (where Aereo-like services are now illegal) has yet to rule — meaning the case may be premature.
The NFL and MLB brief is also significant because it provides a window into the evolving economics of TV in the digital era. It notes, for instance, that cable and satellite systems like Time Warner or Dish now pay $300 million a year for "retransmission rights" from the broadcasters, and that the sports leagues get $100 million of that.
The leagues also regard Aereo as a threat to their strategy of slicing up online sports rights into smaller and smaller pies — through products like NFL Sunday Ticket (which allows Direc-TV subscribers to watch out-of-market Sunday games) and NFL Mobile, which saw Verizon pay $1 billion for the rights to stream some games to cellphones but not tablets.
In the view of the leagues, the Supreme Court should overrule the New York decision because it "unravels the foundation of this business model by giving broadcast retransmission rights to unlicensed commercial strangers."
Aereo, meanwhile, has been on a roll of late, winning the rights to stream its service in Boston while going live in many more markets like Detroit and Miami. Aereo CEO, Chet Kanojia, has vowed to crush the current "bundle" model of TV which forces consumers to buy dozens of channels they don't want in order to watch the channels they do.
Too bad the analog mini TV's that used rabbit ears won't work in the digital world. This is just a newer version of it.
This simple/stupid service is the final nail in the cable tv model. And yes they are coming to Jacksonville
Quote from: SunKing on November 19, 2013, 08:16:39 AM
This simple/stupid service is the final nail in the cable tv model. And yes they are coming to Jacksonville
All you can get with this service are channels that are broadcast over the air. You can't get stations like ESPN, NFL, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc...
How is this different from the digital antenna I currently use that gives me free local broadcast television all the time? I think that's better than needing an internet connection. ???
I think that you can tap any available market - plus, there's integrated DVR capability @ $8.
Per the New York Times:
Justices Take Case on Free TV Streaming
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to resolve a dispute between television broadcasters and Aereo, an Internet start-up that the networks say threatens the economic viability of their businesses.
The case has far-reaching implications for the big broadcasters, jeopardizing an increasingly vital stream of income known as retransmission fees, the money paid to networks and local stations for the right to retransmit their programming. At least two of the networks, CBS and Fox, have already said they would consider abandoning broadcasting over public airwaves altogether and becoming pay cable channels if the Supreme Court were to decide in favor of Aereo.
There are huge revenue streams at risk for the broadcasters. The research firm SNL Kagan has estimated that together they will take in more than $4 billion in retransmission fees from cable and satellite companies in 2014, a total that Kagan estimates will grow to more than $7 billion within the next four years.
Aereo uses an array of small antennas to stream over-the-air television signals to subscribers, allowing them to watch programs on their smartphones, tablets and computers. The broadcasters say this amounts to theft of their content and violates copyright laws. Aereo responds that it is merely helping its subscribers do what they could lawfully do since the era of rabbit-ear antennas: watch free broadcast television delivered over public airwaves.
Chet Kanojia, founder and chief executive of Aereo, a start-up that retransmits network television shows to subscribers. Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press
Both Aereo and the networks said Friday that they welcomed the court's decision to hear the case.
"We believe that Aereo's business model, and similar offerings that operate on the same principle, are built on stealing the creative content of others," CBS said in a statement. "We are pleased that our case will be heard and we look forward to having our day in court."
Fox Broadcasting, ABC, NBC, Univision and PBS also supported the court's decision to decide the issue.
Aereo's chief executive, Chet Kanojia, said in a statement that the company hoped from the beginning "that this case would be decided on the merits and not through a wasteful war of attrition."
"We look forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and we have every confidence that the court will validate and preserve a consumer's right to access local over-the-air television with an individual antenna," Mr. Kanojia said.
The "war of attrition" that Aereo referred to was the prospect that the company would have to face off against lawsuits in innumerable jurisdictions as local broadcasters all over the country sued to prevent the service from starting up. That would have presented a prohibitive cost for Aereo.
But the broadcasters also sought a quick resolution, hoping for a judgment that would forestall not just Aereo but also the cable and satellite companies who pay hundreds of millions each year for what is known as "retransmission consent."
