Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks

[oneMadRssn]

Nobody said it was one or the other. The local news is still OTA.

Yes, the right for the public to get them is FREE - but the right to RE-BROADCAST them for money is not free.

I understand this. But why is Apple, or anyone else, worrying so much about negotiating with companies to rebroadcast something that over 80% of the US Population already has access to for free - it's redundant? If it's a redundant service for 80% of the US population, and largely irrelevant to the rest of the world, it's a minor and inconsequential feature that should not interfere or delay launching the larger product.

Moreover, if I can get it OTA, I'd rather not stream it over IP. OTA has no penalties, but IP streaming it will use some of your bandwidth, and some of your data if it's capped (which, more and more home ISPs like Comcast are putting in place data caps).

 

[cmChimera]

Yes a huge plus if we can watch live TV, especially sports, on any device, anywhere, anytime. But I'll believe that when I see it.

Here's hoping! Either way, it'll be nice to have new Apple Tv hardware, even if I don't end up subscribing to the service.

 

[Juicy Box]

I don't get the whole skinny cable-like package thing. Two channels I watch frequently are Food Network and Cooking Channel. If they're not part of Apple's service it's useless to me. Why not then just get the cheaper cable or satellite tier that will most likely have more channels than TV will be offering. And once you subscribe to TV, Netfilx, HBO, Showtime, etc. it's not much cheaper than cable bundles are now. Will this TV offering allow us to watch live TV anywhere we want on our iOS or Macs? With DirecTV you can watch some channels live on your device (without needing to be on the same wifi network as your receiver) but not many. And certainly not any local affiliates or ESPN.

For someone with your situation getting a cheaper cable tier would be ideal. Unless your two favorite channels are only available on higher tier plans.

One thing you have to remember about having Apple's service with others like Netflix, HBO, and the others you mentioned is that you can easily and quickly end your various services that you have on the Apple TV, and hopefully Apple's TV service will be similar.

This can not be done easily from a Comcast or others.

I am not sure if I would use Apple's TV service. Of course I would need to know more about it. But one thing that few people could deny is that having more competition for tradition TV content providers is a bad thing.

 

[Mr. Donahue]

That's true. So far I'm not that satisfied with HBO. The only thing that has me coming back is True Detective and Silcon Valley. I'm not a big fan of game of thrones. I tried to get into to it but it just didn't captivate me.

I don't know if true detective is worth the monthly price. I might just give it up. Or not... My wife likes it so...
-side note-
I'm digging apples new music service. I tried just to see what's it like since it's free and wow. I'm impressed. I can definitely see myself getting use to thi and folding after three months to pay.

 

[oneMadRssn]

You are welcome to your opinion. But, I'm citing federal law. If you don't like it, write your Congressman.

But, as I pointed out earlier: the National Association of Broadcasters is very powerful on Capitol Hill.

We're talking about completely different things. If it's broadcast over the air - I can watch it for free via an antenna picking up the signal. That is fact, that is federal law, and it something I was doing this morning watching Good Morning America.

You're talking about rebroadcasting it via local Cable. I wasn't talking about local Cable, and neither was this MR story.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If the holdup is locals, that's sad. Apple could roll out a new TV with a local channel tuner(s) and blend local networks into some kind of Apple guide (just like Satt boxes have done for years). Then for those beyond local reception, keep working on this option. That would also (likely) deliver a higher quality picture for those able to receive OTA channels AND use no broadband bandwidth. In a bad storm scenario (or other broadband interruption event), the locals tuner option would still make it possible to watch the core networks until broadband is available again. Etc. (many benefits).

For the "name your <low> price" crowd, nobody has any incentive to give us everything for near nothing, Apple included. This dream of everything for nearly nothing can't happen. We're the only ones dreaming it; everyone else in the chain wants to make more money in some new model, not less. Substituting Apple for Cable as a new middleman doesn't automatically mean "huge discount"... especially when one recognizes that Cable owns the broadband pipe (and service) on which Apple's solution entirely depends.

