Ask HN: Could Netflix circumvent cable by broadcasting over the air? (Aereo)

5 pointsanovio11y ago4 comments

A few years ago in the mid to late 2000s, Google was interested in bidding on over-air broadcast waves that were no longer being used by the government. The assumed motivation behind the bidding was Google's entrance into the data distribution industry to compete directly with cellular phone providers.

If private companies can purchase certain over-air broadcast waves, what's to stop a holding company owned by Netflix to purchase a channel and stream directly to each person's home.

4 comments

tptacek11y ago

Nothing, except that to recoup the spectacular costs of deploying OTA HD video broadcasting in each area they want to serve, the streams would need to be encrypted, and Netflix OTA users would require special hardware to decrypt them.

What you're essentially proposing is that Netflix should become DirecTV.

Someone123411y ago

Exactly.

That entire model is outdated anyway. Everything is converging on the internet: voice calls (WiFi calling, Skype, etc), IM (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger), video (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu), radio (Shoutcast, podcasts, etc), books (Kindle, Apple, Nook), etc.

And people want Netflix to step backwards into a "you'll get the content we give you" mode that everyone hated? Having TV schedules is a deficit of traditional broadcasting, not a perk, as even if you like being spoon-fed programming that could trivially be re-created via on-demand (e.g. smart-queues, your playlist(s), curated playlists (e.g. your favourite celebrity's choices), etc).

Plus the infrastructure waste (duplication?) and all for what gain? It would be more useful to take all that money and invest in making the Netflix apps on smart TVs able to stream continuously like a TV "channel." Then do what Google Play Music has gone and add curated "channels" of content (although it is music in this example, not video).

joezydeco11y ago

Let's also mention that a single OTA HD channel is about 18 mbit/sec of data. So that expensive transmitter would be able to deliver a specific show to 4 or 5 people, max.

It's called broadcast for a reason. Everyone watches the same show.

If your idea involves using just the spectrum and not the actual ATSC signal, then you're doing what ClearWire did with WiMax. You'll need to give each subscriber a special modem and build out a network of towers around each city. That's even more money than a TV transmitter.

rustyconover11y ago

Nothing really, but to preserve the experience of Netflix, you'd have to have on premise equipment cache the broadcast (the actual content) and the library of films you can watch instantly will be limited to the storage of your device.

Because the bandwidth purchased by Netflix will be limited and they'll need to rebroadcast certain content (maybe people's boxes were turned off) they just won't be able to keep everybody's box in sync all the time. And will be a worse experience.

I just think it is economically unfeasible for Netflix to purchase enough bandwidth in enough markets to preserve the same customer experience. To say nothing of the technological, signal propagation and equipment manufacturing challenges.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse