Aereo Wins Some, Loses Some - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 44 Old 03-10-2014, 07:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 1185

Aereo could change the nature of television delivery. But it must first face legal challenges from broadcasters, including a case before the US Supreme Court.

 

For those who might not have heard of it, Aereo is a relatively new TV service that receives terrestrial, over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts from local stations in certain cities and retransmits them over the Internet to subscribers via various devices, such as tablets, smartphones, Roku, Apple TV, and desktop browsers. It also provides a cloud-based DVR service that lets users record their favorite shows and play them online whenever they wish, all for a flat monthly fee ($8/month for 20 hours of recording time, $12/month for 40 hours).

 

Aereo is a slick idea, but will it pass legal muster?

 

As you might expect, the service has attracted the attention—and ire—of the major networks, which claim the startup is violating copyright laws and stealing their content by not paying retransmission fees. The 1st and 2nd Circuit Courts in Boston and New York City both upheld the company's right to do what it does, saying that it doesn't infringe on the networks' copyrights.

 

But in the most recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court in Salt Lake City, the judge stated, "The plain language of the 1976 Copyright Act supports the plaintiffs' position. Aereo's retransmission of plaintiffs' copyrighted programs is indistinguishable from a cable company." As a result, the service had to shut down in Salt Lake City and Denver. It's still up and running in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Dallas, and nine other so-called "markets," about half the number anticipated in phase one of the rollout. To see if your in one of Aereo's service markets, visit its website.

 

Meanwhile, Aereo just launched in Austin, TX, to coincide with the SXSW (South by Southwest) Festival, which started on March 7 and runs through March 16. In attendance is Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia, who is taking the fight all the way to the US Supreme Court. He faces an uphill battle—the US Department of Justice has sided with the broadcasters in an amicus brief filed with the high court, which now has the case on its docket.

 

Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia holds a single user's antenna next to arrays of such antennas on large circuit boards.

 

The crux of the dispute is whether Aereo streams content over the Internet to customers (illegal) or provides its customers with access to the hardware that lets them stream the content to themselves (legal). Aereo works by assigning a tiny OTA antenna and DVR storage to each user, which supports the notion that each user has their own equipment. But as Peter Putman points out in an article for Display Central, the individual antennas are too small to have enough gain for high-band VHF and UHF reception, and they are spaced very close together, which means they behave as a larger antenna delivering TV channels to many people, not just one.

 

And that's not the end of Aereo's problems. During the Oscars and Golden Globes telecasts this year, users in New York experienced service interruptions, including inordinate buffering, incomplete recordings, and other glitches. Of course, any new technology is bound to have growing pains, but problems like that could drive users away in droves.

 

Other Aereo news from SXSW can be found in this story on Engadget.com, including a statement by Kanojia to Engadget that a Chromecast app should be released "in the next couple of weeks." He also told the tech site that he has no plans to sell the company, despite rumors to the contrary. Obviously, the Supreme Court decision will have a huge impact on any plans Kanojia has for the scrappy startup.

 

Do you subscribe to Aereo? If so, what has been your experience with it?

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 Old 03-10-2014, 07:20 PM
Member
 
Yobyot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Aereo is a good idea, but far from perfect.

Technically, the pictures aren't all that good, especially compared to OTA DTV signals. Watching a football game or any program with lots of action makes for blurry, pixelated images. Their DVR functions are OK, but they don't have apps for iOS, there's no skip functionality in browsers and Chromecast isn't supported. So, if you want to watch Aereo on a TV, you need a Roku (now maybe the Roku Stick makes that more likely).

Legally, they are skirting the law -- no doubt about it. But I suspect they will be allowed to continue in business by paying broadcasters for retransmission rights which in turn means an inevitable price increase.

I use Aereo as a backup for my OTA rig in case of bad weather or mutlipath distortion in a signal. But as a complete replacement? It's not there yet.

