Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 20 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 17Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 593 Old 07-07-2014, 05:29 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 snowcat View Post
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.
And they know this how? Did they go in and reverse engineer the backend code?

Their FAQ stated each user had their own storage partition. This is very technologically feasible and my guess is that this is indeed how the DVR portion worked.
dervari is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 593 Old 07-07-2014, 08:05 AM
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 dervari View Post
And they know this how? Did they go in and reverse engineer the backend code?

Their FAQ stated each user had their own storage partition. This is very technologically feasible and my guess is that this is indeed how the DVR portion worked.
A separate storage partition for each user would indeed be technologically feasible, but I still question whether they were actually doing that and could continue to do that indefinitely. But what I absolutely don't believe is that the tiny little antenna assigned to each user was actually receiving broadcasts from over the air and feeding the signal to one or more tuners dedicated only to that individual user before the video streams were being stored. And if they weren't doing it all that way, their whole legal justification (about just operating an antenna and tuner and DVR for each user) falls apart.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #573 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
space2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post
A separate storage partition for each user would indeed be technologically feasible, but I still question whether they were actually doing that and could continue to do that indefinitely. But what I absolutely don't believe is that the tiny little antenna assigned to each user was actually receiving broadcasts from over the air and feeding the signal to one or more tuners dedicated only to that individual user before the video streams were being stored. And if they weren't doing it all that way, their whole legal justification (about just operating an antenna and tuner and DVR for each user) falls apart.
This actually is true. New york testing area actually ran out of antenna's and no one could record until they added more.

In any event this is ridiculous. This just shows that these judges did not investigate this properly, and/or understand how this worked.
space2001 is offline  
post #574 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 12:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by space2001 View Post
This actually is true. New york testing area actually ran out of antenna's and no one could record until they added more.
The need to "add antennas" doesn't prove that a singular, isolated dime-sized antenna works as advertised. All that meant was that, to maintain the one-antenna-per-subscriber claim legally, they had to solder in some more.

Not that any of this matters. The decision did not rest on the technical logistics but more on the intent to employ those logistics to exploit a loophole in the law. Which is why it wasn't a unanimous decision. For some of the justices, a loophole is a loophole. For the others, the intent to commit what amounts to a public distribution of copyrighted material without compensating copyright owners was enough to shut down the service.

Means we'll probably never officially find out if a single dime-sized antenna can work in an isolated environment.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 07-09-2014 at 01:10 PM.
DrDon is offline  
post #575 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by space2001 View Post
This actually is true. New york testing area actually ran out of antenna's and no one could record until they added more.
Actually, Aereo claimed that they were "out of capacity" with no explanation as to what that actually meant. It could have meant they were out of hard drive space or out of bandwidth to send out video to any more customers than a specific number.

Heck, it could have meant they exceeded the number of billable customers they could have with their copy of Quick Books.

What it likely meant is something technical was preventing people from registering for the service and putting up an "out of capacity" message sounds way better than "unable to complete transaction" by making it seem like a hot product.

Come to think of it, it was a hot product - as in stolen...
NetworkTV is offline  
post #576 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 01:29 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 DrDon View Post
Means we'll probably never officially find out if a single dime-sized antenna can work in an isolated environment.
Hey, keep an eye on the shopping channels. Aereo must have a lot of those tiny antennas, which they no longer need. Maybe they could recover some money for their investors by selling them to OTA users. Better yet, if they could sell each of their former subscribers one complete antenna / tuner / DVR module (the basis for their legal claims) or even just an antenna / tuner module, they could ease the sting of having the streaming service cancelled. That all assumes that Aereo's technology could actually work as advertised, which I'm confident it can't.
DrDon likes this.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #577 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zaphod7501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria Illinois
Posts: 1,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Means we'll probably never officially find out if a single dime-sized antenna can work in an isolated environment.
I'm sure one of those antennas would work just fine. All you would need is a good mounting bracket - like a CM4221 or CM4228.
markrubin, tveli, DrDon and 2 others like this.

Sturgeon's Law: "Nothing is always absolutely so."
Sturgeons Revelation: "Ninety percent of everything is crud."
My Thoughts: "A reasoned argument must share some basic common points."
zaphod7501 is offline  
post #578 of 593 Old 07-09-2014, 05:17 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post
I'm sure one of those antennas would work just fine. All you would need is a good mounting bracket - like a CM4221 or CM4228.
Too bad I can't give fifteen "likes" to that one.
tveli likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #579 of 593 Old 07-10-2014, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AvidHiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 35
AvidHiker is offline  
post #580 of 593 Old 07-11-2014, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Too bad an internet-based service can't be a cable company though (under existing FCC rules and the laws behind them), no matter how the Supremes decided. Good try on Aereo's part but this will go nowhere.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #581 of 593 Old 07-13-2014, 03:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 54
There's also an Aereo discussion going on in a thread in the Latest Industry News section of the News forum. The discussion deals with Aereo's prospects in retransmission consent.
veedon is offline  
post #582 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 07:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post
I'm sure one of those antennas would work just fine. All you would need is a good mounting bracket - like a CM4221 or CM4228.


