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

Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 8

post #211 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Do they supply this unit? Do they send out a truck to help a user configure it? No. Easy or not, it still proves my point. Most people are not gonna run to Best Buy to buy a box they install themselves. I visit a lot of homes as part of my job. I see flatscreens hooked either directly into the wall or to a digital converter (non HD) that was all installed by the cable guy.

OK. I see using something like using a Roku box, or a Blu-ray player, to stream TV as now a pretty generic skill.

Maybe you are right that older people, you know folks over 30, have trouble connecting a component to their TV. But seriously, isn't this a dwindling segment of the population? I spend a lot of time helping 60-somethings and 70-somethings with their technology, since my own circle of friends is getting up there, so I know plenty of people struggle. But by now, doesn't everybody have a friend who can help them with their cell phone or fancy food processor?
post #212 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post

That judge, Circuit Judge Chin, was the dissenter in the most recent decision and had some rather pointed comments in his dissent including the following zingers:

"Aereo's "technology platform" is, however, a sham..."

"indeed, the system is a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, over-engineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law."

Even though that judge is on the other side of the argument , I do like the cut of his jib, and have quoted him myself..
The point I was making is that the majority was in fact ruling on the merits of Aereo's case, they predicted Aereo was likely to prevail in the future, therefore they issued no injunction in New York.

I agree, the legal case is still up in the air. I am reacting against absolute statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post

Also, you may note that Aereo has declined to expand into California and nearby since that district court already shut down an Aereo-like competitor on the first go-round. Since their are conflicting rulings, this one has a potential to reach the Supremes, should the entire 2nd Circuit uphold the earlier decisions.

The name of that other company is "Aereokiller", which creeps me out. I always wondered if it was a stalking horse for the networks, they wanted to go down in flames and take Aereo with them.
post #213 of 474
I was hoping to find a lot of talk about the actual service but after skimming over the majority of this thread I was disappointed, lol. I signed up for the service in Atlanta because I can't pick up all the major stations from where I'm located. The ones I do get have a kinda weak signal and I get dropouts quite frequently. The picture quality was quite good when I checked it out last night. Has anyone with the service been able to get a Windows Media Center remote to work with Aereo? Specifically the one in the link below? The remote works great with Netflix, Hulu, Plex, etc through my HTPC but I couldn't get it to work with Aereo. I was using FireFox as the browser and thought it may work if I used IE instead, since it's a Microsoft product. Just a guess though and probably completely wrong.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823166095&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Universal+Remotes-_-N82E16823166095&gclid=COjh7OScqLgCFU_ZQgodX3sAcw
post #214 of 474
Here is a pretty good take on Aereo's technology, which includes some of the previous quotes.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/mcadams-on/0117/mcadams-on-aereos-unlikely-proposition/220104

It sounds like the Broadcasters botched their presentation.
post #215 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

OK. I see using something like using a Roku box, or a Blu-ray player, to stream TV as now a pretty generic skill.

Maybe you are right that older people, you know folks over 30, have trouble connecting a component to their TV. But seriously, isn't this a dwindling segment of the population? I spend a lot of time helping 60-somethings and 70-somethings with their technology, since my own circle of friends is getting up there, so I know plenty of people struggle. But by now, doesn't everybody have a friend who can help them with their cell phone or fancy food processor?
People over 30 a "dwindling segment of the population?" Uhm.. no. Second, it's the bread-and-butter of the television networks. Point being, the people most likely to watch network television are the people least likely to be bothered with connecting a computer to the television or shopping for a set top box. And if they're cord-cutting to save money, they have a DVD player, not a BD.

Again, point being, the POTENTIAL customer base for Aereo isn't terribly large. That's all I'm saying. Fewer than half of the television users in any given town watch OTA. The number who don't have cable but DO have high-speed internet is a fraction of that. Of those, the number who have a desire to watch broadcast network programming (outside of sports) is even smaller. It's just not a lot of people. And if you do a little econ 101 math on that, then you quickly realize that Aereo only has the potential to be profitable in very large cities. The maximum customer base in any medium market won't be large enough to sustain the operating costs of doing business, there.
post #216 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

People over 30 a "dwindling segment of the population?" Uhm.. no.
I was only joking, I think the real cutoff age of people commonly uncomfortable with computers and technology is about 60. (My own perception of what constitutes "older" has crept up to about 85.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Again, point being, the POTENTIAL customer base for Aereo isn't terribly large.
For 2013 that is true. But the potential looking down the road a few years is huge. Streaming TV is going to be as ubiquitous as surfing the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

It's just not a lot of people. And if you do a little econ 101 math on that, then you quickly realize that Aereo only has the potential to be profitable in very large cities. The maximum customer base in any medium market won't be large enough to sustain the operating costs of doing business, there.
Maybe, I don't know. I live in a medium market, and Aereo says they are coming here. Also, they seem to be able to define absurdly large regions as being part of OTA eligibility for a metro center. The Atlanta coverage area includes counties in four states.
https://aereo.com/coverage/atl

Actually, looking again, it's three states.
post #217 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

Also, they seem to be able to define absurdly large regions as being part of OTA eligibility for a metro center. The Atlanta coverage area includes counties in four states.
https://aereo.com/coverage/atl

Actually, looking again, it's three states.

Looks like the Atlanta DMA to me. Nothing absurdly large or unusual about it.

Those are the same counties where satellite subs get their locals from Atlanta, as opposed to Chattanooga, Macon, Columbus, etc.
post #218 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Looks like the Atlanta DMA to me. Nothing absurdly large or unusual about it.

Those are the same counties where satellite subs get their locals from Atlanta, as opposed to Chattanooga, Macon, Columbus, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that there was any funny business going on here. But I for one was surprised to see that people living in North Carolina are part of the Atlanta coverage area. The larger point was that even if Aereo initially only sets up in larger markets, they're still going to reach a lot of TV sets.
post #219 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

Streaming TV is going to be as ubiquitous as surfing the internet..
You're right. But we're not talking about streaming TV down the road. We're talking about streaming network affiliates NOW. HUGE difference. That's what my calculations are based on. And that's how businesses operate. Not on what might be down the road, but what'll make a profit NOW. Don't get me wrong. For me, streaming live or recorded network programming is a must-have. And I built my own system that does that. I don't think Aereo will win the suits, but I do think we will get streaming network content, somehow..
post #220 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

I don't think Aereo will win the suits, but I do think we will get streaming network content, somehow..
I fully agree.

While, in the end, I don't think Aereo will prevail, the one thing that will come out of this is the networks will put together some form of streaming product just to insure no one else can pull something like this again. It will be much the same way the music industry got scared into offering downloadable MP3s for sale as a result of music piracy.

Unfortunately, it's likely Aereo will have to die as a result, much the way Napster took one for the team even when they wanted to go straight. Someone had to be punished, and this time it will be Aereo.

Otherwise, you'd have a ton of startups doing illegal things, hoping to make a deal and go legit. Aereo will be streaming TV's example for others.
post #221 of 474
Getting streaming network content is not the issue, obviously the networks will be there. I think CBS bought part of Syncbak, it's full speed ahead.

The question is whether the vertical monopolies are going to be weakened, i.e., are we going to have to continue to subscribe to an $80 per month cable/satellite packages in order to have a rich set of streaming options?

Honestly, I think the vertical monopolies and their exclusivity deals for high demand content will mostly hold, one way or another. Streaming (without an account from cable/satelite) will continue to be kinda sucky for years to come. But Aereo does interject some fresh air and options for consumers.

