Streaming TV startup at center of media storm


4 replies to this topic - - - - -

#1 Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 54,471 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:04

Cable subscribers are fed up with paying for channels they don't want. But solving the problem involves battling a powerful broadcast industry and murky legal issues.

That's why Chet Kanojia isn't surprised that his startup Aereo, a streaming service for live broadcast TV (but not cable), has attracted controversy. And lawsuits.

Kanojia is very familiar with how the traditional broadcast TV business works. He worked with many of the bigwigs before selling his TV advertising startup Navic Networks to Microsoft in 2008, so he figured they wouldn't be pleased with his new idea: a service called Aereo.

Aereo lets subscribers watch live broadcast TV on Internet-connected devices, or record shows to watch later. Occasional viewers can buy a $1 day pass (recordings are stored for 10 days), while heavier users can purchase an $8 or $12 monthly package or an $80 annual subscription.

Before Aereo launched in New York in early 2012, Kanojia and his team made the rounds at broadcasters' offices to explain the approach. None of them cheered Aereo, but Kanojia wasn't waiting for broadcaster approval to move forward. He had already scored financial backing, and he had confidence that he was on solid legal ground.

After Aereo's New York launch, most of the major broadcast networks and local TV station owners quickly filed copyright infringement lawsuits against Aereo

Aereo's defense is its technical setup, which the company insists makes its service legal. It houses thousands of tiny antennas in its data centers, and it assigns each customer a unique antenna. Aereo argues that the service works just like a legal DVR. Broadcasters say it's an unfair dodge based on a technicality, and Aereo should have to pay them to re-transmit their programming.

more


#2 HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 16,646 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:12

Unless he not re transmits FTA or has a full subscription for every antenna/receiver, I don't see the legal ground, even then it's a bit shaky.

#3 1941

    Banned

  • 18,175 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 06

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:17

If I dumped my cable all I would get would be our 3 local stations and my internet bill would be raised.

#4 DocM

    Neowinian ULTRAKILL

  • 11,332 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 09 February 2013 - 15:08

Cut the cord months ago. We get almost 40 channels or subchannels OTA, including ION which broadcasts many of the police procedurals our family likes. Get movies etc. by Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon PPV.

No ones arms or legs have fallen off, and we now have over $100/mo free to spend on something else.

#5 +remixedcat

    meow!

  • 9,463 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Pink and Purple and Black palace in the sky....
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 Standard/Windows 7 x64 SP1
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:27

I just got netflix and that's it... saves me a lot not having regular tv.