Oh, and don't bother emailing them for support. Their support folks specialize in vapid, chripy, content-free email.
Yobyot is offline  
post #3 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 06:21 AM
Member
 
DaveMcLain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I live about 80 miles as the crow flies from the St Louis metro area. Where my house is located I could probably pick up OTA television signals from St Louis if I put up about a 80ft tall tower. This is not practical and a service like Aereo would be awesome in my situation where I could simply get the programming as a stream on my Roku. From my understanding the service is intended to be a solution for exactly the problem I'm having with reception. I'd be able to watch all of the affiliate stations and their advertising would be reaching me so I fail to see the logic of how this could be illegal. I hope they are successful in their legal battles.
DaveMcLain is offline  
post #4 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 07:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
snowcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcLain View Post

I'd be able to watch all of the affiliate stations and their advertising would be reaching me so I fail to see the logic of how this could be illegal. I hope they are successful in their legal battles.

This has been a hotly debated topic here since it first came out. The Aereo argument is that they have an individual antenna for each subscriber, and all they are doing is renting space for an individual's antenna and DVR. The broadcasters' argument is that while it is perfectly legal to have an antenna and DVR is a user's home, a company can't do it outside the home.

Copyright law has a distinction between "public" and "private" performances. It is illegal to re-transmit a public performance without permission, but you can do it for a private performance (like playing back a recorded show from your DCR). The courts will decide whether Aereo is private or public, and I am really curious how it turns out. I see both sides of the argument.
snowcat is offline  
post #5 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 121
It's an interesting idea but Aereo is sure to lose to the big money interests. They are not alone in this type of endeavor, Filmon.tv is another company trying the same thing.

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Movies

Mr.G is offline  
post #6 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 243
The battle is lost. The Supreme Court will rule against them. The broadcasting lobby is huge. Aereo has made it's millions. The pockets of the CEO are full. When the Supreme Court rules against them, they will fold and the owners will have made millions. It's a no lose situation.
Dhalmo likes this.
wxman is offline  
post #7 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GotHDTV?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chevy Chase, MD
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
CBS is threating to pull their network from Over The Air broadcasts if Aereo wins.


http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20140311&id=17424222
GotHDTV? is offline  
post #8 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHDTV? View Post

CBS is threating to pull their network from Over The Air broadcasts if Aereo wins.


http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20140311&id=17424222

I'm sure the local affiliates would sue CBS big time. The FCC would revoke those valuable bandwidth licenses of the locals if they were unable to broadcast anything. Most would fold if they did not have the network feeds to broadcast OTA.
wxman is offline  
post #9 of 44 Old 03-11-2014, 10:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post

The battle is lost. The Supreme Court will rule against them. The broadcasting lobby is huge. Aereo has made it's millions. The pockets of the CEO are full. When the Supreme Court rules against them, they will fold and the owners will have made millions. It's a no lose situation.
His pockets were full before this started, and he spent quiet a bit of it and other investors. I doubt that there is much return on that yet.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #10 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 09:14 AM
Senior Member
 
pitviper33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Eastern TN
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobyot View Post

Legally, they are skirting the law -- no doubt about it. But I suspect they will be allowed to continue in business by paying broadcasters for retransmission rights which in turn means an inevitable price increase.
I think there's very big doubt about it. To me, what they're doing seems perfectly legal and in no way underhanded. It isn't a loophole. It's using the OTA signals exactly how they were meant to be used. Hear me out...

Like you, I set up my own OTA tuner and DVR. It works great for me. But I'm not the only one in my family that prefers to get my programming this way. My parents want the better picture and lower cost of OTA too. Unfortunately, they aren't as good at building a computer as I am. So what do they do? They call me for help. I end up building and installing their system, mostly from spare parts I had laying around. Occasionally, as these systems do, it has a hiccup. What happens then? They call me again. So effectively, I supplied the hardware for them to use, I maintain that hardware for them, and when they stop using it I'll get it all back. They aren't actually paying me for this service, because they're my parents and they've provided me plenty already. But let's say they were paying me. They pay me in return for letting them use my hardware and my time maintaining their system.

Is my helping my parents set this all up illegal? I sure don't think so. Is it in any way shady? It doesn't feel like it to me. Even if they pay me, so what? I'm not getting paid for the programming they choose to watch. No I'm getting paid for the hardware I loaned them and the time I spend setting it up and maintaining it. I'm getting paid for a service that they don't want to do themselves. It's no different than the guy they pay to cut their grass.
pitviper33 is online now  
post #11 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kluken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 105
The broadcasters need to get with the times. People are cutting the cord so if there is not a way to get the content via a streaming device then people will forego the content or pirate it. There are 3 types of consumes in this scenario, those what want to stream live and thus will be watching the commercials (the life blood of a tv station) and those that DVR it or wait and stream it on Netflix/Amazon, etc. The Netflix/Amazon crowd generates revenue back to the broadcaster in the fees the streaming service pays, the DVR user probably skip a bunch of commercials and thus the broadcaster gets some revenue from the re-transmission fees. A smart broadcaster would stream their content themselves trying to reach as much of the consumer base it can, if geography is an issue then make people register with phone/zip (of course that is not fool proof).
kluken is offline  
post #12 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
So the only difference between this and Slingbox is the antenna and dvr are located at a business address not a home address?