Basically, what this looks like to me is an effort to monetize local channels that are traditionally thought of as free. I agree that local channels are probably very important to making this Apple option more desirable to the masses but I think the built-in tuner option would be a much better way for Apple to go than trying to turn everyone's reception of locals into a streaming-only option. Of course, not everyone can receive OTA so this option is worth continuing to pursue for those consumers... but little reason to hold back a new TV when such an easy, good, higher (picture) quality, no-bandwidth-burn option is readily available to many consumers.

The Satt services have long dealt with their own streaming cable bundles of channels but they've always offered the local tuner option too and that works very well. Pay the Satt service for the local channels streamed up to and back from a Satt in orbit and/or get the local channels for free OTA (for those who can)? And even when the Satt broadband goes down ("no Satt signal") those local channels OTA still play just fine.

 

[SeaFox]

Would like to know about the option to not take ESPN with this package. A "skinny" package that allowed access to local channels would be welcome -- but I don't want to pay $5-$10 of that fee for having ESPN included when I don't watch it.

It's common knowledge that ESPN is one of the most expensive non-premium cable channels, and that they are on basic cable so they get revenue from every subscriber.

 

[Popeye206]

So basically TV has been delayed because of local channels? Is live streaming of local channels that important these days?

Yes... I can't get them over the air where I live and I like to see the local news... if Apple can offer this, it will be the holy grail for me and allow me to instantly cancel my Cable. I don't watch a lot of TV, but what I do watch I'd like to keep.

 

[Popeye206]

Basically, what this looks like to me is an effort to monetize local channels that are traditionally thought of as free. I agree that local channels are probably very important to making this Apple option more desirable to the masses but I think the built-in tuner option would be a much better way for Apple to go than trying to turn everyone's reception of locals into a streaming-only option. Of course, not everyone can receive OTA so this option is worth continuing to pursue for those consumers... but little reason to hold back a new TV when such an easy, good, higher (picture) quality, no-bandwidth-burn option is readily available to many consumers.

Just to be clear for those of you that don't live outside the city... where I live there is no Over the Air (OTA) option. I'm too far out for antenna reception and have to rely on my cable or satellite provider to get me my local channels. So if Apple can add these to their bundle... it's a huge win for myself and others like me.

 

[ptb42]

We're talking about completely different things. If it's broadcast over the air - I can watch it for free via an antenna picking up the signal. That is fact, that is federal law, and it something I was doing this morning watching Good Morning America.

You're talking about rebroadcasting it via local Cable. I wasn't talking about local Cable, and neither was this MR story.

You are trying to move the goal posts, but I'm not sure if it is due to ignorance or that you don't want to admit your mistake.

This thread is about streaming local channels on Apple TV. That's a retransmission of a broadcasted signal, as in a cable company like Time Warner or Comcast, or a satellite company like Dish or DirecTV.

Apple TV can't stream a broadcasted signal without complying with federal law regarding retransmission. This was settled last year by the US Supreme Court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos._v._Aereo,_Inc.

Yes, you can watch it for free with an over-the-air receiver. But, Apple can't retransmit that signal via streaming without permission.

 

[lewisd25]

Forget the affiliates. Focus on negotiating for network live feeds, then create daily local news content in-house and distribute it via live regional channels.

 

[Khalanad75]

Isn't the whole point of "cable cutting" to pay $0, unless I'm wrong, but charging people for a service kind of defeats that purpose. You'd be better off not cutting your cable in this case. Besides, Apple doesn't exactly need the $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00 (money).

Not necessarily. It's about paying less for what the cable companies basically charges and arm and a leg for now.

If you really think Apple is going to come out with TV streaming for free, you're delusional. Sure they have billions in the bank, but no need for them to use all that up paying TV networks to give hand outs to the consumer.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Would like to know about the option to not take ESPN with this package. A "skinny" package that allowed access to local channels would be welcome -- but I don't want to pay $5-$10 of that fee for having ESPN included when I don't watch it.

