Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 17Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 07:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Now that SCOTUS has ruled that Aereo may not legally provide its service without securing retransmission consent from the local broadcast stations, the question becomes whether any stations will be willing to give consent at a price that is consistent with Aereo's survival.
Legally, they can't charge a price that is significantly higher than the competition. So, if the NY affiliates are getting a buck a sub, they can't ask for, say, $2 a sub as that would be anti-competitive. Dish Network recently went to court over that and won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I cannot imagine that Aereo would be able to pay as much as the cable and satellite providers for the privilege or retransmitting one of the Big Four networks, so local broadcasters would be reluctant to give Aereo retransmission consent for those feeds.
It depends on what they are paying. Since they can technically probably get away with the big 4 plus The CW, if they were paying $1 a sub for each, they still are only laying out $5 per sub. So, they might have to charge an extra buck or so to get a reasonable profit, but that's still cheaper for most people than cable if they can't get an OTA signal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
But what about the diginets, the subchannel networks that sometimes don't even get carriage on cable or satellite?
Those stations likely wouldn't be getting any fees and more likely to be choosing must-carry status instead of retransmission fees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Would local broadcasters be willing to sell Aereo retransmission rights for those channels? Or in some areas where ordinary OTA reception is difficult, would a diginet just go straight to Aereo and forget about trying to line up a local broadcast station?
If the network went directly to Aereo, they'd be breaking their agreements with the affiliate. Between the court costs of breaking that contract and the loss of the affiliate fees, they'd make out worse with Aereo. It simply wouldn't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
In other words, is there any way that Aereo could be a viable low-cost service that becomes a rival to Netflix or other providers that do not depend on local broadcast stations?
If the networks aren't willing to sell their OTA signals to them, they aren't going to sell anything else to them.

Don't forget, the major studios not only own a piece of each the big 4 networks, but control the rights to the programming that goes to Hulu, Netflix and other streaming services. They also own stakes in several of the smaller networks, like The CW, MyTV, Univision, etc.

In other words, if the big four networks want Aereo dead, they can kill them by refusing to sell to them in the O&O markets - which happen to be the largest ones.
NetworkTV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 07:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
If a station is an affiliate of a big network, say CBS, does that network have any say at all about retransmission consent negotiations for a diginet, such as MeTV or AntennaTV or GetTV, that the station carries on a subchannel?

The reason I ask is that I know that a lot of diginets do not have carriage on DirecTV, and some don't even have carriage on the local cable system.

I don't think subchannels are part of the "must carry" provisions, but I could be wrong about that.
veedon is offline  
post #543 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 07:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


Don't forget, the major studios not only own a piece of each the big 4 networks, but control the rights to the programming that goes to Hulu, Netflix and other streaming services. They also own stakes in several of the smaller networks, like The CW, MyTV, Univision, etc.

In other words, if the big four networks want Aereo dead, they can kill them by refusing to sell to them in the O&O markets - which happen to be the largest ones.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Sony Pictures Television, which provides the old movies that are on the GetTV diginet. A lot of those movies are OK but the overall slate is not up to the level of Turner Classic Movies, so GetTV likely cannot get much money from a satellite provider or a cable company for the right to carry that programming. But somehow GetTV has been getting subchannel slots on local stations, even paying the stations to carry the diginet. So, in some places could a diginet like that be looking for a way to stream their stuff on the internet?
veedon is offline  
post #544 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 08:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Sony Pictures Television, which provides the old movies that are on the GetTV diginet. A lot of those movies are OK but the overall slate is not up to the level of Turner Classic Movies, so GetTV likely cannot get much money from a satellite provider or a cable company for the right to carry that programming. But somehow GetTV has been getting subchannel slots on local stations, even paying the stations to carry the diginet. So, in some places could a diginet like that be looking for a way to stream their stuff on the internet?
The reason they can afford to air those movies is very likely that they can only be shown on the linear channel. I'd bet they would have to renegotiate their content contracts if they ended up on another video service.

A lot of contracts are based not only on expected viewership, but on how the viewers access the program. A streaming service may well put them into a category of a streaming outlet, that could change their rates for programming packages significantly.

Plus, some contracts may specifically prohibit streaming of the content, even if that stream is simply a mirror of the linear channel.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #545 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 08:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
The reason they can afford to air those movies is very likely that they can only be shown on the linear channel. I'd bet they would have to renegotiate their content contracts if they ended up on another video service.