I'll be glad when OTA crashes and burns. There is almost nothing left worth watching on it these days.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #13 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 01:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitviper33 View Post

I think there's very big doubt about it. To me, what they're doing seems perfectly legal and in no way underhanded. It isn't a loophole. It's using the OTA signals exactly how they were meant to be used. Hear me out...

Like you, I set up my own OTA tuner and DVR. It works great for me. But I'm not the only one in my family that prefers to get my programming this way. My parents want the better picture and lower cost of OTA too. Unfortunately, they aren't as good at building a computer as I am. So what do they do? They call me for help. I end up building and installing their system, mostly from spare parts I had laying around. Occasionally, as these systems do, it has a hiccup. What happens then? They call me again. So effectively, I supplied the hardware for them to use, I maintain that hardware for them, and when they stop using it I'll get it all back. They aren't actually paying me for this service, because they're my parents and they've provided me plenty already. But let's say they were paying me. They pay me in return for letting them use my hardware and my time maintaining their system.

Is my helping my parents set this all up illegal? I sure don't think so. Is it in any way shady? It doesn't feel like it to me. Even if they pay me, so what? I'm not getting paid for the programming they choose to watch. No I'm getting paid for the hardware I loaned them and the time I spend setting it up and maintaining it. I'm getting paid for a service that they don't want to do themselves. It's no different than the guy they pay to cut their grass.
In your scenario, you are still only providing the hardware. You are not supplying the content.

Aereo is providing the content. You can't get it (live streaming content) any other way unless you buy a slingbox, hook up an antenna yourself and send it to your own device. The content you receive from the stations is ATSC MPEG2 video that can be decoded by any current TV or tuner box at no charge beyond the cost of the equipment, your ISP costs and the electricity.

Aereo is re-encoding the signal, transcoding and compressing it to MPEG4, encrypting it, then sending it out to people who pay. Once you stop paying, you get cut off. If they charged a one-time fee to "buy" the remote equipment and gave the service for free (kind an Ooma style of business), they might actually have a lock to the win. Since they charge a monthly fee that is as much as a service like Netflix (which legally buys millions of dollars of content each month), they can't credibly claim it's all maintenance costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kluken View Post

The broadcasters need to get with the times. People are cutting the cord so if there is not a way to get the content via a streaming device then people will forego the content or pirate it. There are 3 types of consumes in this scenario, those what want to stream live and thus will be watching the commercials (the life blood of a tv station) and those that DVR it or wait and stream it on Netflix/Amazon, etc. The Netflix/Amazon crowd generates revenue back to the broadcaster in the fees the streaming service pays, the DVR user probably skip a bunch of commercials and thus the broadcaster gets some revenue from the re-transmission fees. A smart broadcaster would stream their content themselves trying to reach as much of the consumer base it can, if geography is an issue then make people register with phone/zip (of course that is not fool proof).
Except the broadcasters don't have the rights to stream all the shows they air. It would be a violation of their agreements with the content creators. If they had those rights, they likely would have already been doing something like this. Instead, they provide what they can via services like Hulu, their own sites and via On Demand through paid providers. With the rest, (usually shows that have been on for a while) the agreement was for OTA only.

Aereo is doing what the networks aren't legally allowed to do because they sidestepped getting permission. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see the studios weigh in if things don't go well for the networks since Aereo is undercutting the fees they would normally get for streaming rights.

I'm especially surprised Comcast isn't weighing in, since they own a studio, provide a streaming app and have a vested interest in people having cable as opposed to paying someone else and using their pipes to stream it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

So the only difference between this and Slingbox is the antenna and dvr are located at a business address not a home address?.
No.

The difference is, you have the user collecting the content (legally, of course) and using fair use to view the content on their own devices using their own equipment.

