or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 5

post #121 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Charter is ending basic cable. Basic cable is analog, BTW, they are ending all analog service.

Ya, I thought there was an FCC rule requiring basic cable, along with the C-SPAN channels. I guess not, or at least that's what two charter reps told me.
Here's a hint: when you refer to a cable employee as a "rep", it isn't short for "reputable". Don't base what they don't want to sell you as fact.
post #122 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

There always has to be a basic cable. It is required by FCC rules. That is basically locals + PBS + local access. If they go digital you'll need a set top box and that may cost another $5/mo or something.
As far as I know, if the cable company has elminated analog service and now requires a digital tuner, they have to provide at least one at no charge - at least for now.
post #123 of 474
Well, I suppose the two salespeople could have been lying, that's in their job description.

But I also had a recent service call from a "cable guy" who turned out to be very knowlegable and direct. He set me straight on many technical issues, for instance QAM encrypting - HTPC's are going to continue to work. He confirmed that Basic cable is only available on analog, and that it will soon be cutoff in my market.

I just called Charter again, and for a 4th time it was confirmed that there are no low cost digital packages. FCC evidently treats digital differently. The analog signal is still there in some regions, including mine, but the end is nigh.

I expect the other services will follow the same trend.

I've had a 15-year relationship with Charter. There were many good times, some rocky patches. Looking back, maybe we were happiest when we shared that $10/month starter service. Sure, I now enjoy my DVR and hundred digital channels, but the thrill is gone. Maybe it's my fault - I've stopped growing, and charter has moved on.

Well, Aereo is my new main squeeze, and I think we suit each other just perfectly. And to hell with anyone who condemns our forbidden love!
post #124 of 474
This whole aereo deal is annoying to me, but fascinating.

Tivo and Aereo seem to have a business model that allows them to sell other people's guide data and other people's TV broadcasts.
It's marketing&sales genius, to be sure. Yes, I'm jealous that I didn't think of it first.
So while I have your attention, hear ye, hear ye:
For a mere $4/month, I will rent you an Official Air Breathing License to breathe the air that is already available for you to breathe.
And if you send before midnight tonight, I'll throw in an entire CO2 credit .

Another reason Aereo is annoying is that it may result in broadcasters ceasing their OTA transmissions and selling off all their klystrons! (FOX?).
And all this evidently at the same time when I'm all set up to transition to all-OTA due to comcast's impending encryption of the local channels.
(One household member will be particularly annoyed if he can't record 'family guy' OTA any more! )
post #125 of 474
I think ending OTA is a lot of hot air, so I don't see that happening. I'm sure Family guy will be a distant memory before anything happens.
post #126 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by tveli View Post

This whole aereo deal is annoying to me, but fascinating.

Tivo and Aereo seem to have a business model that allows them to sell other people's guide data and other people's TV broadcasts.
Not a valid comparison.

TiVo is nothing more than a smarter version of the VCR. It provides nothing to the customer but the guide data which it licenses. The customer is responsible for providing a signal to it themselves, be it an antenna connection or that of an MSO. TiVo relays nothing. It only brings in what it's connected to.
post #127 of 474
sure it's a valid comparison, NetworkTV guy.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid, as you are not the arbiter of 'validity of comparison'.
Each reader can decide whether the comparison is interesting or not:

Tivo gets paid to relay already-free-to-you TV-guide-data. (A sameness)
Apparently Tivo licenses their relayed information. (A difference)

Aereo gets paid to relay the already-free-to-you OTA-TV. (A sameness)
Apparently Aereo does not license their relayed information. (A difference)

Thus we have identified one sameness and one difference between Aereo and Tivo.
post #128 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by tveli View Post

sure it's a valid comparison, NetworkTV guy.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid, as you are not the arbiter of 'validity of comparison'.
Each reader can decide whether the comparison is interesting or not:

Tivo gets paid to relay already-free-to-you TV-guide-data. (A sameness)
Apparently Tivo licenses their relayed information. (A difference)

Aereo gets paid to relay the already-free-to-you OTA-TV. (A sameness)
Apparently Aereo does not license their relayed information. (A difference)

Thus we have identified one sameness and one difference between Aereo and Tivo.
No, it's not the same thing.