Aereo itself is not as worrisome to the networks as the possibility that its technology would be co-opted by cable and satellite companies looking to avoid paying those fees.
DirecTV, Charter Communications, and Time Warner Cable, which just lost an ugly retransmission-fee showdown with CBS, have all indicated they would consider a similar approach to Aereo's if the service were declared legal.
Aereo was started by Mr. Kanojia in 2012, with the backing of Barry Diller, the chairman of the media conglomerate IAC/InterActiveCorp and formerly the co-founder of the Fox network. Available at first in New York City, the service has since expanded to other cities like Atlanta and Boston.
The company has been celebrated by so-called cord-cutters, television consumers seeking ways around ever-increasing cable and satellite bills. In his statement, Mr. Kanojia also outlined another of Aereo's lines of defense: that a decision against it would damage innovation in areas like cloud computing and cloud storage — services that enable users to create a kind of DVR in the sky, where hours of programming can be stored.
David Bank, a media analyst for RBC Capital Markets, said in an interview Friday, "This is a watershed moment," but he added that the real significance would not be known until the court made "a definitive declaration" of whether Aereo was a legal business.
If Aereo were to win, he said, "It would be very disruptive to the television ecosystem."
Last April, Chase Carey, the president of 21st Century Fox, the parent of the Fox network, said at a convention of broadcasters that the company would consider drastic action, like shifting from broadcast to cable distribution, if the Aereo service was found legal. "We can't sit idly by and let someone steal our signal," Mr. Carey said. "We like the broadcast business, and if we can affirm our rights, that is a path we prefer to pursue." He said that the "dual revenue stream" from both advertising and retransmission fees was vital for the future of the network.
Leslie Moonves, the president of CBS, also said switching to cable was an option for the future.
Some analysts have dismissed the suggestion as posturing in the legal battle, as well as an attempt to influence regulators. But Mr. Bank said he believed the broadcast networks would "likely have to undergo something of an evolution to become cable networks."
The case rests on a part of the copyright law that requires copyright owners' permission for "public performances" of their work. The law defines such performances to include retransmission to the public. The networks say Aereo's service violates that provision.
Aereo says it is not covered by the provision. Because it assigns individual antennas to every viewer, Aereo contended that its Internet streams are not public performances under the copyright law. That means, it argued, that it has no obligation to pay so-called retransmission consent fees to local stations.
In its petition to the court, the broadcasters called that position nonsensical.
"For example, when tens of thousands of Aereo subscribers all simultaneously watch the same broadcast of the Super Bowl using Aereo, Aereo is not publicly performing the Super Bowl," the petition said, mocking Aereo's argument. "It is merely making tens of thousands of simultaneous 'private' performances to its subscribers."
In its brief to the Supreme Court, Aereo said it merely sought to make good on the original deal between broadcasters and the government.
"The essential bargain that petitioners made to obtain, for free, public spectrum worth billions of dollars was that, once they have broadcast their programming, consumers have a right to receive and to view that programming using an antenna and to copy that programming for their personal use," the brief said.
A divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New York in April ruled for Aereo. In dissent, Judge Denny Chin wrote that the service was "a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, overengineered in an effort to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law."
In September, the broadcasters won a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court in Washington against a similar antenna-based service, Film On, based on copyright infringement.
The case is ABC Inc. v. Aereo, No. 13-461.
This case was heard in the Supreme Court today.
Per the WSJ:
Supreme Court Conflicted on Legality of Aereo Online Video Service
WASHINGTON—Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed unease with online-video startup Aereo Inc., but they also voiced concerns about the consequences of ruling for the broadcasters that are challenging the legality of the service.
After an hourlong oral argument, the outcome of the case appeared too close to call.
Aereo is aiming to become a larger player in the market for Internet-based alternatives to cable television. The company's service allows its subscribers to stream their local over-the-air broadcasts to an array of electronic devices, and to record shows and watch them later.