A lot of contracts are based not only on expected viewership, but on how the viewers access the program. A streaming service may well put them into a category of a streaming outlet, that could change their rates for programming packages significantly.

Plus, some contracts may specifically prohibit streaming of the content, even if that stream is simply a mirror of the linear channel.

That's interesting. I know that some people absolutely love the Netflix model where the viewer decides what to watch and when to watch it, but I kind of like having a programmed channel where somebody else has decided what to show. Sometimes I will turn to a channel like GetTV or Me-TV and see something that I never knew existed or that I knew existed but didn't think I'd like it, and it turns out to be quite entertaining.

I mean, those channels with old TV shows and movies may not always be fabulous, but they are better than what some of the basic cable channels, such as A&E and The History Channel have degenerated into.

The cable companies and satellite providers have neglected a lot of viewers who want cheaper and smaller channel packages. Maybe OTA, diginets, and streaming services can tap a market that is currently not being well served.
veedon is offline  
post #546 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post
I know zip about retransmission consent and rights but I think local stations in many cases wouldn't have the ability to sell their own content via the Internet. The content providers would have to give their blessing.

The content providers have no say. By extending 17USC111 to cover Aereo, SCOTUS effectively legislated a compulsory license to cover Aereo. All they need now is retransmission consent and they are good to go.

And...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Legally, they can't charge a price that is significantly higher than the competition. So, if the NY affiliates are getting a buck a sub, they can't ask for, say, $2 a sub as that would be anti-competitive. Dish Network recently went to court over that and won.

Exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Since they can technically probably get away with the big 4 plus The CW, if they were paying $1 a sub for each, they still are only laying out $5 per sub. So, they might have to charge an extra buck or so to get a reasonable profit, but that's still cheaper for most people than cable if they can't get an OTA signal.

I think DirecTV, Dish, and AAD have established that all you really need is the big 4. Everybody else either chooses must carry or gets dropped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
In other words, if the big four networks want Aereo dead, they can kill them by refusing to sell to them in the O&O markets - which happen to be the largest ones.

Oh no they can’t. You’re now directly contradicting what you said earlier in the same post.

And you had it right the first time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I don't think subchannels are part of the "must carry" provisions, but I could be wrong about that.

You are not wrong. Must carry applies only to a station’s primary stream. Moreover:

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
But somehow GetTV has been getting subchannel slots on local stations, even paying the stations to carry the diginet.

Which means that even though it costs Aereo no bandwidth whatsoever to carry subchannels, the stations will have to pay Aereo to carry them, and that will offset the cost of the big 4 that Aereo needs in order to have a viable service. Add to this that Aereo can dispense with its complex antenna system in new markets, it doesn’t need to build any distribution architecture beyond its headend, and doesn’t need to rent any equipment to the customer. Honestly, if Aereo can’t provide an internet based service that is price competitive with lifeline cable plus DVR rental, they are doing something wrong.

This reminds me of the broadcasters “victory” over Dish in the DNS case. Within weeks, a new company was created to provide only the big 4 nets only to Dish customers only in white areas, and that service remained viable until February of this year, at prices comparable to Aereo.

Aereo, otoh, can sell to anybody. If they can’t make that work, I repeat, they are doing something wrong.

Everybody seems to think this is a great victory for the broadcasters. But Aereo just may have ridden a Trojan Horse straight into the heart of the Copyright Act. Because prior to today, I don’t think anyone would have said that 17USC111 created a compulsory license for internet delivery of broadcast television. But that seems to be just what SCOTUS has done.
MsrHulot likes this.
joblo is offline  
post #547 of 593 Old 06-25-2014, 09:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post



Which means that even though it costs Aereo no bandwidth whatsoever to carry subchannels, the stations will have to pay Aereo to carry them, and that will offset the cost of the big 4 that Aereo needs in order to have a viable service. ... Honestly, if Aereo can’t provide an internet based service that is price competitive with lifeline cable plus DVR rental, they are doing something wrong.

...

Aereo, otoh, can sell to anybody. If they can’t make that work, I repeat, they are doing something wrong.