For a lot of people, the convenience and quality of cable/satellite bundles is well worth it, and will continue to be a good deal for years to come. a la carte might actually be more expensive for some people's interests. I cheer Aereo because it opens the window a crack for other ways to go.
Edited by Huck Finn - - 7/13/13 at 12:31pm
post #222 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

...are we going to have to continue to subscribe to an $80 per month cable/satellite packages in order to have a rich set of streaming options.
A rich set? Yes.

A basic set that gives you the broadcast networks and some content from individual shows and networks, no.

It's simply not realistic to believe it will all be put out there day and date for $8 a month, which is the going rate for most streaming services now.
post #223 of 474
I think it's a given the more fragmented the delivery process becomes the more expensive it will become. Sure a few would save a few bucks (those that watch virtually nothing) but most everyone else will be paying the same or more and getting far less. Bottom line the delivery method (cost) has very little to do with the associated cost relative to creating the content and subscriber fees. The current system optimizes what's available and as changes come about the individual pieces won't equal the whole as it stands now. Hence less and more expensive... at least that's the way I see it.
post #224 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

I think it's a given the more fragmented the delivery process becomes the more expensive it will become. Sure a few would save a few bucks (those that watch virtually nothing) but most everyone else will be paying the same or more and getting far less. Bottom line the delivery method (cost) has very little to do with the associated cost relative to creating the content and subscriber fees. The current system optimizes what's available and as changes come about the individual pieces won't equal the whole as it stands now. Hence less and more expensive... at least that's the way I see it.
I don't think it's any big secret that the price we pay for delivery is what pays for all the content we now get from sources we never got it from before. It spreads those costs among all those who subscribe to content. The only way it would work to have only those that want it pay for it is for it to become more expensive than anyone wants to pay for it.

We'd be going back to the days of the custom, hand crafted car. Instead, what we have now is a system where the cars are cheaper overall because the more profitable ones (big luxury vehicles) subsidize the less profitable ones (cheap, compact, fuel efficient ones).

So, car makers will do whatever they can to encourage people to step up to one of those more profitable vehicles by giving them more exclusive features and luxury in order to finance vehicles sold cheaply to the masses.
post #225 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

I think it's a given the more fragmented the delivery process becomes the more expensive it will become. Sure a few would save a few bucks (those that watch virtually nothing) but most everyone else will be paying

You are presenting a false choice between bundled packages and ala carte. We can still have large content bundlers on the internet. Aereo will be joining comcast and others. Hopefully, increased competition will result in consumers being offered more bundling options.
post #226 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

A rich set? Yes.

A basic set that gives you the broadcast networks and some content from individual shows and networks, no.

It's simply not realistic to believe it will all be put out there day and date for $8 a month, which is the going rate for most streaming services now.

Not expecting to get everything for cheap.

Hopefully, someday it will be possible to stream TCM for $8 per month. Or stream NFL games for $20 per month.

The ability of the vertical monopolies to lock-up content is not good for consumers.
post #227 of 474
Aereo has scored another victory. This was just posted.

Aereo has scored a third significant legal win with the news that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York won't be reviewing its previous ruling from last April that declared Aereo's streaming TV service did not violate copyright law. Broadcasters appealed the ruling in their attempt to have Aereo shut down, but he court has made it clear they're tired of talking about the matter.
post #228 of 474
The judge panel voted 10-2 in favor of Aereo, so they obviously have a strong case.

But I wonder if Aereo can survive the onslaught of legal challenges. This is a David versus 100 Goliaths story. It must be costing Aereo millions in legal fees to keep fighting challenges in every new market; plus they have to fight the Aereokiller aspect.

Perhaps I will start a legal defense fund in this forum to support Aereo. NetworkTV, can you start this off with a small donation?
post #229 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredengineer View Post

Aereo has scored another victory. This was just posted.

Aereo has scored a third significant legal win with the news that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York won't be reviewing its previous ruling from last April that declared Aereo's streaming TV service did not violate copyright law. Broadcasters appealed the ruling in their attempt to have Aereo shut down, but he court has made it clear they're tired of talking about the matter.
You're confusing the merits of the case with the lack of desire to shut Aereo down until they've had their day in court.

