dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-04-22 12:28:59: Aereo and Broadcasters today finally square off before the Supreme Court, with broadcasters trying to shut down Aereo under the claims their live broadband TV service violates copyright. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Aero is a service provider

Why can't I pay someone else to set up an antenna to receive free broadcasting and then provide the pipes and plumbing for me to watch it?

truasian16

join:2003-11-10
Jersey City, NJ

aeros

first aereo through hollywood.. good luck


PostArgument

@comcast.net

Aereo is optimistic

Their lawyer didn't take questions... but he was quoted as being "cautiously optimistic"...

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

1 recommendation

I'm sorry, but I don't get this part

"the innovation of remotely providing Internet users access to content they’re entitled to have – may be in jeopardy."

How? With such services, it's a *direct* agreement between people.
With "broadcast," Aereo is taking a signal, and re-transmitting it. All this talk of "the cloud" being "in danger" just seems a little crazy.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to jjoshua

Re: Aero is a service provider

Cable does that. Sat. providers do that. They also pay retransmission fees. Granted, those fees have gone from "somewhat reasonable" to "are you kidding me?" over the years. Aereo pays nothing to the local broadcasters. They should be able to work out a deal that:
1) doesn't involve insane fees
2) is fair to all parties (broadcasters, Aereo, and their customers)
...since they obviously haven't done that, they're taking the Chewbacca defense to a whole new level


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:

and then provide the pipes and plumbing for me to watch it?

If you could setup an antenna at home and receive it, you can
or you can pay(they could do it for free, but would still have to have that "Express written permission...") for the convenience of having someone else do so
We have that, it's called cable, or satellite television.
The difference is Those companies make financial agreements for payment for the programming in order to rebroadcast it to places that don't directly receive it (even if in the same zipcode)

Your individual right to receive free OTA at your location, DOES NOT translate to Aereo having the right to reuse/retransmit that signal for commercial purpose.
Aereo owes the same fees.


Nameless

join:2014-02-25
Austin, TX

The thing that makes Aereo different

is, as I understand it, the fact that you set up the antenna somewhere on your own property and the system "broadcasts" the signal received from the antenna ONLY TO YOU. You're taking OTA TV and using an internet/wifi delivery mechanism instead of a coax cable along the baseboards to get the signal from your antenna to whatever TV's you have scattered around your house.

If this is not correct then ok, but if so then there is no "re-broadcast" happening.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to tshirt

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by tshirt:

said by jjoshua:

and then provide the pipes and plumbing for me to watch it?

If you could setup an antenna at home and receive it, you can
or you can pay(they could do it for free, but would still have to have that "Express written permission...") for the convenience of having someone else do so
We have that, it's called cable, or satellite television.
The difference is Those companies make financial agreements for payment for the programming in order to rebroadcast it to places that don't directly receive it (even if in the same zipcode)

Your individual right to receive free OTA at your location, DOES NOT translate to Aereo having the right to reuse/retransmit that signal for commercial purpose.
Aereo owes the same fees.

If the answer was so cut and dry then they would not be in the Supreme Court. The lower court already ruled in favor of Aereo.


thecybernerd
Premium
join:2007-01-05
Great Falls, VA

1 recommendation

reply to amungus
They are not like the cableco or sat providers because these companies receive a master feed from the networks where as Aereo has an individual antenna for each and every one of its subscribers that is concurrently watching the broadcasts.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
reply to Nameless

Re: The thing that makes Aereo different

That is incorrect.

Aereo has a farm of antenna on their own premise, which you as a customer lease one of, with a connection over the internet.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to aaronwt

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by aaronwt:

If the answer was so cut and dry then they would not be in the Supreme Court. The lower court already ruled in favor of Aereo.

That's true.
This is one of those times have a SCOTUS channel on CSPAN would be nice, Interesting to hear the aurguement.
It's really any questions the court poses and how they are phrased that gives a clue to their reasoning.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to thecybernerd
said by thecybernerd:

...because these companies receive a master feed from the networks

Not so for local broadcast.
While they can receive it by wire from the LOCAL station, it is "AS Broadcast" not a special version


HuskyC

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to thecybernerd
Bingo! Cable takes one feed and sends it to many (retransmission)
Aereo takes one feed and sends it to one.


Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to amungus
said by amungus:

Cable does that. Sat. providers do that. They also pay retransmission fees. Granted, those fees have gone from "somewhat reasonable" to "are you kidding me?" over the years.

Even worse. They have gone from "its free and by law you have to carry it" to "are you kidding me?" as far as the local OTA programming goes.

See Must-Carry vs Retransmission-Consent


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to tshirt
In NYC stations were feeding directly to the cable co's for years. When the WTC came down along with the antenna carrying the OTA signal for all NYC stations, cable never went out. In fact, I was running two TV"s at the time the towers were hit. One was OTA and the other was cable. When the transmitters at WTC went off that OTA TV went blank but I never lost any stations on cable. In fact, for a few days, cable was the only way to get the traditional OTA signals in NYC until they setup transmitters at the old Armstrong tower in Alpine, NJ.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Level the playing field

Either Aereo pays retransmission fees or DirecTV/Comcast/Time Warner should be able to get a free ride.

I've had enough with the insane rate hikes with pay TV. So I think the playing field should be level for everyone. Unfortunately you have judges that are my grandma's age who don't know how to operate a Verizon Wireless basic phone let alone understand modern technology such as streaming. They probably have paralegals type their documents.

I'm siding with the broadcasters but if Aereo wins then the pay TV providers should get a free ride too. Cablecos have started adding below the line fees because of retransmission costs.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
I side with Aereo because I think they are in the right here. Sure they are sliding through a legal loophole but its funny how the very mega corps going after Aereo slide through every legal loophole possible and when a small company does it they cry to government about it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
reply to jjoshua

Re: Aero is a service provider

In my case --- Why do I need Aero when I have my own antenna plugged into the back of my PC which records and archives all the shows I watch. Also, I watch all the shows on my TV's because they connect to my PC.

I don't need Aero.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Kearnstd

Re: Level the playing field

said by Kearnstd:

I side with Aereo because I think they are in the right here. Sure they are sliding through a legal loophole but its funny how the very mega corps going after Aereo slide through every legal loophole possible and when a small company does it they cry to government about it.

It's called rent seeking and the providers are old pros at this...
--
Quietzone - Protection you can trust!


Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
reply to tshirt

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by tshirt:

said by thecybernerd:

...because these companies receive a master feed from the networks

Not so for local broadcast.
While they can receive it by wire from the LOCAL station, it is "AS IS Broadcast" not a special version.

I have actually seen cable companies tweak some commercials on the same channels that can be had OTA for free. They never mess with the main content, so whatever movie, TV show, event of newscast are on they are delivered the same way to both OTA and cable customers; however, I have seen cable companies alter some content that come on during commercial breaks. Perhaps, because cable companies are paying retransmission fees, content providers let them tweak advertising content?
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill.
If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of progress is Congress.

tvoldtimer

join:2010-09-16
Overland Park, KS
reply to thecybernerd
They are using a resource without permission and making money off of it. If they wish to share the revenue, I'm sure the broadcasters would be good with that. Without the broadcaster's signal, Aereo would not have anything to sell.

tvoldtimer

join:2010-09-16
Overland Park, KS
reply to tshirt
True. No cableco or satellite co gets a direct feed from a broadcast network. They make an agreement with a network affiliate, not the network directly. Cable or other providers either put up an antenna and pull in a signal, or the TV station gives them a feed from the ASI steam that is feeding their over-the-air transmitter.


hyperbole

@google.com
reply to amungus

Re: I'm sorry, but I don't get this part

said by amungus:

"the innovation of remotely providing Internet users access to content they’re entitled to have – may be in jeopardy."

How? With such services, it's a *direct* agreement between people.
With "broadcast," Aereo is taking a signal, and re-transmitting it. All this talk of "the cloud" being "in danger" just seems a little crazy.

Aereo trying to generate support by claiming if they lose, the world will come to an end and all retransmission will end. But the truth is it will only end for those who want to retransmit for free - like Aereo.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..

2 recommendations

reply to tvoldtimer

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by tvoldtimer:

They are using a resource without permission and making money off of it. If they wish to share the revenue, I'm sure the broadcasters would be good with that. Without the broadcaster's signal, Aereo would not have anything to sell.

Neither would the broadcasters. Who were given that spectrum for free.


humanfilth

join:2013-02-14
cyber gutter

free market!!

Its not a free market when backroom deals make it a monopoly.

Well we can imagine(must be documentation somewhere) that the first cableco's business plan was to offer consumers a cleaner TV signal for those at the fringes of the transmission or in signal interference zones.

So the TV stations(who have to broadcast that FREE!!!! signal), decided that the cablco was a moocher and "how dare the cableco provide easy access to the commercials without paying a kickback and the cableco getting a nice profit with a legitimate business model".

Eventually the TV stations work out a deal, that the cableco gets a direct hardwire connected signal to rebroadcast, while paying a fee for that privilege.

Fast forward to now. The TV stations are crying that their shows stink to heaven(because potential money laundering hidden as 'production costs') and they can't charge higher ad fees because reasons. And the need to increase profits from a dying business model that refuses to modernize.

If the networks were to go to an Internet only signal transmission business model, the cableco has its TV channel revenue die and has to shift to Internet only for profits. Provided that GB caps are not lowered, to prevent Internet only viewing of the 6 shows you actually watch per year.

Cableco, TV network collude to make sure that any change to the system is prevented.
--
When peasants own the government, there is freedom. When the government owns the peasants, there is tyranny
Knowledge and curiosity are not crimes and those who are curious should not be treated like criminals.. »www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Chuck_IV

join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

1 edit
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: Level the playing field

And there in lies the problem. If Aereo wins, you can bet Directv/Comcast/Time Warner, will be ready to go ASAP with their version of this to circumvent the retrans fees(once their contracts end).

My gut is the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the networks not because Aereo is in the wrong(which, as the law is written IMO they are NOT) but because they will be influenced by the amount of money that is at stake for the networks. This is exactly why the White House came out against Aereo. They want to protect their campain funding coming from the networks.


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

reply to amungus

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by amungus:

Cable does that. Sat. providers do that.

No, they do not. Cable and sat. providers usually get a direct feed, rather then using OTA signal, and that one feed provides content for everybody in their market.

Aereo: One antenna/subscriber. Two, if you want to rent/lease a second.

I can put an OTA antenna on my own property. If my neighbour allows: I can put an antenna on his property. Perhaps, in the latter case, my neighbour wishes to charge me a nominal fee for the use of his property. Should he then be obliged to pay all the local, OTA stations a retrans fee?

Jim

steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service

1 recommendation

reply to amungus
Cable and sat should pay no retransmission fees. This is free TV that anyone could receive with nothing more than an antenna.

These broadcasters have licenses to use radio spectrum that they do not own in the public interest. The are prohibited from encrypting their signal.

So we are talking about free TV here.

If a broadcaster wants to be paid for their broadcast TV they should give up their broadcast licenses and become a cable provider only, then they can be paid, they can keep their programming all to themselves and let no one see it, whatever they want.

But since they do broadcast and cable and satellite providers use nothing more than an antenna to pick up the signal, they should not be paid for that by anyone.

Now, no fair doing what cable and satellite providers do, which is inserting their own commercials. If they do that they should pay because they are using the broadcasters signal to make advertising money.

But if they send it on to their subscribers just the way they got it off the air no money should change hands. That's just wrong.

So Aereo should win, but maybe not for the reason they are arguing. The FCC should just change the rules to say that broadcast TV is free, and that's it.

The broadcasters have a solution, to go cable only, but they want to be paid for their free TV, by Aereo and cable/satellite subscribers who are mostly entitled to watch their programming free.

That's just wrong.


Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Pirate515
Typical re-transmission contracts have stipulations about when and what commercial slots you can do local ad insertion.

During those slots a cue tone is sent over the signal and if you do local advertising that cue tone is picked up through the receiver your using and triggers the cue contacts at the local ad box. From there the local ad box, usually in line between the receiver and modulator, bypasses the feed and plays local advertising. When it receives the next cue tone it drops off of bypass and back to the receiver feed.

This system is also the same method that The Weather Channel uses to cue in the machine at the headend that handles your local on the 8's.


voipguy

join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY

Excellent Article

This article tells pretty much the entire story very well:
»features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2···n-aereo/

Basically that the old Supreme Court rulings favored free carriage of OTA TV by Cable until Congress passed laws protecting and aiding Broadcasters.

I totally agree with those that posted above stating that Free OTA TV should be free to all, regardless of how it is delivered, and if the broadcasters don't agree they should GIVE BACK THEIR LICENSES, that they did not purchase from the "people" in any way.

Someone with a different business model can make a go of it, or use the frequencies for wireless broadband or something else.

One other thing - cable ops do not insert commercials on OTA broadcast channel feeds, except in very rare cases where they have a cooperative agreement with the broadcaster to do so. (This could involve allowing the broadcaster to 'zone' their ads based on cable service areas.)