Rumors around this Apple service have consistently been mini-cable package, not an al-a-carte channel-selection service. ESPN is considered the jewel channel in the ABC/Disney portfolio. While some of us can see it as "too expensive", THEY see it as "biggest, most important money maker"- push it into a package and make more money, allow it to be excluded or reserved for some separate package and make less money. Thus, I expect ESPN to be included whether some of us will want it or not... not because we desire lower monthly costs but because key partners contributing content want to maximize profits.

Besides, if ESPN really did add say $10 to the cost, 30% of the latter to Apple makes Apple as much revenue from including that ONE channel as they make by selling you or me Apple Music.

We keep dreaming about this like it's about us consumers... as if everyone else should cater their offerings so that we can spend as little as possible and still get exactly what we want. But that's long gone. This whole "new model" builds upon making the partners MORE money, not less. Nobody has any business incentive to deliver a true al-a-carte cableTV replacement offering (including Apple). You might say Apple already tried that for years now with iTunes store video offerings as they have been. That was probably the closest we get to the al-a-carte dream (sans the huge discount that we keep trying to dream into it).

 

[gadgetguy03]

A service that gave me streaming access to the complete iTunes library of music, audiobooks, books, podcasts, tv and movies would interest me at $15 per month.

What I'd really like is a hybrid service: if I spend $15 on iTunes content, I am granted streaming for all of iTunes for one month from the date of purchase.

Apple ABSOLUTELY MUST make this BETTER than cable! NO COMMERCIALS/ADS! PERIOD. ...Netflix is without commercials...and THAT is why it is the most popular subscription service!!

At the very least we better be able to SKIP COMMERCIALS...with cable/sat. one can skip or fast forward commercials, not so with the free channels on Apple TV.

One thing with watching any TV show via the internet, whether it's on a computer or set-top box, they all make it so that you cannot skip or fast forward past the ads. They are slipping this by people without most seeming to notice!!

Many reading this may not remember or be old enough to know, when Cable TV started, you paid for TV that was without commercials, and that is what we need to go back to...pay for TV, no commercials...free TV, have to put up with commercials. End of discussion.

I will not pay for Apple TV channels if it means no way around commercials!!
EVERYONE DEMAND NO COMMERCIALS!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html

Wow I want the drugs you guys are smoking because that must be some high-quality stuff.

1) There will never be a buffet of content for a fee as low as $15 a month. Maybe $70 or $80 a month at least but that is still several years away.

2) Commercials are the main form of revenue for networks and shows now that cable exploded in it's expansion. The price you pay for your cable package subsidizes the niche channels a few would pay for, but not many.

 

[oneMadRssn]

You are trying to move the goal posts, but I'm not sure if it is due to ignorance or that you don't want to admit your mistake.

This thread is streaming TV on Apple TV. That's a retransmission of a broadcasted signal, as in a cable company like Time Warner or Comcast, or a satellite company like Dish or DirecTV.

Apple TV can't stream a broadcasted signal without complying with federal law regarding retransmission. This was settled last year by the US Supreme Court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos._v._Aereo,_Inc.

Yes, you can watch it for free with an over-the-air receiver. But, Apple can't retransmit that signal via streaming without permission.

Yes, I completely agree that Apple can't retransmit that signal via streaming without permission. No debate there. I never said anything to suggest otherwise.

My point is that it's redundant, unneccessary, and a waste of time and effort for Apple to try and negotiate a deal to restransmit that signal when upwards of 80% of the US population already gets that signal for free via OTA antenna, and the rest of the world doesn't care about our US-local channels anyway. It seems to me like a whole lot of effort and expense for something the vast majority of people won't ever need.

 

[Juicy Box]

That's why options exist. You can do a-la carte, you can do internet channel streaming of independent content from Youtube/Vimeo, whatever. Or you can pay for highly produced content by subscription fees or watching ads.

The internet was never a proposition that would make everything free to produce and consume. The proposition the internet enables is more diversity of choice.

Great post.

Some people will not be happy unless their favorite TV shows were available to them Ad free, whenever they want them, on whatever platform they want, and @ $0 a month.

Most people would be happy with a choice of various ways watch @ prices that suit them. I think the internet is helping making this happen. Netflix is one of the greatest things ever in my opinion.

I may not use Apple's service, but the addition creates more competition which is sadly currently lacking.

 

[ptb42]

Forget the affiliates. Focus on negotiating for network live feeds, then create daily local news content in-house and distribute it via live regional channels.

That would be a great idea, and such an arrangement would benefit DirecTV and Dish Network.

But, it's prohibited by federal law.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

I still think it's too bad they won't put a DTV tuner inside the AppleTV. Then, you could hide an HDTV antenna in your attic, hook it up to the AppleTV and let it's software create a "channel" for each of your local stations.

Unfortunately, this still feels like more of a side-step than a step forward. Most folks just want to pick their 10 or 15 favorite channels, and pay enough to cover the cost of the technology with a little profit to the provider. The actual channels, content providers and studios should make their money from ads. Of course, imagine a world where you could subscribe to a system like that, or pay a little more and enjoy an ad-free version for everything except Live TV. THAT would truly be revolutionary.

But who are we kidding? "Talent" is use to making 10s of thousands of dollars per episode as are the networks, production companies, and cable/satellite providers. Why would they want that to decrease?

 

[2010mini]

Not sure why Apple has struggled so much with this. How did AT&T manage to get U-Verse up and running with local channels all over the U.S.?

AT&T U-Verse is not available "all over the U.S." And for the markets it is available, they had to go through the same negotiations as Apple is currently doing.

The TV/Movie industry is very complex. More so than the music industry.

 

[840quadra]

If only there was a way to suck local channels right out of the air, like with some sort of "aerial" or "antenna".

I wish. All I get is HD Dancing blocks, with broken audio. Not everyone is within range of quality OTA content.

 

[jlc1978]

I understand this. But why is Apple, or anyone else, worrying so much about negotiating with companies to rebroadcast something that over 80% of the US Population already has access to for free - it's redundant? If it's a redundant service for 80% of the US population, and largely irrelevant to the rest of the world, it's a minor and inconsequential feature that should not interfere or delay launching the larger product.

Primary because most cable subscribers get local channels via cable and don't have an antenna to get local channels. Setting up an antenna can be a hassle, and likely make switching much less likely. Given much of Apple's target market is probably cable users local TV becomes a must have.

 

[2010mini]

Isn't the whole point of "cable cutting" to pay $0, unless I'm wrong, but charging people for a service kind of defeats that purpose. You'd be better off not cutting your cable in this case. Besides, Apple doesn't exactly need the $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00 (money).

You are correct only if you wanted to consume OTA TV content. The moment you include streaming of anything it will cost you.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Just to be clear for those of you that don't live outside the city... where I live there is no Over the Air (OTA) option. I'm too far out for antenna reception and have to rely on my cable or satellite provider to get me my local channels. So if Apple can add these to their bundle... it's a huge win for myself and others like me.

Sorry if my post implied differently. I do think this streaming locals option is a must to pursue exactly for people just like you. But, holding up the rollout of the service to make that the ONLY option for locals doesn't seem to be the ideal way to go IMO. Instead, they can follow the well-established lead in place by the Satt companies for years now- roll out hardware to receive OTA while continuing to work deals for streaming locals for those without an OTA option.

I fully believe in delivering your "huge win" too, just not seeing that the rollout of the service must wait until all such deals are done, as there are many of millions of people that CAN receive their locals OTA... and do... and watch a better quality signal that won't go down in a bandwidth loss scenario (storm or similar) and won't eat bandwidth against a Cable company monthly cap, etc.

 

[Geekazoid]

You are correct only if you wanted to consume OTA TV content. The moment you include streaming of anything it will cost you.

Damn straight!

 

[Juicy Box]

Feel better!

Sorry, after reading my post again it seemed kinda dick-ish. I was reading your first line saying "unless I'm wrong", and replying to that.