Considered it gets their advertising out to more viewers, they should be happy but instead greedy is the only emotion they feel.
Going pay cable only reduces their customer base. These guys are so thick...
In response to a New York appeals court ruling that upheld the right of media mogul Barry Diller's fledgling Aereo streaming service to continue to provide its subscribers with broadcast television content, News Corp.'s president and COO Chase Carey says he might turn Fox television into a subscription-only cable service. "If …
Ordinarily you are absolutely correct, but fox news viewers are pretty much all 'category 5 morons' (thx bill) who go there knowing they will get what they want.
stick it behind a paywall - they'll cough up just to be told they are right and the godless commie moslem is taking the world to hell in a hand basket.
look at what glen beck did after being dropped by fox. An odious cretin by all accounts, but doing rather well out of his subscription service.
I love how his first two solutions to the problem were lawyers then politicians: ONLY when those two options failed did he resort to a business solution for his business problem.
That kind of thinking has much to do with how screwed up our business leaders are.
There. I fixed it for ya.
Just reading a very interesting book on the topic. Called Blown to Bits, and available as a free download, perhaps making their own point that copyright is dying the big death. The relevant part to this article is how copyright is being used to PREVENT innovation by distorting the market in favor of whoever is fastest in bribing the politicians.
Most businesspeople are fine and upstanding, etc. The problem is that the current system in America is one where the LEAST ethical businessmen bribe the CHEAPEST professional politicians to write the WORST laws. Every large American company is obliged to become more and more evil as quickly as possible just to survive.
Sun is an example of what happens to a company that tries to resist the evil, and the google and Apple are leading 'successful' examples of the need to be more evil.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm aggressively conservative & I would rejoice in seeing Fox voluntarily remove itself from normal broadcast. They obfuscate real issues with social issues and take advantage of the uneducated by fooling them into thinking that Jesus, Jews, vaginas and things that come out of vaginas are somehow government concerns.
That's called confirmation bias. There's a risk that the programming on a network that shares a brand with a deeply conservative news channel might become less easy to obtain. Of those comments that are politically motivated, which side of the spectrum are they likely to come from?
You might also benefit from looking up the contrapositive.
@biandewei,
It is not just liberals. And that is the problem. Both sides clearly do not see that they are closed-minded and therefore compromise becomes impossible. They become entrenched in their beliefs and attack the other side. Nobody likes to be attacked, so the result is the other side becomes more entrenched. Neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to listen, just attack. And we all lose as a result.
If FOX goes of the air, where will The Daily Show get most of its fodder from?
Disclosure: I am an Australian and I watch The Daily Show (and The Colbert Report) as I find it gives me a better sense of what is going on in the USA than most of the "official" news channels. And I get to giggle insanely at the same time.
To steal Yahoo's headline, the threat from Fox and other majors to foil Aereo may prove the death of off-the-air broadcasting. To be replaced by a subscription model or the new technologies.
Given the poor TV reception in many areas of US, given content aimed at people who respond to the fast food and beer ads the programmes are riddled with, the wider public has already given up on TV.
Even twenty years ago when I lived there, almost nobody I knew even switched on TV. The trend has now reached the UK. The overdose of ads, particularly on secondary channels that appeared with the advent of Freeview, is killing the medium.
20 years is a long time. The public are still as hooked on Television as they were when you were here, anyone who thinks that people have given up on TV is deluding themselves.
The means available to view it have changed, but for the most part even that has stayed the same, most people have Cable/IPTV or Satellite and view it live.
The only time reception is poor is when someone is too cheap to rent a cable box and pay a sub fee. I know literally no one who doesn't have a subscription TV service of some sort, even in a major metropolitan market, having at the maximum 13 or so channels just simply isn't acceptable, even if you only watch TV for news and more high-brow programming like myself.
Premium channels are a different story, I have no need to see the same shit on HBO over and over and I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones, at least not enough to shell out 20 bucks a month for one single program. And I'm pretty sure that Murdoch wants to make his stuff premium.
It isn't worth it, and noone will pay to see his garbage except die hard GOP supporters that worship every tiny, god awful piece of shit that Murdoch and company make trickle out because otherwise its supporting Obammy, that damn uppity terrorist supporting queer non-citizen communist muslim athiest black* who never learned his place and thinks he's President.
Seriously now though, The last person I knew that used an Aerial for anything other than DXing FM radio from other markets was my grandfather....in 1988!
(*I'd use what they generally call him, in case you're wondering it rhymes with "bigger", but Id rather not have my post deleted or be banned)
I couldn't really care any less.
Fox is a god awful network that cancels their best shows (Alien Nation, Space: Above and Beyond, Millennium, Firefly, Fringe, and so on) yet keeps rehashed crap like the modern "Simpsons" on the air. Their news would be laughable and is to an extent but since idiots like my wife's grandparents take it seriously its fairly dangerous as these people really believe the hate-mongering half-truths that Faux News presents as fact without questioning it. They also get super pissed off when you do question it and back up your assertions with verifiable facts. They hate the idea of unbiased factually accurate statements. If you're a brave soul, go read the bullshit on their forums. They make Daily Fail readers/commentards seem kind and respectable, relatively speaking of course.
Anyway, when they go sub only and all of five people and their respective trailer parks sign up for it, not only will Ted Turner laugh so uncontrollably they'll give him an hour on CNN just for that, the rest of the real networks will laugh as well.
Murdoch likes having it both ways though, and because everyone knows multi-billionaire criminals are so persecuted, or *gasp* held to account under laws, he'll probably be the first to bitch that Comcast, Disney, Turner, and CBS are running a cartel of liberal bias and the unthinking simpletons on the right in the public and in congress believe every word he and his droids have to say, so they'll waste a fuckton of money on yet another pointless and powerless congressional blue ribbon panel.
"Aereo is stealing our signal," said Carey at NAB. "We believe in our legal rights, we're going to pursue those legal rights fully and completely, and we believe we'll prevail."
The fact is, now according to two different courts, that it is NOT theft, and Fox does not have the "rights" that Mr. Carey thinks they do.
I think that this falls, solidly, into the category of "I dare you".
No, removal of Fox News would be a positive benefit, given that their viewers are in fact less informed than people who watch NO NEWS AT ALL:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
Shit that passes as news is worse than no news at all, which is kind of the point of that study.
Only stupid people and rabid bible-thumping Conservatards actually believe Fox News actually says "teh truth". Murdoch is basically the 21st century Citizen Kane / Hearst. The kind of people that believe Fox News are the same that call Newsweek "Newsweak" because they don't believe in the retarded stupidity they do.
Hell. Maybe the problem isn't actually Fox News at all ... it is that there are people out there stupid/crazy enough to believe the stuff they put out!
How can anyone claim to own a signal? It has been BROADCAST. It's just like Impotent Impropriety - Intellectual Piracy - whatever that stupid phrase is, a name for a non-existent thing. There is no such thing as intangible property, it's an oxymoron. Just because millions of people want to believe something - or even EVERY person - does not make it real. And no LAW can make real what is not. Nor can any government do more than kill us all - we can not be forced to admit that there is such a thing as legitimate authority, except where such a thing may actually exist - maybe in a lifeboat going over Niagara, or under enemy fire, but not in too many other places.
If you stick up an antenna, receives a Fox signal and view that on your telly, Fox are OK with that. Yes?
If someone else sticks up an antenna and you view the signal from that on your telly, Fox have a problem. Yes?
So, if you get someone else to stick up your own antenna, is that OK? What if that antenna isn't on your property (e.g. on the communal roof of a block of flats)?
How long does the piece of wire between your telly and the antenna have to be and how many people have to be involved in putting up the antenna to piss off Fox? Is the fact that the wire is or is not contiguous throughout the signal path an issue? What about one piece of wire with a signal booster in it?
Next point. Apparently the fact that whoever's doing this is providing one antenna per telly is the bit that makes it OK. So, what about communal antennas (i.e. that same block of flats with one aerial on the top and the signal piped into all the flats)? Is that now not legal?
Maybe I'm just missing the point completely and trying to find logic in rabid arsehattery?
That's akin to saying a photographer is stealing your light.
So don't broadcast, then. PLEASE. Do the photographic equivalent of living in a cave.
Oh, you already do? Kill yourself then, Fox. Yes. definitely. That's the solution. Or stop behaving like an inconvenienced five year old. Yes, unlikely, I know.
that's the point of the tiny-antenna approach though. They're not re-broadcasting: they're receiving a signal on a single aerial, and sending it to the single customer over a long (through the internet) "piece of wire".
They're not even sharing the aerial, like a communal one on a block of flats (which is very common here in the UK). They're also not sending the transmission to customers outside of the area it could be received in.
Typical Left Wing comment in the last sentence of this article top get in a cheap shot instead of doing what he is SUPPOSED to do, which is report, not share with us his personal view. What has this gas bag "reporter ever done? The heavily Liberal, Left Wing Media just cannot help themselves. In some respects, the comment is a high honor because it shows that Fox and other more fair media outlets who work towards being balanced continue to get under the liberal media's skin. Keep it up Fox.
Troll or real?
I can't work it out. I know there are some people who are so astonishingly dense they think that Faux is in some way 'balanced' reporting (you know, balance is when Bill O'Reilly says a black Columbia U professor looks like a crack dealer), but do you actually believe what you've written here in a real and serious way?
START PARSER
"Typical Left Wing"
FOX CONSERVATARD DETECTED
It's kinda awesome to see how the first three words in a given comment give away that it comes from a typical US Conservatard. I could probably set up a Bayesian filter to detect 'em, hell, even a simple filter like searching
- Obama AND Muslim
- "liberals" in quotation
- Liberals, with capitalized L
- Left Wing
- MSM or Main Stream Media (variations thereof)
- liberal media
Fun to run this game!
It is amazing how many people do not realize that FOX and FOX News are NOT the same channel. FOX News is a cable/satellite channel only - you cannot receive it OTA. FOX on the other hand, is a broadcast channel that can be received OTA using an antenna as well as received on cable/satellite. What they are talking about is changing the FOX OTA broadcast channel into a cable/satellite only channel (like A&E, NatGeo, TLC, Discovery, etc.) Would be a dumb decision for sure but they are free to make dumb decisions if they so desire.
Bottom line is this has absolutely nothing to do with FOX News at all.
It would be a really stupid decision, because Fox itself owns many of its larger-market TV stations, like KDFW Dallas, KTTV in Los Angeles, and oddly enough WNYW in New York. Either these stations go dark, or Fox has to BUY content for these television stations.
Back to Blazing Saddles references: The Sheriff has a gun to his own head, yelling "Nobody moves, or the n***** gets it!" And the citizens of Rock Ridge are too stupid to call his bluff.
El reg has it wrong here. Fox news is not what they are talking about, that channel is already a cable channel, and not available OTA (well maybe it is in NYC, though I doubt it). They are referring to the fox affiliates. You know Simpsons, Family guy, and other fox programming on the local FOX TV channels, which are available over this new service.
Looking at my local Fox affiliate I don't notice too much stuff that looks to be Fox specific content, at the most it seems like on average a couple shows a day. The rest is syndicated from other networks or stuff that looks more generic like daytime talk shows.
.....the real cause here is that cable companies currently pay for the privilege of streaming FTA channels over their wire and this solution is a cheesy (if rather cunning) way of getting around that.
I've been waiting for some time for an enterprising cable co to produce a box with an aerial socket, integrate the cable and FTA stations into one user-friendly planner interface at the consumer's house, rather than streaming the FTA signals themselves and stick two fingers up at the TV companies.
Can't quite see how the FTA lads could object to that one.
It's a trade-off. If they don't charge the cable companies, then they can COMPEL the cable companies to carry their stations (the "Must-Carry" rule). That rule can't be used if they insist on a carry agreement (the kind that cable companies have to pay).
As for the cable box, most of them are built by big names (think Motorola), and I'm pretty sure the Big Boys put pressure on them NOT to add aerial ports (Digital Satellite Boxes originally HAD to have them because there wasn't bandwidth enough for all the local stations; once the room was made, out went the aerial port).