US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Aereo Case - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 02:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Why go through all that?

Since you mentioned an antenna, just get a Sling Box and use the antenna with it and skip all the other steps. Or use a tuner in a Windows PC and use a VPN.
Sling Box only place-shifts. It can't time-shift like a DVR. So, he'd also need a Channel Master, or other DVR capable of recording and time-shifting the feed, placed between the antenna and the Sling Box. A USB or PCI TV tuner in a Windows PC w/ Windows Media Center or any other compatible combination of OS, tuner, and PVR program would work for both time-shifting and place-shifting. The only reason to use XBMC, Plex, Mediaportal, Mediabrowser, or JRiver is if you also store other types of media on your server for streaming to yourself. Most of them have the ability to incorporate Live/recorded TV into your media setup using a 3rd party PVR backend, while allowing you to use a single front end interface that can be customized to your needs.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 02:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Grabbing free over the air transmissions and selling a service for watching them? This should have been heard at the local level and not consumed the Supreme Courts time. Of course it's illegal.
It was heard in local courts first. That's how it got to the Supreme Court. In some cases, the local courts and even the appellate courts sided with Aereo. In others, they sided with the networks/broadcasters. Obviously not everyone agrees that your analogy tells the whole story. I'd recommend taking the time to read the court's decision and the dissenting opinion linked on the previous page.

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 06-25-2014 at 03:07 PM.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #153 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJ
I suppose it's a win for those folks who are able to receive OTA broadcast TV without a service like Aereo, as the networks won't pull their programming, for now. It's a loss for those who can't get reception in their area, though, and could have used an affordable service like Aereo to get local programming.
No, the original concessions by Aereo have long since been to accept only downloads from your own antenna. Getting programming from others elsewhere in the country was already decided to be something Aereo wasn't going to argue. If you could not get programming before in Kansas, Aereo was not going to get it for you from New Jersey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Grabbing free over the air transmissions and selling a service for watching them? This should have been heard at the local level and not consumed the Supreme Courts time. Of course it's illegal.

For those who don't understand that, i will use this analogy,

I download free over the air broadcast and sell them to you.
We've been through this analogy before....and hence the violent disagreement here. The capturing is done by me and the results stored by their equipement for a fee. There is no difference from this and me renting a DVR. Or, me downloading the data to *my* HTPC that needs disk space and having google.drive.com store the data (or nearly anyone else.) This is precisely why SCOTUS was so careful to not allow this ruling to spread further than this particularly narrow decision; apparently out of impacting all manner of cloud computing.

Enough of this endless circle though...it's just absurd.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2014 at 02:17 PM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #154 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 03:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
No, the original concessions by Aereo have long since been to accept only downloads from your own antenna. Getting programming from others elsewhere in the country was already decided to be something Aereo wasn't going to argue. If you could not get programming before in Kansas, Aereo was not going to get it for you from New Jersey.
You're assuming that I am talking about people getting OTA television from outside of their market. I'm not. I'm talking about people in a particular market that can't get reception of local TV from the local television stations due to poor signal strength because of distance and lack of repeaters or issues with terrain. Or, people in small towns who live in an apartment building that, for whatever reason, can't get reception from an indoor antenna and aren't allowed to install an outdoor antenna.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #155 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 06:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
It was heard in local courts first. That's how it got to the Supreme Court. In some cases, the local courts and even the appellate courts sided with Aereo. In others, they sided with the networks/broadcasters. Obviously not everyone agrees that your analogy tells the whole story. I'd recommend taking the time to read the court's decision and the dissenting opinion linked on the previous page.
I have read it. This whole deal is nothing new to me. Capturing free over the air broadcast of local channels and downloading them to a cloud server and then selling them back, under the notion it's your personal cloud based server? Give me a break.

If ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS wanted this they would have offered this service themselves.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #156 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 06:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
No, the original concessions by Aereo have long since been to accept only downloads from your own antenna. Getting programming from others elsewhere in the country was already decided to be something Aereo wasn't going to argue. If you could not get programming before in Kansas, Aereo was not going to get it for you from New Jersey.