The broadcasters, including Walt Disney Co. DIS +0.73% 's ABC, Comcast Corp.'s CMCSA +2.88% NBC, CBS Corp. CBS -0.15% and 21st Century Fox, are aiming to sink Aereo, saying the service is operating illegally by engaging in wide-scale, unauthorized exploitation of their copyrighted programming without paying for it.
The high court heard oral arguments to consider whether the Aereo service violates the broadcasters' exclusive rights under federal copyright law to the public performance of their works.
Chief Justice John Roberts voiced skepticism about Aereo's service, saying it was built in a way specifically designed to get around restrictions in U.S. copyright law. However, he also said that one could view Aereo as fairly similar to an equipment provider like RadioShack RSH -8.62% that sells a consumer an antenna and a digital video recorder to make legal personal copies of programming.
While the court signaled its reservations about Aereo, the justices also made clear that they had concerns about the implications of ruling for the broadcasters. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and others said a ruling against Aereo, which is a cloud-based service, threatened to harm more established cloud-computing services, such as Apple Inc. AAPL -0.06% 's iCloud. Justice Breyer said the broadcasters' arguments made him "nervous," while Justice Sotomayor said the case was a difficult one.
The broadcasters argued that Aereo is retransmitting their programming to the public without authorization, a clear violation of copyright law.
Broadcasters are worried that if the court finds Aereo legal, it could undercut the billions of dollars in revenue the networks receive from cable and satellite companies, which pay to retransmit the networks' programming.
Aereo argued its service is the functional equivalent of what a consumer has the legal right to do with home-based equipment, only it is cheaper and more efficient. The company has done little marketing so far and the Supreme Court case could provide it with a publicity boost if it prevails.
The Aereo service, currently available in 11 cities, relies on thousands of dime-size antennas that are assigned to individual subscribers who log on to watch and record local broadcasts.
In a bid to avoid problems under U.S. copyright law, Aereo designed its system so that no two customers share the same antenna or digital recording, a setup that means the service isn't a public transmission, the company said. Aereo modeled its technology after a 2008 ruling by the New York-based Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the legality of a Cablevision Systems Corp. CVC +2.68% remote-storage digital video recorder.
A divided U.S. appeals court in New York refused to shut down Aereo last year.
A high-court decision is expected by the end of June.
http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-pulls-plug-aereos-streaming-tv-service-n140486
Quote
U.S. Supreme Court Pulls the Plug on Aereo's Streaming TV Service
By Pete Williams
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a potentially fatal blow to Aereo, an Internet service that allows customers to watch broadcast TV programs on mobile devices.
Launched a year ago in New York and then extended to 10 other U.S. cities, it allows customers to watch over-the-air TV programs on a smartphone, tablet, or computer for as little as $8 a month. Selections can be viewed live or recorded for later viewing.
The court found that Aereo violates federal copyright law by retransmitting copyrighted programs without paying a copyright fee.
Chet Kanojia, Aereo founder and CEO, said in a statement the ruling is "a massive setback for the American consumer."
"This sends a chilling message to the technology industry," he said.
Media mogul Barry Diller, a major backer of the service, told CNBC, "We did try, but it's over now,"
I'd bet that the fact that the shows are recorded and re-transmitted later was the deciding factor, and had they been streaming live TV without the ability to record it may have gone differently.
Quote from: carpnter on June 25, 2014, 04:14:44 PM
I'd bet that the fact that the shows are recorded and re-transmitted later was the deciding factor, and had they been streaming live TV without the ability to record it may have gone differently.
I don't think that was a base legal issue.
Cablevision had already won a district court case on that issue. Sling Media won their case as well.
Justice Roberts commented that the service seemed to be designed to go out of its way to avoid any liabilities to the broadcasters.
But it has been interesting to see how the content creation universe (especially sports) was freaking out over the concept. Lots of threats to take materials off OTA and move it to the paid subscription world.
Also interesting in that I can listen to any domestic radio station in the US through the TuneIn Radio app which includes play by play sports and they aren't sweating that one bit.
Broadcast and Cable media are extremely ripe for a disruption.