TiVo pays license fees for that stuff, and they charge you for their costs, plus comiling and providing a 14 day guide interface. They aren't simply taking it and charging for it.

Further, Tivo doesn't provide any content. It's a tuner only. You still need your own antenna at your residence or a cable subscription that you pay for.

Aereo is an antenna, tuner and a web interface that they create from other content and sell to you.

It creates one major difference: having permission from the owners of said content to do so and compensating the owners of the content for their usage of it.
post #129 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by tveli View Post

sure it's a valid comparison, NetworkTV guy.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid, as you are not the arbiter of 'validity of comparison'.

Now you're bickering for bickering's sake. Even suggesting there is a comparison is absurd. One is an appliance you use to store television programs in your house much like a box stores books you bring home. The other is a service that delivers broadcast content via the internet. It would be like Amazon checking out books from the library and converting them for me to read on my Kindle. As many as I want for a couple bucks a month. Yeah, that's not happening.*

A closer comparison would be between Aereo and my HTPC. The difference? I'M doing the conversion to a form that can be transmitted over the internet to MY devices. Me. The person for whom fair use was invented. With Aereo doing the conversion and charging for it outside of the home, then it's possibly outside of the fair use provisions. It'll be for the courts to decide. If they decide in Aereo's favor, I'm going to start selling passwords to my HTPC. Couple bucks a month and you can just watch my favorite shows. I'll even edit the commercials out for you.

I know I always wondered why I had to have a DVR from the cable company. Why couldn't they just use really big servers to record everything and let me just play what I want when I want. To some extent, On Demand does that. But all with the blessing of the rights holders. If this passes muster, the cablecos will be on it fast enough to make your head spin.

I'm digressing a bit, but Aereo's biggest obstacle could be the fact that it DOESN'T pay carriage fees. If the courts allow this, there's nothing that'll stop a slew of competitors from racing in to do this same thing for less money. That includes cable and cell phone companies. Your wireless plan will include free Aereo-style services. Then why pay Aereo anything? It'd be free from AT&T, Verizon or whomever. Imagine the convenience. I get off the plane in Nashville and I can watch the NCIS episode AT&T recorded for me while I was in the air. Or watch it live via in-flight wi-fi. (for the record, I already do this with my HTPC setup and it's damn convenient).


* yes, I know pad delivery of library books is being tested, but you can bet your wife it won't happen with any book if the author/publisher says "no."
post #130 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Now you're bickering for bickering's sake. Even suggesting there is a comparison is absurd. One is an appliance you use to store television programs in your house much like a box stores books you bring home. The other is a service that delivers broadcast content via the internet. It would be like Amazon checking out books from the library and converting them for me to read on my Kindle. As many as I want for a couple bucks a month.
This is the exact comparison that I had in mind when I heard how the whole thing worked. In fact, I think I already made it on the previous page... wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

What Aereo downplays is how it gets to the customer: pre-tuned remotely, converted to another video format, compressed for the web and fed as IP data. Essentually, what they're doing is taking content and creating a new product with it. It's not the original signal - it's a duplicate in a web-based form.

It would be like signing out a library book for someone who isn't near one, then sending PDF version of it to the customer to read. The book is out of circulation and held for the customer while they read it (so only that customer can access it in that time), but it's still a copy. No one will knock down your door for doing that to your books you own and want to read on your Kindle, but someone building a business model on it needs an agreement with the publisher and potentially pay royalties (or provide the E-Book copy to the publisher for them to sell in return).
post #131 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

This is the exact comparison that I had in mind when I heard how the whole thing worked. In fact, I think I already made it on the previous page... wink.gif
HA. My bad. Moderating this behemoth eats up enough time I don't get to read as closely as I'd like.

Though, technically, I now owe you for stealing your content and reposting it without appropriate license. biggrin.gif
post #132 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

HA. My bad. Moderating this behemoth eats up enough time I don't get to read as closely as I'd like.

Though, technically, I now owe you for stealing your content and reposting it without appropriate license. biggrin.gif
I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees comparisons to other things that are clearly illegal when it comes to copyright issues.

Every other type of system that would compare is either through the copyright owner or with their permission. There's no reason why the courts should logically give this the stamp of approval aside from the broadcasters' lawyers sucking at their jobs.

