http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffberc...g-off-the-air/



Would be pretty earth shattering, could they survive as cable channels?

If it was ABC I would not care.

All bluster ,not going to happen.

Wouldn't thi aero/hopper technology kill ad $$$ though?

Maybe a bit , but anyway the FCC is not going to allow them to go to cable only

I'd assume it's ABC and NBC?

FOX is one of them making the threats.

They are mad because of the Dish Network Hopper (which has been publicized) and this device called the "Aereo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

They allege the "Aereo" violates copyright laws. It sounds like the device steals the signals from these networks and let's you either watch them live or time shift on the internet.

The idea of requiring payment for something being distributed freely over the public airwaves is ludicrous on its face in any event. I'd actually be all for legislation to stop the Hopper concept, but Aereo is just putting right what was wrongly decided (I mean on a public policy basis) long ago.

ETA: This is not my area of the law, but I think Aereo has a pretty good shot at being found completely legal if I understand their infrastructure right. I don't think they're stealing jack shit.

The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aereo, so whatever they're doing, it's not illegal.

I'm confused how a network can just go pay, isn't their spectrum licensed from the FCC?

Well, not the network. The network strikes deals with the affiliates. The affiliates have responsibilities to the FCC, not so much the networks (as far as I understand it at least). The networks would have to deal with affiliates either suing them or otherwise compensating the affiliates, but I don't think they should have any FCC problems directly.

They would pull the plug on their over-the-air signal and deliver content via cable.

Where does that put the affiliates? Would they just pay them off and deliver a dead air signal for the term of their contracts? Would that fly? It seems to me that they're paying the affiliates for carrying them but in addition to that they're also paying for it by delivering programming.

The dude from Fox is just being a little bitch. It isn't pirating the signal, it's redirecting a publicly available signal to tablets and other devices.

The big thing is they need to find a new way to do ratings, since obviously Nielsen is long out of date.

Meh... no biggie. There's too many channels on cable and dish systems to care.

It would never happen.

NBC has by far the most valuable property on television (SNF) and is by far the #4 network. They should have a reality show where they find a new network head.

Poor CW. Still not considered a network.

I assume it would mean they give back their spectrum, and they basically become a "pay" channel, like an ESPN or a TNT.

How do you figure it's the most valuable property? I'd say Sunday Night Football is the most valuable property on any network.

The NFC part of the NFL package (and what comes with it) is probably the most valuable 'property' on network TV (just go by what FOX pays for it), but if you go by singular games, then SNF is.

If this is legal, and apparently it is, why would cable systems not simply do the same thing for the networks and avoid the transmission fee? And, of course, pocket the savings.

They kind of are, Limited Basic is basically over-the-air Broadcast packaged to come over cable instead. However, unlike Aereo, the cable companies want a good relationship with Broadcasters

I don't think Fox has any intention of going to cable, that is just bluster on their part over the decision. It wouldn't surprise me if a network like the CW or NBC moved off the air in the future and went to cable.

Oh and it was Fox and Univision that were protesting , CBS chimed in momentarily on the subject as well.

Because they didn't think of it first.