Thing is, tho: If there's enough signal straight a pin would suffice. Less than that, even. Just ask anybody who's lived near a Ham Radio operator or TV/radio broadcast tower. Enough RF and the problem isn't catching it, it's dodging it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
[The decision] means we'll probably never officially find out if a single dime-sized antenna can work in an isolated environment.
Nonsense. Build one and find out. Like I said: If you're close enough to the transmitters it'll work fine. If you're not: It won't.

Heck: We were getting one or two stations on a home-brew folded dipole thumb-tacked to the panelling over the basement walls, and the stations are all 17 miles away or so. I was experimenting with a Winegard FlatWave Amped in the basement a couple weeks ago, just out of curiosity, and got about... I dunno... half? one-third? of our normal complement, with the antenna masking-taped to the same wall. There's a ceiling in our basement, so, in both cases, the antennas were below ground level, not more than a couple inches from a concrete wall.

Speaking of the basement: This is an example of how the broadcasters shot themselves in the foot. I would have eventually put a Roku box on a TV in the basement. Now? No TV in the basement. Certainly not going to pay subscription TV prices to have it, and it isn't worth the trouble to run coax, put in a splitter, potentially have to deal with an amp. Didn't have TV in the basement before. Won't have it now. *shrug*

Jim

Last edited by SEMIJim; 07-14-2014 at 07:39 AM.
SEMIJim is offline  
post #583 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
zaphod7501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria Illinois
Posts: 1,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 32
In "The Old Days" people would put staples at 90 degrees across 300 ohm lead wire (instead of 180/parallel) effectively shorting out the RF field. (or taping it to water pipe in the basement, etc) The wire itself from the short to the TV became the antenna and they never understood why walking around the room caused reception issues despite having an "outside" antenna. (bad wall plates were a problem too)
DrDon likes this.

Sturgeon's Law: "Nothing is always absolutely so."
Sturgeons Revelation: "Ninety percent of everything is crud."
My Thoughts: "A reasoned argument must share some basic common points."
zaphod7501 is offline  
post #584 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 08:11 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMIJim View Post
Build one and find out. Like I said: If you're close enough to the transmitters it'll work fine. If you're not: It won't.
And there's the answer. "Close enough" to one transmitter might not be close enough to another. In any event, one dime-sized antenna isn't going to work by itself in a practical location for Aereo's head-end in each and every market.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #585 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 09:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
And there's the answer. "Close enough" to one transmitter might not be close enough to another.
Not every, but it certainly would've worked in the Metro-Detroit market, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
In any event, one dime-sized antenna isn't going to work by itself in a practical location for Aereo's head-end in each and every market.
Depends on the market, doesn't it?

I wonder (not enough to bother chasing it down, tho) if the markets they were in were all similar to Detroit, where all the transmitters are w/in a few miles of one another?

Point is: A number of people are asserting "dime-size antennas can't work." Sure they can. Depending.

Jim
SEMIJim is offline  
post #586 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 10:43 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMIJim View Post
Not every, but it certainly would've worked in the Metro-Detroit market, as I'm sure you're aware.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single location where a tiny antenna got a solid lock on all of the major affiliates, here. The multipath from Town Center creates a mess in the area bordered by the transmitters. you also get reflections from downtown Detroit. Even if you were lucky enough to do so, you'd still miss the smaller players who'd probably get their panties in a wad over not being included. But yeah, it's going to be easier here than in, say Flint

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #587 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 11:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single location where a tiny antenna got a solid lock on all of the major affiliates, here.
Ohhh... I dunno. The towers are all in Oak Park and Southfield, I believe?

You could probably just about stick a paper clip in a TV's F connector anywhere in that area--say... somewhere in the vicinity of 9 Mi. Rd. and Greenfield?, and nail 'em all.

Jim
SEMIJim is offline  
post #588 of 593 Old 07-14-2014, 11:48 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Been there, tried that. Too much multipath for a GOOD antenna, let alone a paperclip.

But, as I've said, it's all moot, now.

Aereo claims they want to pay carriage fees. Not sure they'll be happy with the rate. Television signals carried over cable do count in Nielsen ratings which are used to calculate advertising rates. Portable devices are not monitored. A local station could argue that Aereo's un-rateable watching comes off their bottom line and want exorbitant carriage fees and/or commercial skip disabling as compensation.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 07-14-2014 at 12:07 PM.
DrDon is offline  
post #589 of 593 Old 07-15-2014, 04:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
But, as I've said, it's all moot, now.

Aereo claims they want to pay carriage fees. Not sure they'll be happy with the rate.
Yeah, I'm not sure what their game is. At $8/mo. their product was, at least for us, marginally justifiable. Much more than that and we would have dumped them.

We mainly had it for when weather made the channels we most watched unusable, and for limited DVRing. But, coincident with Aereo's demise I discovered Mohu's Leaf and Winegard's FlatWave Amped antennas. The latter actually works better than the rooftop antenna--to the point that, even in stormy weather: Even the worst channel is still watchable. Added a Channelmaster DVR+ and, providing that works out well, we're set.

Aereo never got their Android app working on ICS, so we could never use it on our phones, and we had little need for it on our tablets, so we're missing nothing there. If I ever want that functionality in the future, I guess I could look into a Slingbox or MythTV.

Even the Roku 3 we purchased for use with Aereo turned out not to be a complete waste. Turns out PBS is doing the kind of thing the commercial broadcasters could be doing, so we can still use it for that.

I still think the six Justices got it wrong. I think mainly what they accomplished is to help the broadcasters and subscription TV companies cling to their outmoded models for the foreseeable future. That kind of bury-your-head tactic worked for neither the railroads nor the newspaper industry, but it is what it is.

Jim
SEMIJim is offline  
post #590 of 593 Old 07-15-2014, 05:34 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
Well, it's a moot point now. Bought the GF a lifetime Tivo off eBay and put up an old Eagle Aspen dual bay bowtie I had sitting int he garage. She's happy as can be. More channels than Aereo and a much better picture.
SEMIJim and SMHarman like this.
dervari is offline  
post #591 of 593 Old 07-17-2014, 11:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 35,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 178
[MOD NOTE: Post copied from HOTP thread. Thanks dad1153]

Business/Legal Notes
Aereo Not Considered a Cable System by U.S. Copyright Office
By Greg Gilman, TheWrap.com - Jul. 17, 2014

The United States Copyright Office does not consider Aereo a cable system under the terms of copyright law.

US copyright officials told the company, which was seeking a license to operate like a cable system after a recent Supreme Court defeat, through a letter delivered on Wednesday.

“In the view of the Copyright Office, internet retransmissions of broadcast television fall outside the scope of the Section 111 license,” the letter reads. ”We do not see anything in the Supreme Court's recent decision … that would alter this conclusion.”

The Copyright Office will not immediately refuse Aereo's filings, however. Since the company's case has been raised in court, the office will instead accept them on a provisional basis.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that Aereo violated the broadcast networks’ copyrights, so the antenna service argued to a U.S. District Court in New York earlier this month that it's “entitled to the benefits of the copyright statutory license pursuant to the Copyright Act.”

Aereo operations have been on “pause” since 6 out of 9 Supreme Court justices ruled the service that gives users access to broadcast television without paying for cable infringes upon broadcaster's exclusive right to'perform the copyright work publicly.

While founder and CEO Chet Kanojia has said the company's “work is not done,” investor Barry Diller has said otherwise.

“We did try, but it's over now,” Diller said in June.

http://www.thewrap.com/aereo-not-con...yright-office/

Last edited by DrDon; 07-17-2014 at 11:21 AM.
dad1153 is offline  
post #592 of 593 Old 07-17-2014, 12:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Six Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court judge Aereo's operations essentially indistinguishable from those of a cable company, so Aereo quite reasonably (in my opinion) decides to see if it can make a go of it as a cable company. Now a different branch of the U.S. Government is saying "No, no. You're not a cable company?"

Uhhhm...

Jim
SEMIJim is offline  
post #593 of 593 Old 07-17-2014, 12:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMIJim View Post
Six Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court judge Aereo's operations essentially indistinguishable from those of a cable company, so Aereo quite reasonably (in my opinion) decides to see if it can make a go of it as a cable company. Now a different branch of the U.S. Government is saying "No, no. You're not a cable company?"

Uhhhm...

Jim
Well, technically, the Supreme Court ruled they were "indistinguishable" from one, not that they were one. Perhaps what they meant was that Aereo was acting as an MSO, not specifically a "cable" company. Technically, D* and E* are also MSO's, but they don't qualify as cable companies. This is despite the fact that most of the channels carried on them are called cable channels, regardless of provider type.

My opinion is, the justices were using the term "cable company" as a generic term, like some people use brands like Q-Tip, Kleenex, Vaseline, Tivo or Google to describe a type of product, rather than the specific brand.

On the other hand, with several "cable" companies using IP-based technology to supply channels, even the cable company is no longer a cable company. The result is, the copyright office may be thinking to literally.

Last edited by NetworkTV; 07-17-2014 at 12:32 PM.
NetworkTV is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

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