This is merely a case where the judges want to hear all the evidence and understand it in what (for them) would be very confusing to understand how it all works. Aereo is declaring good faith, unlike, say, a file sharing service that is known for violating copyright that would definitely be shut down during legal proceedings.

They aren't going to shut them down in the meantime because they don't understand the case enough without hearing it fully. Shutting them down (should they be found to be legal) would be a judgement against them before the case is heard as it would kill their business. In technical cases like this, injunctions are few and far between these days.

Aereo hasn't "won" anything.

They've essentially been given the equivalent of bail by being able to continue to do business instead of being locked down.
post #230 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

You're confusing the merits of the case with the lack of desire to shut Aereo down until they've had their day in court.
You are sticking your head in the sand. The judge panel did, once again, examine a lot of evidence and determine that Aereo is likely to prevail in the future. Most definitely a ruling on the merits of the case.
post #231 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

You are sticking your head in the sand. The judge panel did, once again, examine a lot of evidence and determine that Aereo is likely to prevail in the future. Most definitely a ruling on the merits of the case.
If my head is in the sand, yours is certainly in the clouds.

You've completely misunderstood how the court process works.
post #232 of 474
http://broadcastengineering.com/company-news/aereo-case-headed-us-supreme-court-after-broadcasters-lose-another-appeal

The case that the broadcasters just lost was in a U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The only level left is the Supreme Court. The argument that the case has not had a "full day in court" is baloney. Does anybody think our Supreme Court hears cases that have not already been fully explored in lower courts?
Edited by Huck Finn - - 7/18/13 at 3:32pm
post #233 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

You've completely misunderstood how the court process works.

I know that the Supreme Court is not the first place where the full case, the detailed arguments are presented.
post #234 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

http://broadcastengineering.com/company-news/aereo-case-headed-us-supreme-court-after-broadcasters-lose-another-appeal

The case that the broadcasters just lost was in a U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The only level left is the Supreme Court. The argument that the case has not had a "full day in court" is baloney. Does anybody think our Supreme Court hears cases that have not already been fully explored in lower courts?
Again, and the article clearly mentions this, the decision is only on the injunction - not the overall case itself. It only means that Aereo can't be stopped from doing business during the proceedings. That's actually common these days.

The reason it may go to the Supreme Court is that an "En Banc" proceeding can only be appealed to the Supreme Court. This is because one panel of judges is legally not allowed to overrule another. That's the way the law works.
post #235 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The reason it may go to the Supreme Court is that an "En Banc" proceeding can only be appealed to the Supreme Court. This is because one panel of judges is legally not allowed to overrule another. That's the way the law works.

Well, OK. I'm not buying that either the first or second set of judge panels only considered a superficial, cursory examination of the evidence, as you suggest.

If that were the case, why did two of the judges decide to shut-down Aereo without granting them a full opportunity to make their case? The dissenting judge that is often quoted gave a very detailed explanation for his decision, obviously he has closely and thoroughly considered the evidence.

Yes, FOX is insisting that the Supreme Court will rule on the "full merits of the case." I believe this is spin. That's not to say that the Supreme Court won't decide with the broadcasters, that could very well happen.

BTW, in what year do you suppose the Supreme Court would take-up this case, if they do accept it?
post #236 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

Well, OK. I'm not buying that either the first or second set of judge panels only considered a superficial, cursory examination of the evidence, as you suggest.

If that were the case, why did two of the judges decide to shut-down Aereo without granting them a full opportunity to make their case? The dissenting judge that is often quoted gave a very detailed explanation for his decision, obviously he has closely and thoroughly considered the evidence.

Yes, FOX is insisting that the Supreme Court will rule on the "full merits of the case." I believe this is spin. That's not to say that the Supreme Court won't decide with the broadcasters, that could very well happen.