I want to make it clear: I wish there was a legit system in place to do this - preferably, free or lower cost from the broadcasters to compliment their OTA product. This would be a perfect for someone with a Hulu Plus subscription: watch it live in real time with commercials, or watch it later without (or with minimal amounts). Hulu could easily detect your location and pass on the affiliates for your market.

I don't know why they haven't done it before, honestly.
post #133 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

It would be like Amazon checking out books from the library and converting them for me to read on my Kindle.

Nope, faulty comparison. A library book is easily accessible to everyone. If everyone could erect their own antenna and pickup OTA broadcasting, there would be little market for aereo's rental antenna.



The Aereo service is very unique & specific, it hardly opens the floodgates to other sorts of retransmissions.

Also, the talk of networks abandoning OTA broadcasting because of Aereo is laughable. Aereo will have a modest impact, mostly in big cities with excellent internet service and sketchy OTA broadcasts. People already getting free OTA are not going to suddenly abandon it to pay for a monthly service. More will cut the cord with cable, but how many, given our national obsession with sports?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-aereo-force-fox-become-442313
From 2012-16, the broadcast networks currently stand to make $9.2 billion in retrans fees but $91.8 billion in advertising revenue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/new-tech-aereo-repackages-networks-free-tv-article-1.1315102
In 2012, broadcast advertising revenue was $27.4 billion, divided among just nine networks, according to the financial website motleyfool.com. For the same period, cable advertising was $24.3 billion, divided among 76 networks
post #134 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

If everyone could erect their own antenna and pickup OTA broadcasting, there would be little market for aereo's rental antenna.
Ok, then perhaps the courts could find for Aereo ..but ONLY in cases where no useable signal is available (the same test used for DirecTV's distant-network service). A licensed third party would send a tech out to verify a signal cannot be received. Then and only then can a person subscribe to the Aereo service. I'm good with that. I'm sure broadcasters would be, too. rolleyes.gif
post #135 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees comparisons to other things that are clearly illegal when it comes to copyright issues.

If it is clearly illegal than the courts will shut Aereo down. The evidence so far is that you are wrong in this assumption, and as a minimum you ought to crop that word "clearly."
post #136 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Ok, then perhaps the courts could find for Aereo ..but ONLY in cases where no useable signal is available (the same test used for DirecTV's distant-network service). A licensed third party would send a tech out to verify a signal cannot be received. Then and only then can a person subscribe to the Aereo service. I'm good with that. I'm sure broadcasters would be, too. rolleyes.gif

I'm certainly good with such a solution.

It is true that Aereo is providing some services beyond the antenna, so my argument has some holes.

Actually, all the arguments have holes, it's a messy situation.

My take is that the Aereo deal will have small, entirely positive impacts on the industry. Aereo will be reconfigured and look differently within a couple years- perhaps they will be sharing revenues with the broadcasters. The broadcasters are already proceeding apace with Syncbak, which will further the Aereo idea with or without Aereo.
post #137 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

If it is clearly illegal than the courts will shut Aereo down. The evidence so far is that you are wrong in this assumption, and as a minimum you ought to crop that word "clearly."
You're mistaking due process via the court system for a "not guilty" verdict.

Someone can clearly be a murderer, and even confess to it, but he still gets his day in court. The outcome is likely in that example, but we go through the process because it's the law.

Aereo is entitled to have their case heard, regardless of what the outcome is. All they've gotten so far is a ruling against having to shut down during the process, which is more common than it used to be. Judges are far less likely than in the past to force a business to shut tdown and possibly fail until the case is heard - just in case the Plaintiffs fails to make their case.

The problem is, all these things have gotten very technical, and the judges are all old stiffs who need it explained to them in clear language - hence they go to court over it rather than simply handling it through a simple cease and desist order.

Ultimately, all Aereo has really done is muddied the waters with their antenna scam, which has nothing to do with the legality of their service. An antenna is not a tuner, nor is a distribution mechanism. It's a collector that can be routed to as many individuals as want to watch a program as needed. That's why shared antennas are legal: each person using it can tune to a unigue program. The antenna array Aereo uses is a distraction from what they are really doing: re-encoding the video and retransmitting the signal over IP, thus changing the format and creating a closed circuit video service, like a cable company. The difference? They didn't get permission.
post #138 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The antenna array Aereo uses is a distraction from what they are really doing: re-encoding the video and retransmitting the signal over IP, thus changing the format and creating a closed circuit video service, like a cable company. The difference? They didn't get permission.

You got that backwards: the encoding and transmission over the internet is a distraction from what Aereo is really providing, an antenna. biggrin.gif

Don't get me wrong, you may be proven correct on the legalities in the end. For what it's worth, one of your fellow Aereo haters points out that similar schemes have been ruled out of bounds in Japan & Australia.
http://www.managingip.com/Blog/3195457/Why-Aereo-encourages-the-wrong-kind-of-innovation.html

In contrast to that sour pus, I think Aereo is spawning very positive innovation, for instance it likely spurred CBS to put some eggs in Syncbak basket.

I see the broadcasters and networks being able to hang-on to their existing cash cows for a very long time, I shed no tears for them. The consumer is getting a modest breath of fresh air with new internet options.
post #139 of 474
It would seem to me that Aero is also supplying a tuner and a tuner is a patented and licensed device. While a signal in the air is free to use, once it leaves a licensed device, it is encumbered with whatever restrictions those licenses, patents, and possibly copyrights have added. At least that is the way I always thought about it.

I don't know about OTA tuners but I do know that Cablecard QAM tuners have some pretty severe restrictions on their video output signal.
post #140 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

...for instance it likely spurred CBS to put some eggs in Syncbak basket.
I think that's a mistake, too.

We don't need them to start another damned service up for people to have to have a box or an account with. We need them to make better use of what's already there and who they already have deals with, namely the likes of Hulu, Amazon and Netflix - 3 players that could do this locally as part of their service plans (or as a modest add on priced well below Aereo). All three have robust servers and have (or soon will) business centers nationwide.

Even Amazon likely will have a presences in every state soon enough since it's likely sales tax is coming to internet purchases, regardless of whether they build in a state or not - so, they'll likely expand to offer something the local store still can't compete with: price and selection the stores can't have coupled with same day delivery - likely order by noon, and have it by 5PM.

The industry needs to stop trying to keep it all in house and start cooperating with their existing partners who are the future of their reach to audiences. Otherwise, they're just going to keep getting pecked at with attempts to bypass the system, legally or not.

So, it shouldn't be spurring CBS to invest in Syncbak. It should be spurring them to start looking at partners they already have (and people already subscribe to) to take them beyond those big metal sticks on hillsides.
Edited by NetworkTV - 4/24/13 at 6:54pm
post #141 of 474
I find all the various comparisons and discussion here interesting.
Nobody's opinion/viewpoint/comparison seems "invalid" to me... so far...

Also, those little aereo antennas are neat !

Let's network all the slingbox/HTPC/WMC people together into a big rental-combine.
When they aren't using their personal-streams, let's arrange to rent out each stream for $0.75 per day (gotta undercut Aereo's price.)
post #142 of 474
The Time-Warner CEO is pooh-poohing the impact of Aereo. I think he is closer to the truth than those who are portraying Aereo as some huge threat to broadcaster profits.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/time-warner-ceo-aereo-netflix-446458

Asked about Barry Diller-supported digital broadcast TV provider Aereo, which has been locked in a legal battle with broadcasters, Bewkes shared his thoughts, even though Time Warner focuses on cable networks. "Nobody's going to buy it. I don't think they have much of a proposition. If law allows it, which I don't think they will, they will offer three to four free-to-air channels. They are free already. All they are doing is charging people $8 per month to get them on-demand." Also, broadcast networks' share of total TV viewership has declined over the years, he also highlighted.
post #143 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

The Time-Warner CEO is pooh-poohing the impact of Aereo.

 

To a large degree it's not the service they are selling rather the means used to deliver said service that matter. If they are found to be legal it could open a really big can of worms.

post #144 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

If they are found to be legal it could open a really big can of worms.
I haven't heard a single example of impending piracy that holds up to scrutiny. This is no slippery slope, it is difficulty to find any analogy to an antenna rental. What specifically might be enabled as a direct result of this precedent?
post #145 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

I haven't heard a single example of impending piracy that holds up to scrutiny. This is no slippery slope.
Who said anything about piracy?

The can of worms is that cable companies may take this as a cue to transfer the OTA signals they receive and send them over IP (instead of the standard cable methods) like Aereo does to avoid paying retrans fees or getting permission to do it.

They could suddenly make the case that all they're doing is "providing an antenna".

The be all and end all to this is not whether the local channels charge for their product or not: they own the broadcast and the studios own the content. Fair use doesn't come into play until it reaches the individual viewer.

Look at it this way: there's a thing called "creative commons" licensing. That license is for content provided freely that can be distributed freely. The condition? You can't sell it and you can't alter it and you must provide attribution to the source. That's for stuff that is normally free and often not profitable. If they have the provision of not selling or altering it, what makes Aereo think content from a for profit company can just be repurposed without permission or payment.
Edited by NetworkTV - 4/25/13 at 11:10am
post #146 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The can of worms is that cable companies may take this as a cue to transfer the OTA signals they receive and send them over IP (instead of the standard cable methods) like Aereo does to avoid paying retrans fees or getting permission to do it.

Sure, sounds good to me, sounds great for consumers who will have new internet options, and it really is not so tragic for the broadcasters. Disruption can be a good thing. Just because broadcasters had a sweet deal with retrans fees in the past doesn't mean they can't adapt to changing markets. Since when did a healthy business climate guarantee endless cash cows?

Nielson is going to start counting web-based TV viewership in their ratings, Aereo & others have just made broadcasters' advertising more valuable:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/tvs-connected-to-the-internet-to-be-counted-by-nielsen/

As I previously documented, advertising revenues are currently something like ten times that of retrans revenues.

And here's an excellent analogy for you to chew on:
Back in the pre-cable days, many rural communities used a “broadcast translator” to grab an over-the-air signal from a high tower and then rebroadcast the signal on another frequency at a strength where it could be picked up on local residents’ televisions. Nobody sued the translator co-ops. Isn’t Aereo doing basically the same thing as the old translator services, just updated for the 21st century?
http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/04/25/18398-exclusive-interview-aereo-tv
Edited by Richard Burger - 4/25/13 at 11:50am
post #147 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Sure, sounds good to me, sounds great for consumers who will have new internet options, and it really is not so tragic for the broadcasters. Disruption can be a good thing. Just because broadcasters had a sweet deal with retrans fees in the past doesn't mean they can't adapt to changing markets. Since when did a healthy business climate guarantee endless cash cows?
A healthy business environment means getting compensated for your product and others following copyright law and not using without your permission. If anyone can ignore that just because they don't like the system, there will be no investment anywhere there is risk of not seeing a return on investment. That affects everything, not just TV.

Without return on investment, there is no business. Without business, there's no product. This stuff doesn't get made for free.
Quote:
Nielson is going to start counting web-based TV viewership in their ratings, Aereo & others have just made broadcasters' advertising more valuable:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/tvs-connected-to-the-internet-to-be-counted-by-nielsen/

As I previously documented, advertising revenues are currently something like ten times that of retrans revenues.
In some markets - and not for long. Retrans money is quickly becoming greater than ad revenue, which is not just fixed, but declining per minute. There are only so many more ads they can cram in, and each one brings in less monetary value.

One only has to look at cable to see that retrans money is the future.

Aereo is less valuable to the broadcaster if the viewer has dropped a cable subscription (which pays the broadcaster) in favor of Aereo, which pays the broadcaster nothing. This isn't the same as people dumping cable for OTA - it's dumping cable in favor of someone selling the product and not passing any of that along to the copyright owner.
Quote:
And here's an excellent analogy for you to chew on:
Back in the pre-cable days, many rural communities used a “broadcast translator” to grab an over-the-air signal from a high tower and then rebroadcast the signal on another frequency at a strength where it could be picked up on local residents’ televisions. Nobody sued the translator co-ops. Isn’t Aereo doing basically the same thing as the old translator services, just updated for the 21st century?
http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/04/25/18398-exclusive-interview-aereo-tv
Yes, please cite an article that smacks of a press release for proof.