Everybody seems to think this is a great victory for the broadcasters. But Aereo just may have ridden a Trojan Horse straight into the heart of the Copyright Act. Because prior to today, I don’t think anyone would have said that 17USC111 created a compulsory license for internet delivery of broadcast television. But that seems to be just what SCOTUS has done.
Well, I don't know about 17USC11 and all that, but I am pretty sure that Aereo will not be receiving money from local broadcast stations to carry their subchannels. If anything, wouldn't it be the other way around, with Aereo having to pay the local station for rights to retransmit the subchannel? I suppose that there could be a situation where a particular diginet was not available in a particular market, and Aereo could negotiate directly with the diginet for the rights to carry the content, just like a cable or satellite provider negotiates for the rights to carry ESPN or CNN.

Now, content providers can have various kinds of arrangements with service providers. Usually the service provider has to pay the content provider, but I read that GetTV is an example where the diginet is actually leasing subchannel space, paying the local stations to carry the diginet. In return, GetTV gets to keep all of the ad revenue, such as it is, for itself. In a lot of other diginet affiliation arrangements, the diginet and the local station split the ad time.

I would disagree with your speculation of how viable it could be for Aereo to secure rights to carry the Big Four local affiliates in a market at a price that would allow Aereo to turn a profit. Content costs are only a small portion of the costs that a service provider incurs. Aereo also has to pay for its equipment and employees. And in many places, the local cable system has a very basic package for about $20 per month. Could Aereo really negotiate retransmission consent deals for a low enough price to beat that?

If Aereo is going to survive at all, it will have to figure out a way to secure content that is different from what cable and satellite systems offer and that is packaged or programmed in a way that makes having Aereo be more desirable to some people than having NetFlix.

Aereo has a tough problem to solve to figure out how to be viable when it has to actually pay for the content that it transmits.

On the plus side for Aereo, there are a lot of old TV shows and movies of various types that might not be very desirable to the typical cable TV subscriber who is enamored with zombies and duck hunters but that might be attractive to people who are looking to turn the clock back to the 1970's or earlier in terms of TV programming or who have tastes that are not regarded as "hip".

Last edited by veedon; 06-25-2014 at 09:54 PM.
veedon is offline  
post #548 of 593 Old 06-26-2014, 01:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
I guess the real question now is, what is the network's goal at this point? Is it to kill Aereo or to get them to pay retransmission fees? If it's the former, the Aereo is basically dead.
My understanding of the situation is that the networks' big issue was not with Aereo itself, because it's a relatively small outfit. The networks' fear was that if Aereo had been able to open up a loophole through copyright law and retransmission consent, then the "big boys," i.e. TWC, Charter et al, would soon figure out how to dive through that loophole themselves and stop paying retransmission fees.
DrDon likes this.
jtbell is offline  
post #549 of 593 Old 06-26-2014, 01:19 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,816
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtbell View Post
my understanding of the situation is that the networks' big issue was not with aereo itself, because it's a relatively small outfit. The networks' fear was that if aereo had been able to open up a loophole through copyright law and retransmission consent, then the "big boys," i.e. Twc, charter et al, would soon figure out how to dive through that loophole themselves and stop paying retransmission fees.
this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #550 of 593 Old 06-26-2014, 11:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Matt L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Flushing, MI
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 83
I'm waiting to see Aero's next move. I can't believe that they do not have a contingency plan in place. I think it's in the networks and affilitates interest to get as many eyes on their product as possible, and adding streaming to the mix is a viable option.
Matt L is offline  
post #551 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 03:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post
I'm waiting to see Aero's next move. I can't believe that they do not have a contingency plan in place. I think it's in the networks and affiliates interest to get as many eyes on their product as possible, and adding streaming to the mix is a viable option.
Remember: TV stations get their money from selling advertisements and from cable carriage fees. Advertisers want eyeballs of certain demographics. Eyeballs don't matter unless it is the eyeballs the advertisers want, and then only if they are likely to have seen the commercials in a timely manner.

My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Blu-ray players (Sony BDP-S3100, old LG BD390), Roku (the original model: N1000), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (25Mbps/5Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Starter Package), DVD/VHS player.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #552 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 11:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
snowcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 55
I thought this was a very interesting editorial about the decision, praising SCOTUS for its decision. http://www.dailytech.com/Editorial+H...ticle36119.htm

The big thing that I got out of it was that Aereo wasn't recording shows for each individual user. If one user wanted to record American Idol on a particular day, then every user in that market could access that copy rather than have a bunch of individual recordings.


The other intriguing analogy in the article would be someone taking all the content off of a free website (like cnn.com or foxnews.com) and posting it on their own website without permission. Just because it doesn't cost consumers anything to read it doesn't mean you can post it anywhere.