BTW, in what year do you suppose the Supreme Court would take-up this case, if they do accept it?
What you've described is exactly how the court system works.

There is always evidence presented from both sides to allow the judge(s) to decide if the case should go forward. In the case of criminal prosecution, it's called a hearing. Often at the same time, bail is decided. Then it's a huge waiting game while both sides prepare their cases, including any evidence, witnesses and experts.

In this case, that would be the point where Aereo would likely have to reveal the inner workings of their system to prove it works the way it does. If the broadcaster's lawyers are any good at all, they won't allow Aereo to keep that material out due to work product, since that's one of the fundamentals of their defense.
post #237 of 474
This is all "first inning" play. The only thing that's been decided is that the broadcasters won't get their requested preliminary injunction to shut down Aereo. The actual case is still down the line unless a settlement is reached first.

More articles:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/second-circuit-wont-hear-en-banc-aereo-appeal/220368
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/judge-says-court-got-cablevision-wrong/220397
post #238 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post

This is all "first inning" play. The only thing that's been decided is that the broadcasters won't get their requested preliminary injunction to shut down Aereo. The actual case is still down the line unless a settlement is reached first.

As far as the NY case is concerned, we are at the bottom of the ninth. The last half inning is the U.S. Supreme Court, which won't hear the case until after Aereo is operating in 20 or 30 markets. The two judge panels have ruled on the merits of Aereo's case, they diligently determined that Aereo is likely to prevail in the future. What you and the networks are saying is deceptive.
Judge Denny "Rube Goldberg" Chin again. He is only one of 12 judges on the panel, and as we see here, he has an peculiar point of view. He is an outlier.

I doubt Aereo will be be taken down by the Supreme Court based on past rulings. But honestly, I don't understand all that is going on, particularly that west coast case. I wonder if Aereo won't just be worn-down.
post #239 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck Finn - View Post

As far as the NY case is concerned, we are at the bottom of the ninth. The last half inning is the U.S. Supreme Court, which won't hear the case until after Aereo is operating in 20 or 30 markets. The two judge panels have ruled on the merits of Aereo's case, they diligently determined that Aereo is likely to prevail in the future. What you and the networks are saying is deceptive.
Judge Denny "Rube Goldberg" Chin again. He is only one of 12 judges on the panel, and as we see here, he has an peculiar point of view. He is an outlier.

I doubt Aereo will be be taken down by the Supreme Court based on past rulings. But honestly, I don't understand all that is going on, particularly that west coast case. I wonder if Aereo won't just be worn-down.
OK - one more time - and I understand your confusion because the media isn't exactly making it easy to understand:

The actual case has not been heard or ruled upon.

Only the request for an injunction has been. That is what will have to go to the Supreme Court if it is to be ruled upon again.

The actual case is still to come. In the meantime, unless the Supreme Court (assuming they take it there) overturns the denial of the injunction, Aereo can still do business pending a ruling on the legality of their service.

In short: the court case on the legality of the service is still to come. All we've gotten so far is a denial on the request to have Aereo cease doing business in the meantime.

The case itself may not be decided for another year.
post #240 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The actual case is still to come.

I really do get what you are saying, no final determination on the legality of Aereo's position has been offered.

But you've also said, incorrectly, that the legal decisions thus far do not reflect on the merits of Aereo's position. The judge panels have looked at the merits of the case to determine whether Aereo would be likely to prevail in the "actual case" as you call it. Their latest decision (by a large majority) in this matter is not chopped liver.

BTW, two out of twelve judges hoped to issue an injunction - do you suggest such a drastic action would be taken flippantly?

Look, I'm not a lawyer, I only play one in this forum. I don't really have any sense about the strength of Aereo's hand; but I do have a hunch that the Supreme Court would be very reluctant to interfere in the market given that there is a plausible way to view Aereo's activity as legal.
Edited by Huck Finn - - 7/19/13 at 7:38pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread