Is it finally going to happen? And which two networks will it be?

[dhett]

If Aereo was to fail in the Courts, couldn't they make a fortune by licensing and selling those half-inch by half-inch "miracle" antennas? They say they are helping broadcasters reach the viewers who can't get an OTA signal well with conventional antennas...Why can't they just sell their new invention on the open market?

Because maybe the "miracle" antennas are a hoax and the Aereo business model is built on fraud?

No, I have no proof, but when a business claims to be built on a "miracle" that somehow seems to defy the laws of physics, my b.s. sensor goes into hyperdrive.

 

[cd637299]

They have those "Clear TV" antenna ads on TV now, which is basically an audio/video version of this ad, attached, from 1990 or thereabouts----stretching the truth like it was taffy:

(BTW kudos to the one on this board who linked me to this---I remembered it and thought it was hilarious)

http://www.user.dccnet.com/jonleblanc/images/gfx-100.jpg

cd

 

[1069_KIFR]

The GFX-100 for $5.00! I just printed that ad and am sending it in to get mine and toss out my cable box.

 

[cd637299]

The GFX-100 for $5.00! I just printed that ad and am sending it in to get mine and toss out my cable box.

And, remember, it's legal in all 50 states!

cd

 

[KeithE4]

The GFX-100 for $5.00! I just printed that ad and am sending it in to get mine and toss out my cable box.

And, remember, it's legal in all 50 states!

No wiring or installation! (How does the signal get from the antenna to the TV, then? : )

 

[Morgan Wick]

The GFX-100 for $5.00! I just printed that ad and am sending it in to get mine and toss out my cable box.

And, remember, it's legal in all 50 states!

cd

If they have to tell you it's legal in all 50 states, it's probably illegal in all 50 states - not that that means you'll ever get your money back!

 

[cd637299]

^ Well you certainly won't get your money back *now* if you send it away....Yeah the "no wiring or installation" didn't *stretch* the truth---it snapped it off.

I sure *would* like to see channels 52 to 83 again, though....

cd

 

[mgsports]

World Series to CBS or ABC or NBC.
NFL to My Network TV or CW.

 

[michael hagerty]

World Series to CBS or ABC or NBC.
NFL to My Network TV or CW.

Fewer than 10% of American TV households are OTA, and you're suggesting the NFL should go to struggling networks that are, in many markets, on signal-challenged stations?

 

[mgsports]

At least those 2 are one of the major networks and like ESPN and NFL Network isn't.

 

[michael hagerty]

At least those 2 are one of the major networks and like ESPN and NFL Network isn't.

You may be the first person in history to refer to the CW (and certainly to MyNetworkTV) as "one of the major networks".

 

[Kenny Atkinson]

At least those 2 are one of the major networks and like ESPN and NFL Network isn't.

You may be the first person in history to refer to the CW (and certainly to MyNetworkTV) as "one of the major networks".

The CW is a Television Network? ;D

 

[SixtiesGuy]

Cable peaked in '99 and has been slipping since. However, other alternative delivery systems (including satellite) have more than made up for it, and OTA has been in a steady decline. There's not been a single flat year, much less an increase in OTA.

Don't forget how helpful our gubmint was in booting people off OTA with their ill-engineered digital conversion. Many people I talked with thought that digital meant they had to subscribe to cable so they did.

Due primarily to reliance on a seriously flawed theory about DTV signal strength and propagation, the conversion couldn't have been done in a more pro-cable way if Comcast or Time-Warner had handled it. Stations that were, in the NTSC system, reasonably viewable with some snow or multipath (ghosting) became unwatchable or disappeared completely with the conversion to digital. Even with substantial power increases (so much for the promised energy savings of DTV) and emergency channel reallocations, the ATSC system still requires near-perfect reception conditions or it is virtually unusable. If you live anywhere within the flight-paths of major airports or are surrounded by tall buildings or even tall trees, forget it. The many viewers who relied on OTA for financial reasons were faced with the choice of spending their precious money on upgrading their antenna systems (if their housing conditions would even allow it) or subscribing to cable. We are indeed fortunate to have such brilliant, honest representatives in Congress looking out for us... aren't we?

 

[mgsports]

Yes you can get those on OTA but not usly ESPN and NFL Network.

 

[michael hagerty]

Yes you can get those on OTA but not usly ESPN and NFL Network.

The point is that less than 10% of U.S. TV households are OTA, and a significant portion of those are of no interest to advertisers. FOX, MLB and the NFL have very little to lose in terms of audience and ad dollars.

Whether they watch it regularly now or not, more than 90% of the county's TV households get ESPN, and ESPN has far more viewers than the CW and MyNetworkTV.

 

[TheBigA]

The point is that less than 10% of U.S. TV households are OTA, and a significant portion of those are of no interest to advertisers. FOX, MLB and the NFL have very little to lose in terms of audience and ad dollars.

I don't know...from where I sit that 10% can be the difference between a show being #1 that week.

The current Nielsen methodology really favors traditional broadcasting. They're really trying to catch up to all the new technology. But more than 60% of the country is still measured with paper diaries. And the advertisers and agencies are not happy about it.

 

[michael hagerty]

The point is that less than 10% of U.S. TV households are OTA, and a significant portion of those are of no interest to advertisers. FOX, MLB and the NFL have very little to lose in terms of audience and ad dollars.

I don't know...from where I sit that 10% can be the difference between a show being #1 that week.

Again, factor out age 80+, non-English speaking and economically disadvantaged and even if it did make the difference between #1 and #2, it wouldn't be in the demo and wouldn't be a difference that counted in the bottom line. They're buying points in demos, not raw numbers of eyeballs.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, factor out age 80+, non-English speaking and economically disadvantaged and even if it did make the difference between #1 and #2, it wouldn't be in the demo and wouldn't be a difference that counted in the bottom line.

Still, the #1 show is the #1 show, and they get to put out a press release and crow about it. Even if it loses money. Look at how much hay CBS is making over being #1.

 

[michael hagerty]

Again, factor out age 80+, non-English speaking and economically disadvantaged and even if it did make the difference between #1 and #2, it wouldn't be in the demo and wouldn't be a difference that counted in the bottom line.

Still, the #1 show is the #1 show, and they get to put out a press release and crow about it. Even if it loses money. Look at how much hay CBS is making over being #1.

Tell ya what. Go ask the nets if they want to make money or say "We're #1" in press releases.

It's like Larry Lujack said: "You say "We play the most music!" when your DJs stink and the ads aren't selling." They gotta spin something.

And again, in the demos where it matters (and maybe even in 6+), you're probably not going to slip from #1 to #2 by ditching OTA. So it's win-win.

 

[TheBigA]

Tell ya what. Go ask the nets if they want to make money or say "We're #1" in press releases.

They will say "We're #1" regardless of whether or not they make money. They will also tell you they're losing money on most first run series. So for them, the press release is worth more, because it helps them sell the brand rather than the show.