I do think that if Aereo pays retransmission fees to broadcasters in each market, they should be allowed to continue. But it sounds more like Aereo will shut down.
markrubin likes this.
snowcat is offline  
post #553 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 12:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
snowcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Here is where things get a little hairy: http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...dish-streaming

Do you guys think the Aereo decision could shut down Dish Anywhere, as well as anything that is similar to SlingBox? I don't think so, since SCOTUS seemed to punish Aereo more because of re-transmission fees rather than being able to stream anywhere. But you just never know.
snowcat is offline  
post #554 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mntneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 2,740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowcat View Post
Here is where things get a little hairy: http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...dish-streaming

Do you guys think the Aereo decision could shut down Dish Anywhere, as well as anything that is similar to SlingBox? I don't think so, since SCOTUS seemed to punish Aereo more because of re-transmission fees rather than being able to stream anywhere. But you just never know.
The way the decision read made it sound like those offsite DVR setups could be called into question now, as they are essentially doing what Aereo was accused of doing.
Mntneer is offline  
post #555 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 02:30 PM
Member
 
Ed Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Thumbs down I'm agin' it!

ANY subscription service charging for free-to-air signals is bogus. They're selling someone else's lunch. And it's not even a decent deal - they are still forcing YOU to pay the cost of high-speed internet (almost always more than basic cable) and then driving up your bills with high data volumes, as VOIP does.

AND someone gets to know everything you watch - government, political parties, marketers, spies, foreign spies, parole officers, litigants, extortionists and businesses looking to see who they can charge more for the same goods and services. (Some businesses are already showing higher prices to Mac and IOS users, expecting them to be richer and more impulse-driven.)

Video over the internet is internet abuse. We HAVE an excellent, up-to-date system of universal over-the-air broadcasting that everyone can use without paying. Why burden our networks with all that repetitive traffic when only a few out-of-range people need it? The system can easily handle a small number of people with no other choice, but dumping the entire weight of broadcasting on the net would cripple it. Excuse me, IS crippling it.

Hence the "net neutrality" debate.

This is all Al Gore's fault for privatizing and commercializing the web.
ED BEAR<<(+*+)>>
(SASK//proved)
Ed Bear is offline  
post #556 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MeatChicken's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NNJ
Posts: 1,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Just a thought ( That I haven't actually yet fully thought thru yet .. : ) )
... Since owning your own rooftop antenna is of course legal & has nothing to do with this, even if you "slingboxed" it or whatever to your TV or device ...
What if Aereo had instead completely "Sold", each micro antenna to the end user, for , say, $389.98, & collected no other fees ...
The User would "actually legally Own" the antenna, not aereo, & could even of course, request Aereo disconnect it & "mail It" to them if they wanted .... & would not be accessing any aereo owned "service", only their own Antenna, over an otherwise "free" website setup by Aereo ....
Could these then thousands of individual antenna owners be "blocked" from accessing their own antennas, in this hypothetical..?

Last edited by MeatChicken; 06-27-2014 at 02:58 PM.
MeatChicken is offline  
post #557 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 02:52 PM
Thread Ender
 
WS65711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Covington, LA OTA & Charter CableCard
Posts: 4,179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatChicken View Post
Just a thought ( That I haven't yet thought thru yet .. : ) )
... Since owning your own rooftop antenna is of course legal & has nothing to do with this, even if you "slingboxed" it or whatever to your TV or device ...
What if Aereo had instead completely "Sold", each micro antenna to the end user, for , say, $389.98, & collected no other fees ...
The User would "actually legally Own" the antenna, not areo, & could even request Areo disconnect it & "mail It" to them if they wanted .... & would not be accessing aereo "service", only their own Antenna over an otherwise "free" website ....
Yeah.. And the User could even hook up his dime-sized antenna right at his very own house and watch all the . . . Oh, nevermind..

Don't ever make the MISTAKE of buying a Samsung TV..
They consider THIS
normal on a two month old set..
WS65711 is offline  
post #558 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 08:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I liked the old days when there were more independent commercial television stations around (in addition to public TV stations and affiliates of the Big Three commercial broadcast networks, of course) and most people received television programming OTA, not via cable or satellite.

But unfortunately, OTA reception has always been a tricky (or even impossible) thing for a lot of people. Nowadays, local broadcast stations absolutely need to have per subscriber revenues via retransmission consent to survive.