We've been through this analogy before....and hence the violent disagreement here. The capturing is done by me and the results stored by their equipement for a fee. There is no difference from this and me renting a DVR. Or, me downloading the data to *my* HTPC that needs disk space and having google.drive.com store the data (or nearly anyone else.) This is precisely why SCOTUS was so careful to not allow this ruling to spread further than this particularly narrow decision; apparently out of impacting all manner of cloud computing.

Enough of this endless circle though...it's just absurd.
Well apparently there are those who thinks that analogy does not apply to them. The broadcast networks are not afraid to drag anyone into court.

They know pretty well what a DVR, CD-R, DVD-R, BD-R and VHS is and what it is used for. The broadcast networks never had a problem with recording there programs for later viewing. They have a big problem when you try to sell them. That was Hollywood who was opposed to recording there content once it reached broadcast.

You can download 24/7 if you got the room for it. What you can not do is sell it to some one else without the consent of the content creator and content provider.

The key thing being not talked about here is that the so called "personal antenna" was in fact access to stored content that was being sold as a service.

If you want to wind up were they are, then start selling "viewing time" for access to your "downloaded" *HTPC* and you will get there.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #157 of 162 Old 06-26-2014, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
You're assuming that I am talking about people getting OTA television from outside of their market. I'm not. I'm talking about people in a particular market that can't get reception of local TV from the local television stations due to poor signal strength because of distance and lack of repeaters or issues with terrain. Or, people in small towns who live in an apartment building that, for whatever reason, can't get reception from an indoor antenna and aren't allowed to install an outdoor antenna.
No assumptions you said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyoAJB
I suppose it's a win for those folks who are able to receive OTA broadcast TV without a service like Aereo, as the networks won't pull their programming, for now. It's a loss for those who can't get reception in their area, though, and could have used an affordable service like Aereo to get local programming.
Is there an argument in this SC case that I'm missing? Aereo would not have provided you anything you could not get from your own antenna. Same market or not. The argument as stated had to do entirely with what you yourself could do on your own with your own equipment.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #158 of 162 Old 06-26-2014, 08:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Reread your response and you will see that we are talking about two different things...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJ
I suppose it's a win for those folks who are able to receive OTA broadcast TV without a service like Aereo, as the networks won't pull their programming, for now. It's a loss for those who can't get reception in their area, though, and could have used an affordable service like Aereo to get local programming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the original concessions by Aereo have long since been to accept only downloads from your own antenna. Getting programming from others elsewhere in the country was already decided to be something Aereo wasn't going to argue. If you could not get programming before in Kansas, Aereo was not going to get it for you from New Jersey.
I am talking about people who are in a particular market, but can't get decent reception of the channels in that market, using Aereo as a means to get better reception for the channels in that same market. The legality of this was in question right up until the SC rendered it's verdict. Now that we have heard the SC's verdict, it is apparent that it is illegal unless Aereo pays the copyright holder for the rights to do what they have been doing.

You are talking about people using Aereo to get channels from a different market. As you mentioned, the legality of doing this was decided long ago. But this is not what I was talking about.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #159 of 162 Old 06-26-2014, 09:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
As an example of what I am talking about, the Washington, DC television market, which I live in, extends over quite a large area. It covers all of DC, and parts or Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. In this market, the local channels include channel 4 (NBC), 5 (Fox), 7 (ABC), and 9 (CBS). The local news coverage covers the entire area I just mentioned. If there are school closings in any of the counties, towns, or cities in that area, they announce them. The local weather coverage encompasses that entire region, which is why you have to pay attention because the weather can vary considerably from the mountainous areas to the northwest of DC and the coastal areas along the eastern shore of Maryland. Without a doubt, these areas are in the Washington, DC television market. And yet, in many parts of the market, you cannot get decent/any reception of local channels with an outdoor antenna mounted on your house or anywhere on your land. In some cases, the problem is distance. But, in many, it is terrain. If you live in the valley behind a tall ridge, or on the edge of a tall forested area then even a 100' tall mast might not get you LoS to the nearest broadcast station/repeater. In some case, you might live in an apartment building with no community antenna and no way to mount your own such that it gets reception of local channels.

