[mythtv-users] End of OTA?

Sun Sep 7 10:54:31 UTC 2014

Hi Hika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Content_protection_.28HDCP.29

On 7 September 2014 11:49, Hika van den Hoven <hikavdh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi Another,
>
> Sunday, September 7, 2014, 12:41:00 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Richard
>
>
> > The 'local' stations in the US are actually often affiliates of the Big
> US Networks....
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliates
>
>
> > often the cable companies would just retransmit the 'local'
> > stations until about 5 years ago when the Fox stations IIRC told the
> > cable companies they couldn't rebroadcast their content unless they
> > paid them a fee.   This was also influenced by what is known as the
> 'must carry' rules
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry
>
>
>
> > There were a number of stories when Fox played hardball of which this is
> one.
>
> >
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/18/us-fox-timewarnercable-idUSTRE5BH2FX20091218
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute
>
>
>
>
> > In effect the 'local' stations negotiated the retransmit fee at the
> > same time as the removal of the must carry clause.
>
>
> > Now whereas in the UK sport is concentrated on the Sky premium
> > platform in the US the NFL is shown extensively on the broadcast
> > networks and many other sports also look to maximise their exposure
> > by ensuring they are on the Broadcast networks in some form or
> > another so the cable companies were suddenly presented with a
> > situation where their customers couldn't get major network shows
> > (say CSI or Big Bang Theory) or major sports or local news (much
> > bigger deal in the US then in the UK) through their cable provider.
>
>
>
> > This is quite a good article to give you some idea of the monies involved
>
> >
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/11/broadcast-networks-retransmission-consent-fees.html
>
>
>
>
>
> > All of this presents a much more complicated setup then the UK.
>
>
>
> > However I would point out to you that SKY actually paid the BBC to
> > retransmit its broadcasts, what SKY then did though was charge huge
> > fees (£70m PA IIRC) for the encryption required and the placement on
> > the listing guide.  You may remember back in 2003 when the BBC moved
> > from one Astra satellite to another it went 'Free to Air' and that's
> > when the argument with SKY kicked off with Murdoch threatening to
> > pull the Beeb off the listings and getting Hollywood to boycott
> > providing movies to the BBC, basically the Beeb had outmanoeuvred
> Murdoch  and called his bluff
>
> > http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/13/bskyb.bbc
>
>
>
> > So the landscape is very different in the UK from the US and you
> > should understand that 'local' stations in the US is a bit of a
> > misnomer, in many cases they're actually the providers of the most
> popular programs on TV.
>
>
>
> > Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 September 2014 10:48, Hika van den Hoven <hikavdh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi Richard,
> >
>
> >  Sunday, September 7, 2014, 10:17:32 AM, you wrote:
> >
>  >> On 7 Sep 2014 02:24, "Gary Buhrmaster" <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Bert Haskins <bhaskins at chartermi.net>
> wrote:
>  >>> Among the absolutely insane number of current polycrap ads is one that
>  >>> says that our "representatives " are trying to kill free TV.
>  >>> Given the level of integrity that these guys have shown in the past
> this
>  >>> doesn't surprise me but I wonder if other list members have heard
> about it.
> >
>  >> It is all about the money (and who gets to collect it),
>  >>  focused on re-transmission consent.  The big MSOs
>  >>  do not want to pay to retransmit free OTA content,
>  >>  and the OTA channels do not want to lose the revenue
>  >>  from the MSOs (claiming that if they do not get the
>  >>  money from the MSOs, they will have to close up shop).
>  >>  Both sides are using tactics that presume people are
>  >>  stupid.  Unfortunately, past experience shows such
>  >>  tactics work for the aforementioned reason.
>  >>
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >>  mythtv-users mailing list
>  >>  mythtv-users at mythtv.org
>  >>  http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>  >>  http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
>  >>
>  >> Looking at this from a uk perspective and therefore knowing little
>  >> of how it works it appears that the channels are being paid by the
>  >> cable companies to rebroadcast the content.
>  >> This seems perverse. Are these channels that good? Do they have that
> high a following?
>  >> As the cable companies appear from this side of the pond to be the
>  >> gateway to the majority of the population in the US I would expect
>  >> that the independent channels would be paying the cable company a
>  >> fee for retransmitting the channel.
>  >> Sky satellite charged even the BBC (which produces the most watched
>  >> telly channel in the uk) a retransmission fee until fairly recently
>  >> until the BBC got some balls and negotiated harder
>  >> I guess the reason that the mso's post these channels is why you
>  >> have many local channels and we only just set some up (and must
>  >> don't have the production standards we are used to in the uk so they
>  >> don't get good audiences and even close/fail)
>  >> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_television_in_the_United_Kingdom
>  >> Sky does broadcast these local channels as it is regulated to do so...
>  >>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9262158/Ofcom-and-Sky-on-fresh-collision-course.html
>  >> Our TV stations (local or otherwise) have to survive on advertising
>  >> revenues alone... (And when content is good enough selling
>  >> individual TV programmes for rebroadcast in other territories)
>  >> So the questions are...
>  >> 1 Do the local channels have that high a following that customers
>  >> would desert the cable subscription if the local channels were removed?
>  >> 2 Would the local channels prevent rebroadcast if they didn't
>  >> receive cash from the cable company? (They'd be reducing their
>  >> viewer numbers considerably and therefore advertising revenue would
> also be hit)
>  >> Sorry if my comments here are way off the mark as I don't
>  >> understand much of the cable history in the US.
>  >> R
> >
> >
>
> > Luckily her in the Netherlands we have a law that tells the cable
> >  companies which channels they at least must transmit. This includes
> >  the public and the local channels. Further on top every city has a
> >  kind of veto on what must at least be available on cable.  Third the
> >  public channels will always stay free available of the air. This last
> >  only some time ago changed from analog to digital.
> >
> >  Tot mails,
> >    Hika                            mailto:hikavdh at gmail.com
> >
>
> Maybe a dum question. I never understood the copy ones, and I must
> admit also never realy looked into it.
> Wouldn't it be technically possible to capture the hdmi stream going
> to the tv and record at that point? Or even earlier in the proces
> since then you could only record one channel at a time? Like fooling
> the tuner about where the stream is going?
>
>
> Tot mails,
>   Hika                            mailto:hikavdh at gmail.com
>
> "Zonder hoop kun je niet leven
> Zonder leven is er geen hoop
> Het eeuwige dilemma
> Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"
>
> De lerende Mens
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20140907/09fc39a4/attachment.html>