It would be nice if some way could be found to allow local stations to stream more stuff live on the internet in areas where OTA reception is not feasible or practical.
veedon is offline  
post #559 of 593 Old 06-27-2014, 11:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Matt L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Flushing, MI
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Bear View Post
ANY subscription service charging for free-to-air signals is bogus. They're selling someone else's lunch. And it's not even a decent deal - they are still forcing YOU to pay the cost of high-speed internet (almost always more than basic cable) and then driving up your bills with high data volumes, as VOIP does.

AND someone gets to know everything you watch - government, political parties, marketers, spies, foreign spies, parole officers, litigants, extortionists and businesses looking to see who they can charge more for the same goods and services. (Some businesses are already showing higher prices to Mac and IOS users, expecting them to be richer and more impulse-driven.)

Video over the internet is internet abuse. We HAVE an excellent, up-to-date system of universal over-the-air broadcasting that everyone can use without paying. Why burden our networks with all that repetitive traffic when only a few out-of-range people need it? The system can easily handle a small number of people with no other choice, but dumping the entire weight of broadcasting on the net would cripple it. Excuse me, IS crippling it.

Hence the "net neutrality" debate.

This is all Al Gore's fault for privatizing and commercializing the web.
ED BEAR<<(+*+)>>
(SASK//proved)
Disagree completely. There is no lack of bandwidth on the internet, btw VOIP is a low data stream. The caps imposed by various companies have nothing to do with capacity only with PROFITS. We are living in a third world internet nation while the rest of the world gets many many times the speed we get with no limits. I have no issue with internet delivery of TV, I'd be one of the first to sign up if a company rolled that service out. Who knows Aero might morph into something like that.
dervari likes this.
Matt L is offline  
post #560 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 12:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post
Oh no they can’t. You’re now directly contradicting what you said earlier in the same post.

And you had it right the first time.
No, I'm not contradicting myself.

The stations are not required to do business with any company. They only are required to offer a similar deal to Aereo if they choose to do business with them. If they choose not to go to the negotiating table at all, Aereo can't force them to.

Plenty of stations refuse to negotiate with providers, as is the case with a good number of RSNs. The local stations can simply choose not to offer their product at all.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #561 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 05:22 AM
Thread Ender
 
WS65711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Covington, LA OTA & Charter CableCard
Posts: 4,179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowcat View Post
I thought this was a very interesting editorial about the decision, praising SCOTUS for its decision. http://www.dailytech.com/Editorial+H...ticle36119.htm
The big thing that I got out of it was that Aereo wasn't recording shows for each individual user. If one user wanted to record American Idol on a particular day, then every user in that market could access that copy rather than have a bunch of individual recordings.
The other intriguing analogy in the article would be someone taking all the content off of a free website (like cnn.com or foxnews.com) and posting it on their own website without permission. Just because it doesn't cost consumers anything to read it doesn't mean you can post it anywhere.
I do think that if Aereo pays retransmission fees to broadcasters in each market, they should be allowed to continue. But it sounds more like Aereo will shut down.
Your link doesn't work . . .

Don't ever make the MISTAKE of buying a Samsung TV..
They consider THIS
normal on a two month old set..
WS65711 is offline  
post #562 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 10,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Broadcasters buy time after Aereo defeat

With Aereo announcing Saturday morning in a tweet that it would pause operations, questions linger as to what similar — but legal — alternatives will come to consumers who want to divorce their cable companies and still get reliable local TV.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ters/11417247/

The TV networks have a case of the Innovator's Dilemma here. Push forward with live streaming on their own, and they stand to trigger the ire of cable and satellite distributors that pay dearly to distribute their content. Ignore the savvy cord-cutters who vent on Twitter their frustration at the lack of streaming options, and the networks will increasingly come to look like slumbering giants interested only in retaining revenue streams.

It should be interesting. Although not anytime soon I'm guessing.
Charles R is offline  
post #563 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 01:10 PM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatChicken View Post
What if Aereo had instead completely "Sold", each micro antenna to the end user, for , say, $389.98, & collected no other fees ...
The User would "actually legally Own" the antenna, not aereo, & could even of course, request Aereo disconnect it & "mail It" to them if they wanted .... & would not be accessing any aereo owned "service", only their own Antenna, over an otherwise "free" website setup by Aereo ....
Could these then thousands of individual antenna owners be "blocked" from accessing their own antennas, in this hypothetical..?
Many people seem willing to accept Aereo's smoke-and-mirrors explanation of how their system works, but others of us are fairly certain that their business model is completely bogus. Aereo may have bunches of tiny antenna-like objects somewhere for show-and-tell, but I'd bet that those individual little antennas don't actually receive individual subscriber OTA broadcasts, and they probably aren't even part of an RF link carrying content to individual subscribers. Also, each tiny antenna would have to have one or more tuners attached to actually receive anything, plus some sort of DVR to record programs which are to be streamed later. I feel certain that Aereo tunes each station only once, and probably records only one copy of each program for streaming to all subscribers who request it. Again, I call a technical BS foul on Aereo.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #564 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 10,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post
Many people seem willing to accept Aereo's smoke-and-mirrors...
At this point it's beyond irrelevant...