For a long time now, these people have been forced to subscribe to either cable or satellite in order to get their local channels, paying upwards of $40 a month for the most basic package to get the same channels their neighbors get for free. A service like Aereo could have been a cheaper alternative.

Going back to what I posted, consumers who could already get reception of local OTA channels for free sort of win with this decision since the networks will not pull their programming from the airwaves as they were threatening to do. However, the people who have had to subscribe to cable or satellite to get their local channels, because OTA reception is inadequate where they live, lose with this decision since a service like Aereo is unlikely to come to them, now. So, they must go on paying high rates to be able to view the same content that most of the people in the same market can see for free.

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 06-26-2014 at 10:12 AM.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #160 of 162 Old 06-26-2014, 10:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Is there an argument in this SC case that I'm missing? Aereo would not have provided you anything you could not get from your own antenna. Same market or not. The argument as stated had to do entirely with what you yourself could do on your own with your own equipment.
If I am clearly within a specific market and a service like Aereo comes in to my market, how is anybody but me to know if I can actually get reception of the channels I am supposed to be able to get in my house? Does Aereo drive out to every one of their perspective customers houses to check reception before they agree to provide service? Why wouldn't it be legal if the fact that I can't get reception of the local channels in my local market is simply due to some technical issue of the broadcast stations? And, if it is illegal to provide the service to me, even though I am clearly within the geographic bounds of that market, then I guess DirecTV needs to stop allowing me to get my local channels through them.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #161 of 162 Old 06-28-2014, 02:56 PM
Member
 
Channel99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Aereo has shut down “pause our operations temporarily” and will issue refunds. They will "consult with the <lower> court". It doesn't seem very likely they will be back.

http://www.aereo.com

Last edited by Channel99; 06-28-2014 at 06:53 PM. Reason: typo
Channel99 is offline  
post #162 of 162 Old 06-29-2014, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
If OFDM had been adopted in the US instead of 8VSB, then single-frequency network operations could have been devised to fill in poor coverage areas with secondary transmitters on the same broadcast channel. 8VSB was touted to have better impulse noise rejection and lower transmission power requirements, but evidently that didn't hold water for ATSC 3 as it will use OFDM. But would stations have bothered to add such transmitters?

In my opinion, the real issue is the growth of delayed viewing where commercials can be skipped. While great for the viewer, it in a sense violates the unspoken agreement commercial broadcasters have with viewers to pay for the free entertainment by watching advertising. As for the use of public airwaves, the broadcasters need to show they are operating in the public interest with information and education. Playing infomercials 24/7 is frowned upon. The value of airtime to advertisers obviously decreases when less are viewing shows in real time.

Just as a stopped clock is perfectly accurate twice a day, Jeff Zucker once said "There is an issue with the broadcasting model that exists whether you are in first place or fourth place. The fact is the cable model is a superior model to the broadcast model, we have to find another revenue stream to go along with the ad supported model." While most cable channels do play ads, they are not totally dependent on their revenue. Stations are increasingly pressured to complement their ad income with re-trans fees. This was made worse by the requirement for affiliates to pay networks to receive their programming. In the past, the networks would pay the affiliates as they were taking away the station's prime local advertising time.

I wonder if Aereo had skipped the PVR feature, thereby possibly increasing live viewing including the commercials, if stations would have been more open to their existence, or at least negotiated a more favorable deal. One might speculate that such viewers may be more likely in the sponsor desired younger age group. Stations might have (some stated Aereo was beneficial to them as is), but with the decline of OTA viewing and the government nipping at broadcasters' feet to give up their spectrum, it all may be a moot point eventually anyway. Aereo might have been doomed with an OTA strategy eventually even without a SCOTUS ruling.
TVOD is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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