With Aereo, they hare collecting the content on a mass scale, sending it out on mass scale (even if each individual stream is intended only for a single customer) via a closed circuit system that requires a fee to be paid to access it. That makes them an IP based cable operator.
Quote:
I'll be glad when OTA crashes and burns. There is almost nothing left worth watching on it these days.
You do realize that if OTA crashes and burns, so does Aereo, even if they win, right? They only have content if they can continue to utilize the loophole they claim they are allowed to.

Further, if there is almost nothing on via OTA channels, why would you ever want to pay for Aereo?
Dhalmo likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #14 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Fishtank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Hard to say what they are doing specifically on their network... who knows... but from my point of view they are just renting me the hardware I would need to buy and keeping it in an optimal location.

Do they compress it and re-encode it, or does the DVR they rented me.


If I'm allowed to buy all the gear and do it for myself... how can they possibly be liable for being a hardware rental company.


It sounds like your saying they are storing this content on servers... then selling that content to me, which isn't what it sounds like from the limited info we have.

Fishtank is offline  
post #15 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Aereo collects only that content you tell them to collect on an antenna dedicated to you and stored on storage space dedicated to you to play in your own home. A cable company, IP based or other, pays providers for content that is packaged and delivered to you whether you want it or not.

Why would I want to pay for Aereo? I never said that I did. I was simply looking for a simple, objective view of the difference between Slingbox and Aereo.

OTA is a broadcast, unencrypted transmission that is paid for by advertisers. If Aereo stripped out the ads, I could see where there might be a problem but the ads are there so this seems to be an attempt to extract more money because there is a large pot of it available to claim is yours.

EDIT: In fact, let me be clearer - Aereo is paid simply to give you access to your own OTA antenna and record any captured signals from that antenna and store it in space you pay for so that you can stream that content to your own home or your own devices capable of receiving and decoding that stream. If you don't pay Aereo, you have no access to that antenna or storage space. They don't sell/rent you any content, just a private means to capture and view broadcast content.

As for re-encoding that captured signal - that's a strawman. Slingbox does the same thing.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #16 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 01:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtank View Post

Hard to say what they are doing specifically on their network... who knows... but from my point of view they are just renting me the hardware I would need to buy and keeping it in an optimal location.
Two problems with this:

1) The streaming media is created before it gets to you, meaning they are changing the content before you get it. You aren't using the content, they are. You are now only the consumer, not the user.

2) How do you explain that they charge as much as Netflix does with all the hundreds of millions they pay out to legally obtain content to stream? Plus they have infrastructure costs. There is no way Aereo isn't charging for the content in this case.

Quote:
Do they compress it and re-encode it, or does the DVR they rented me.
The encode it to MPEG4, recompress it, encrypt it, then send it to you. In other words, they are creating a medium that didn't exist before. If they simply passed on the MPEG2 ATSC signal, then provided a box to re-encode it for streaming to your device, then you would be doing it.

Quote:
If I'm allowed to buy all the gear and do it for myself... how can they possibly be liable for being a hardware rental company.
Because they are doing it for money and for mass numbers of people. OTA is free and you have the rights under fair use to record, store, copy or view the content you legally obtain in any way you choose for your own personal use.

Quote:
It sounds like your saying they are storing this content on servers... then selling that content to me, which isn't what it sounds like from the limited info we have.
Yes, they are, in two ways:

1) The most obvious is by providing DVR service. That means they are storing copies of live network broadcasts for viewers and charging to access them. They are also being kept in a proprietary format that does not allow you to move them off the DVR for your own personal use, should you discontinue the service. If you don't pay, your recordings go away.

2) In order to compress, re-encode and buffer the stream, it has to be stored - even if only temporarily. Further, if they allow you to record a show from the beginning while it's already in progress, that means a longer buffer and more of the show being stored on their system.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #17 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 02:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Fishtank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Two problems with this:

1) The streaming media is created before it gets to you, meaning they are changing the content before you get it. You aren't using the content, they are. You are now only the consumer, not the user.

2) How do you explain that they charge as much as Netflix does with all the hundreds of millions they pay out to legally obtain content to stream? Plus they have infrastructure costs. There is no way Aereo isn't charging for the content in this case.
The encode it to MPEG4, recompress it, encrypt it, then send it to you. In other words, they are creating a medium that didn't exist before. If they simply passed on the MPEG2 ATSC signal, then provided a box to re-encode it for streaming to your device, then you would be doing it.
Because they are doing it for money and for mass numbers of people. OTA is free and you have the rights under fair use to record, store, copy or view the content you legally obtain in any way you choose for your own personal use.
Yes, they are, in two ways:

1) The most obvious is by providing DVR service. That means they are storing copies of live network broadcasts for viewers and charging to access them. They are also being kept in a proprietary format that does not allow you to move them off the DVR for your own personal use, should you discontinue the service. If you don't pay, your recordings go away.

2) In order to compress, re-encode and buffer the stream, it has to be stored - even if only temporarily. Further, if they allow you to record a show from the beginning while it's already in progress, that means a longer buffer and more of the show being stored on their system.

Yeah I hear all that... but if they take the content from an antennae only I use... and put it on a DVR that only I use... they aren't doing what you say IMO of course, I don't have a horse in this race. Everything that you say is illegal is what happens if I had to do it myself.... which is apparently legal. I'm not sure HOW it happens at Aereo.... but the individual antennae seem to point towards them not being dumb enough to store the content and redistribute it.

I see your points, it's grey for sure.... and it feels like they are getting a bit of a free lunch on a technicality. There's not a lot of links in the media / ISP content provider chain that haven't been subsidized or gotten a leg up in various ways, I don't personally feel sorry for any of them.

I also completely expect money to get it's way in the end.

Fishtank is offline  
post #18 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

Aereo collects only that content you tell them to collect on an antenna dedicated to you and stored on storage space dedicated to you to play in your own home. A cable company, IP based or other, pays providers for content that is packaged and delivered to you whether you want it or not.
1) That's what Aereo claims, but they have yet to publicly prove a) their antenna system isn't a single array with a splitter. b) that they aren't simply recording one copy to provide to their users. If I were the networks, I would demand they prove it. Until someone besides Aereo verifies it, we're taking the defendant's word for it. "Really, I didn't push the guy off the roof - he just fell..."

2) OTA provides the content to you whether you want it or not. Just because you turn off your TV, doesn't mean it isn't there. I hate game shows, but they're beaming through my walls and my body right now even if I'm not watching it.

Quote:
Why would I want to pay for Aereo? I never said that I did. I was simply looking for a simple, objective view of the difference between Slingbox and Aereo.
You sound like you're a fan, so I assumed you either had the service or wanted it. I feel I've outlined the difference.

Quote:
OTA is a broadcast, unencrypted transmission that is paid for by advertisers. If Aereo stripped out the ads, I could see where there might be a problem but the ads are there so this seems to be an attempt to extract more money because there is a large pot of it available to claim is yours.
OTA is a copyrighted broadcast package of shows that the networks pay companies for the rights to air. The copyright notices clearly state that redistribution, retransmission or duplication of the content without permission is a violation of that copyright. However, the government has deemed that individuals who legally obtain that content can record, store and view that content in various ways beyond the way it was provided originally. In other words, the spirit of the law lets you do it in your own home. Aereo is trying to capitalize on the straight letter of the law by assuming businesses are included in that.

They sell commercials as a way to recoup the costs associated with providing the free OTA broadcast. The fees they charge cable and satellite operators are for a) the value they add to customers of those services (satellite really took off when they added the locals) b) to pay for ever increasing costs of programming that advertising is paying less of as the market gets saturated by other options to buy ad time and c) to secure future revenue as ad dollars continue to decrease relative to the increase in programming costs.

In a nutshell: the content is either leased or owned by the networks to be presented in specific ways and they have every right to protect that investment as well as capitalize on available markets to make money. Their stockholders demand it.
Quote:
EDIT: In fact, let me be clearer - Aereo is paid simply to give you access to your own OTA antenna and record any captured signals from that antenna and store it in space you pay for so that you can stream that content to your own home or your own devices capable of receiving and decoding that stream. If you don't pay Aereo, you have no access to that antenna or storage space. They don't sell/rent you any content, just a private means to capture and view broadcast content.

As for re-encoding that captured signal - that's a strawman. Slingbox does the same thing.
That is not true.

The OTA signal can be plugged directly into your TV. It's an unencrypted MPEG2 ATSC signal. What you get from Aereo has been radically altered from its original form.

They are providing the signal that goes to your internet device. With a Sling Box, all you get is the hardware. It is up to you to bring the content in use the box to convert it yourself.

The only way that Aereo can credibly say they aren't charging for the content is to charge a flat fee to obtain an antenna and storage space so you can stream the content for free.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #19 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
OTA "can" be plugged directly into a digital TV, sure. Very few people actually do that.

There are several ATSC DVRs for sale that provide re-encoding to output to the device you wish to use to view your recordings.

Tivo DVRs do this. You have to pay Tivo or you can't watch your content. By your definition...

Slingbox re-encodes the signal to stream it to you on your computer or smartphone.

The argument boils down to money. All other arguments are semantics.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #20 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 02:53 PM
Senior Member
 
pitviper33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Eastern TN
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

In your scenario, you are still only providing the hardware. You are not supplying the content.

Aereo is providing the content. You can't get it (live streaming content) any other way unless you buy a slingbox, hook up an antenna yourself and send it to your own device. The content you receive from the stations is ATSC MPEG2 video that can be decoded by any current TV or tuner box at no charge beyond the cost of the equipment, your ISP costs and the electricity.

Aereo is re-encoding the signal, transcoding and compressing it to MPEG4, encrypting it, then sending it out to people who pay. Once you stop paying, you get cut off. If they charged a one-time fee to "buy" the remote equipment and gave the service for free (kind an Ooma style of business), they might actually have a lock to the win. Since they charge a monthly fee that is as much as a service like Netflix (which legally buys millions of dollars of content each month), they can't credibly claim it's all maintenance costs.
I experimented with transcoding and compressing my recorded files for a while. Encryption too. It's not illegal when I do it. So why should it be illegal if I were doing it using hardware and software provided by them? Granted, it would be odd for me to choose to have my files stored in a way that I can't use them easily. But if I wanted to make that dumb choice, I'm free to do so.

And of course when you stop paying you lose access to your recorded shows. If my parents stopped paying me (in my hypothetical situation where they were actually paying me), they'd lose access too: when I took the hard drive back.

I fully agree that they can't claim that the fee is only covering maintenance costs. Most of it is profit. That's how businesses work. Most of the money my parents pay that guy that cuts their grass isn't going to fuel and equipment either. It's going to beer. And he can get away with over-charging for his service, just like Aereo, for a while. That'll all change when some competition comes to town.

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. I happen to think Aereo is stupid. Why would I pay someone for a degraded signal when I can get a clean one for free? But if my neighbor wants to throw his money away paying someone to do what he could easily do better himself, that's fine by me. Thanks for the reply though. You're definitely making me think.
pitviper33 is online now  
post #21 of 44 Old 03-12-2014, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

1) That's what Aereo claims, but they have yet to publicly prove a) their antenna system isn't a single array with a splitter. b) that they aren't simply recording one copy to provide to their users. If I were the networks, I would demand they prove it. Until someone besides Aereo verifies it, we're taking the defendant's word for it. "Really, I didn't push the guy off the roof - he just fell..."

2) OTA provides the content to you whether you want it or not. Just because you turn off your TV, doesn't mean it isn't there. I hate game shows, but they're beaming through my walls and my body right now even if I'm not watching it.
You sound like you're a fan, so I assumed you either had the service or wanted it. I feel I've outlined the difference.
OTA is a copyrighted broadcast package of shows that the networks pay companies for the rights to air. The copyright notices clearly state that redistribution, retransmission or duplication of the content without permission is a violation of that copyright. However, the government has deemed that individuals who legally obtain that content can record, store and view that content in various ways beyond the way it was provided originally. In other words, the spirit of the law lets you do it in your own home. Aereo is trying to capitalize on the straight letter of the law by assuming businesses are included in that.

They sell commercials as a way to recoup the costs associated with providing the free OTA broadcast. The fees they charge cable and satellite operators are for a) the value they add to customers of those services (satellite really took off when they added the locals) b) to pay for ever increasing costs of programming that advertising is paying less of as the market gets saturated by other options to buy ad time and c) to secure future revenue as ad dollars continue to decrease relative to the increase in programming costs.

In a nutshell: the content is either leased or owned by the networks to be presented in specific ways and they have every right to protect that investment as well as capitalize on available markets to make money. Their stockholders demand it.
That is not true.

The OTA signal can be plugged directly into your TV. It's an unencrypted MPEG2 ATSC signal. What you get from Aereo has been radically altered from its original form.

They are providing the signal that goes to your internet device. With a Sling Box, all you get is the hardware. It is up to you to bring the content in use the box to convert it yourself.

The only way that Aereo can credibly say they aren't charging for the content is to charge a flat fee to obtain an antenna and storage space so you can stream the content for free.

+1 on all your comments here. Aereo is going to die. You are absolutely correct that if they do manage to get around the re-transmission loopholes on the local station level, the studios and other content owners will sue for sure. And from a technical standpoint if they are in fact providing an antenna, re-encoder, and PVR per user, the system will collapse under it's own weight as it becomes more popular. We have seen strong evidence of that already with the Oscars.

I too can't wait to see an independent technical review of their system and software. I agree this is probably a disguised antenna array functioning as a MATV system. We will surely have an independent technical review as the legal battle goes deeper.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is online now  
post #22 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 08:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

OTA "can" be plugged directly into a digital TV, sure. Very few people actually do that.

There are several ATSC DVRs for sale that provide re-encoding to output to the device you wish to use to view your recordings.

Tivo DVRs do this. You have to pay Tivo or you can't watch your content. By your definition...

Slingbox re-encodes the signal to stream it to you on your computer or smartphone.

The argument boils down to money. All other arguments are semantics.
No they aren't. The fundamental fact is, it's you doing it for your own personal use verses a for-profit business charging customers to do it.

As far as TiVo, that's not true at all.

For one thing, you can buy a lifetime subscription for a single one time fee and never pay them another dime. Second, Tivo doesn't supply the content - they merely allow you to access and record it through whatever means you use to access it. They aren't a portal - they send you nothing but guide information for whatever TV service you choose. Finally, you can continue to watch anything you want on your Tivo even if you fail to pay the monthly fee under a payment plan. You just won't be able to record anything once the guide information runs out, which is mostly what that monthly fee covers.

At any rate, as I've mentioned in other Aereo discussions, I do support the idea of a service like Aereo. What I don't support is the sneaky method that Aereo has employed to accomplish it. They've failed to get any rights or permissions, regardless of any monetary issues.

Personally, I feel there will eventually be a service like this that the broadcasters do support and that $8 a month seems to be the sweet spot for pricing.

Honestly, if I were Comcast, TWC or another MSO that also sells broadband, I would be working on this exact service as an add-on to broadband subscriptions. They could use their existing agreements with the stations to expand their carriage to such a service, then sell it for something like $5.99 a month. This would net them enough to license the content and still provide the service, yet make the stations happy by undercutting a service like Aereo.

For that matter, someone like Comcast could actually tier the cost of such a service, starting at $8 for those with economy broadband plans, with discounts for those with higher level service plans to encourage people to purchase faster plans in order to get that $5-$6 rate. They could take it a step further and provide it free for TV subscribers.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #23 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Verizon is trying to do just that with the Red Box instant streaming. The problem with all the big ISPs is that they are unwilling to pay for the infrastructure or the licensing to make any kind of real, substantial content available that would interest viewers. I have suggested, encouraged, and advocated they reduce their equipment costs by building such extensive libraries of content so they don't need multi-tuner terabyte hard drive STBs. If multiple seasons of tv shows were available for streaming and the latest episode of the 50 most popular shows were available the next day, couple that with a solid library of movies they could easily compete with Netflix and Amazon.

Verizon VOD has very liitle control over playback, limited number of episodes available, and inserts advertising into the content. No thanks.
HULU? Many shows have limited numbers of episodes and even paying for the Plus subscription you get advertising. Again, no thanks.

I just wait for the entire season to become available on disc and avoid all these unnecessary and annoying manipulations. I don't need to see anything in realtime, not even the superbowl.


I particularly detest the Studios and Networks ever since they ripped off the writers and actors and are still trying to cheat them of as much possible revenue as possible.

I don't see it as sneaky so much as I'm not playing your game just so you can squeeze every dollar out of me.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #24 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

Verizon is trying to do just that with the Red Box instant streaming. The problem with all the big ISPs is that they are unwilling to pay for the infrastructure or the licensing to make any kind of real, substantial content available that would interest viewers. I have suggested, encouraged, and advocated they reduce their equipment costs by building such extensive libraries of content so they don't need multi-tuner terabyte hard drive STBs. If multiple seasons of tv shows were available for streaming and the latest episode of the 50 most popular shows were available the next day, couple that with a solid library of movies they could easily compete with Netflix and Amazon.
I think the real problem is, it's not what we're talking about with Aereo: live day and date streaming of an entire channel.

The biggest issue right now, at least until new contracts are written for some content, is streaming rights. In some cases, that material would have to be blacked out or replaced with content where the rights that have been acquired. That's one of the biggest issues with Aereo; they didn't get those rights, which are sold to outlets like Hulu, Netflix, etc. and can't be streamed by the networks themselves. Aereo is sidestepping content copyrights and distribution contracts that are the reason these shows can be made in the first place.
Quote:
I particularly detest the Studios and Networks ever since they ripped off the writers and actors and are still trying to cheat them of as much possible revenue as possible.

I don't see it as sneaky so much as I'm not playing your game just so you can squeeze every dollar out of me.
Ah, so now we're down to the crux of it: you don't like the networks. Because you don't like their business model, you feel it's OK to stick it to them. Someday, if you ever build a large business off copyrighted content and someone uses it to make money for themselves without your permission, be sure to remember this moment.

Aereo is being sneaky. They deliberately built a business using questionable loopholes with a system designed by lawyers to give the illusion of being legal. They never consulted with the networks or tried to make some kind of deal because they knew the answer would likely be no due to the agreements the networks have with the content owners. Instead of creating a content platform with original and/or licensed media (like, perhaps, Netflix) they've chosen to sell someone else's content without their permission. This stuff isn't old, out of copyright material. It's new material whose expenses get paid for by the original broadcast, syndication rights and streaming contracts.

You don't have to like the reality, but you're in denial if you really think Aereo is playing by the rules.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #25 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
No, I don't want somebody to "stick it to them". I want them called on their bully tactics and abuse of power to extract what they believe they are entitled to.

The phrases "questionable loopholes" applies to them just as it does to anyone else. If the law is ambiguous or is not explicit, they can abuse that as anyone else can. Since they have billions and hundreds of lawyers paid just to tie anyone up in court for years, they are the ones exploiting others until it can be proven and codified otherwise.

The content we are discussing has been paid for and broadcast. The argument is over capture and viewing.

If I buy an antenna and a dvr and a slingbox and set it up at my brothers house and pay him to keep it up and maintain it, It seems to be fine. If I pay someone to provide that equipment and maintain it that calls themselves a business, then it is not.

You seem to want to only see one side of this argument and show obvious bias in the direction of the deepest pockets. Seem to...

Content creators should have recognized ownership and be compensated properly for limited distribution of that content. Manipulating people through expensive legal maneuvers to get more than they have been already paid is abuse until explicitly not.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #26 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,591
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 254 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

OTA "can" be plugged directly into a digital TV, sure. Very few people actually do that.

Link to a source please.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #27 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Link to a source please.

Source for what? Direct connection or the number of people who run ATSC directly into their digital tv?
reconlabtech is offline  
post #28 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,591
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 254 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconlabtech View Post

Source for what? Direct connection or the number of people who run ATSC directly into their digital tv?

Just want to know where you came up with statement that "very few people do that" for an OTA connection directly to the tv. Most of the people that I know who use OTA exclusively, myself included, do just that.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #29 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
reconlabtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I frequent several forums dealing with cord cutters/OTA/DTV and the like. Most conversations I see are over which ATSC converters or OTA DVRs to use with their OTA signal, whether into a home media center controlled by computer or xbox or similar device, and then into their home network or TV. I work in a more technical environment with people who don't mind spending money but not on over-priced cable/satellite services and they typically use media center software or dedicated boxes for handling OTA. Sales of these kinds of devices are strong and getting stronger. Maybe my language is less accurate in saying, "very few". While extremely difficult to define accurate numbers, I still feel many more people are placing a device or computer between their OTA antenna and their tv.
reconlabtech is offline  
post #30 of 44 Old 03-13-2014, 02:29 PM
Member
 
pman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: So Cal
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Just want to know where you came up with statement that "very few people do that" for an OTA connection directly to the tv. Most of the people that I know who use OTA exclusively, myself included, do just that.

My tv is from 2004 and therefore I need a digital tuner box to plug into first to get ota.
pman is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off