You will be able to access your cloud-based antenna & DVR until 11:30 a.m. ET today. All users will be refunded for their last paid month.

https://twitter.com/Aereo/status/482868838389010432
Charles R is offline  
post #565 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 02:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I can't understand Scalia's dissent in the Aero case. He seemed to be saying that loopholes are wonderful things to exploit and that it should be up to Congress to drop everything and close loopholes through new legislation as the loopholes are discovered and exploited. What planet does Scalia live on? Has he taken a look at how efficiently Congress has been operating lately?
veedon is offline  
post #566 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 02:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 10,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I can't understand Scalia's dissent in the Aero case.
Made perfect sense to me. He stated they (the Supreme Court) should rule based on actual law. As such if a loophole exists it isn't up to them to close it... And to a large degree it's the job of lawyers to find them and take advantage of them...

Now I only read his one quote so that's my take based on it.
Charles R is offline  
post #567 of 593 Old 06-28-2014, 03:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post
Made perfect sense to me. He stated they (the Supreme Court) should rule based on actual law. As such if a loophole exists it isn't up to them to close it... And to a large degree it's the job of lawyers to find them and take advantage of them...

Now I only read his one quote so that's my take based on it.
But the problem with that is that some loopholes cannot possibly be foreseen. The loophole (if you want to call it that) only arises with the advent of new technology. A justice of the Supreme Court should be more willing to consider the intent of Congress when existing legislation was passed and then to make a ruling that extends that intent to new situations that arise. Then, if Congress disagrees with the Court's action, it can step in and pass new legislation.That way Congress doesn't have to spend its time on small matters and can concentrate on more important things.

It's hard for me to believe that Congress, having already passed the rules regarding retransmission consent for cable and satellite providers, ever intended for a company like Aereo to get away with what it was trying to do.
veedon is offline  
post #568 of 593 Old 06-30-2014, 02:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
jabbathespud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SFBA
Posts: 891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 37
jabbathespud is offline  
post #569 of 593 Old 07-07-2014, 06:20 AM
Senior Member
 
dervari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Bear View Post
Video over the internet is internet abuse. We HAVE an excellent, up-to-date system of universal over-the-air broadcasting that everyone can use without paying. Why burden our networks with all that repetitive traffic when only a few out-of-range people need it?
Since when has anything in recent history been based on NEED vs WANT? EBT users NEED basic food but some WANT filet mignon. Guess what? They can get what they want. If I WANT something and have the means to afford it, why shouldn't I be able to get it as long as it's legal (barring any Aereo/SCOTUS decision...let's assume Aereo is legal)?

Some people don't want the hassle of installing an antenna, running cable to every TV in the house, installing a distribution amplifier, and purchasing/installing a DVR in each room. My gf is a perfect example. She's a cord cutter and was living on rabbit ears and a VHS box when we started dating. I bought her a Roku and Aereo subscription and she absolutely loved it. $8/mo is a steal for the convenience.

Now, I've had to install a 2-bay bowtie antenna with a J-Mount on her gable, run coax to the MPOE and re-run some of the existing coax on her house (it was all 1980s grade cable and crimp ends). Add to that, purchasing a DVR and a learning curve for it. Aereo was simplicity at it's best and if someone wants to use their internet connection for it, then they should be able to. If you want to alleviate congestion on the 'net, you could traffic shape streaming traffic from porn sites. I'll wager that takes up a good hunk and is also "abusive" to the internet.
dervari is offline  
post #570 of 593 Old 07-07-2014, 06:24 AM
Senior Member
 
dervari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post
I feel certain that Aereo tunes each station only once, and probably records only one copy of each program for streaming to all subscribers who request it. Again, I call a technical BS foul on Aereo.
Their FAQ answered this. They stated each subscriber has their own disk partition.
dervari is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

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