BTW: those early companies had a license to do what they did - and permission - so, no, it's not the same thing at all.
Edited by NetworkTV - 4/25/13 at 9:53pm
post #148 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

A healthy business environment means getting compensated for your product and others following copyright law and not using without your permission.
Right, and so far the courts has said that Aereo has not crossed that line. The broadcasts are FREE, and Aereo is providing an antenna service. This round of court cases was not definitive, but they concluded that Aereo was likely to win in the future, therefore no injunctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV 
Without return on investment, there is no business. Without business, there's no product.
You are speechifying out of context. The broadcasters are getting plenty of return on their investment, and Aereo just pushes them down a path (internet offerings) that are inevitable anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

One only has to look at cable to see that retrans money is the future.
retrans is the past. Continued advertising and subscription services on the internet are the future.

The whole idea of local broadcasters collecting retrans fees is a goofy anomaly of government policy gone awry.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/25/how-government-regulations-distort-the-t

The broadcasters will have to change with the times, and they will do just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV 
Yes, please cite an article that smacks of a press release for proof.
?? I did not cite that interview as proof of anything, I just cited the article to credit the interviewer with offering such an insightful parallel example. You have no answer to the comparison, other than to invent red herrings. Aereo has legal standing to do what they are doing, they don't need a license. And in neither case is permission required - both are enabling the reception of signals for people who are legally entitled to receive them.
Edited by Richard Burger - 4/26/13 at 7:49pm
post #149 of 474
Interesting discussion. I think one item many people are missing is the fact that the younger generation has pretty much cut the cord and will NEVER be cable or SAT let alone OTA customers in large numbers. They want their content where they are and are not going to be tied to a display in their home for hours on end waiting and watching it..

I used to be loyal to a set of broadcasters in years gone by, but no more. I feel much more akin to that younger generation in that I want things when I want them, and the DVR does that for me. I, like many out there, has more content on my DVR than I will ever watch. Occasionally I'll go in and dump 20-30 episodes of a show i thought I'd watch, but never had - if after a year of two I have not watched it it obviously was not that compelling for me. One area we part company on is I want my content on a big screen with full surround sound. A 4" phone or a 10" tablet is just got going to cut it for me.

I will gladly take my content streamed to me much like Netflix does. I would have no issue paying the networks I watch $8.95/mo for major Networks, $1.95 or $2.95 for smaller ones, as I do to Netflix. It would still be cheaper than what I'm paying now for SAT service. At this point I have zero loyalty to any local stations, they are simply a provider of content. The things that kept me loyal are long gone, newscasters and such are just pawns, they are here then they are gone. There is no hard hitting new investigations, it's all fluff pieces and god forbid they do an expose' and hurt some local or national company. And don't get me started on the ineptitude of many stations. I one of my markets in this day and age they can't even get the signal right. Dolby audio is screwed up, I've seen the sub channel flipped with the main channel for weeks, and a number of outlets have no capability of broadcast syndicated content in HD. Am I going to watch those stations? No. I have other options.
post #150 of 474
After reading an article with photos of the Aereo facility, I think I've figured out how they do it.

I suspect that they are using the same standard antenna system that Cable TV, satellite, and MATV systems have always used.
They probably filter and amplify the signals, just like before. They then up-convert the signals to a microwave frequency, and feed that signal in to a small transmit antenna, inside of a large metal box in their "server farm". That box probably contains (actually, we've all seen the photos) the PC boards full of tiny antennas that receive the microwave band signals from the transmit antenna in that same box.
Each of those antenna is probably feeding a unit that is similar to a "Slingbox", but whose input is at a microwave frequency. Using microwave frequencies allows them to use standard, low-priced circuits, like are made for cell-phone manufacturing, rather than larger RF devices made for VHF and UHF.

So, if I've guessed right, their "individual antennas" thing is just like a Cable TV system in ways, pulling in a VHF or UHF channel, and re-processing it to a different band (microwave, in this case).
They then "distribute" the signal within the confines of the antenna "farm" box, where the antennas carry the signal to the individual digital tuners....much like Cable or satellite carries the frequency-shifted TV channels "within the confines" of their Cable lines or satellite links. Their "individual receivers" are not much different than the satellite or Cable TV STB's in your home, except they sit within the Aereo facility, and they connect via the public internet, rather than your home network.

It sounds like they are just running a "Slingbox Hotel", but feeding your (rented) "Slingbox"-like device with the output of their "cable" company.
Since they are charging fees, they sound like there's a "Cable Company" in there someplace....like an equipment rack.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread