Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 20 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 14Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 580 Old 07-07-2014, 05:29 AM
Senior Member
 
dervari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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 580 Old 07-07-2014, 08:05 AM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 21
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 580 Old 07-09-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
space2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 21
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 580 Old 07-09-2014, 12:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,506
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 218
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 online now  
post #575 of 580 Old 07-09-2014, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 346
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 580 Old 07-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 21
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 580 Old 07-09-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zaphod7501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria Illinois
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 26
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 online now  
post #578 of 580 Old 07-09-2014, 05:17 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,506
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 218
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 online now  
post #579 of 580 Old 07-10-2014, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AvidHiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 34
AvidHiker is offline  
post #580 of 580 Old 07-11-2014, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 151
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  
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