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. ..


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

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

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

1 recommendation

Re: Aero is a service provider

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.

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

Re: Aero is a service provider

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

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Re: Aero is a service provider

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.

Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
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.

Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Aero is a service provider

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.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
Their are "spaces" allowed for that some local commerials can be replaced/played over (the station receives extra payment) Most cable operators have a local ad sales staff. So yes the people "in town (OTA) might receive a different commercial, than the surrounding area which in the case of one city surrounded but thousands of square miles of suburbs farms etc.
tvoldtimer

join:2010-09-16
Overland Park, KS
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.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
Doesn't matter. It's still not a retransmission from Aereo due to the method they're using, which is only because they were told legally that they had to do it in the first place. See »www.techdirt.com/articles/201304···ng.shtml as noted.
tvoldtimer

join:2010-09-16
Overland Park, KS
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.
ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..

2 recommendations

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.

karpodiem
Hail to The Victors
Premium
join:2008-05-20
Detroit, MI

Re: Aero is a service provider

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS. WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?

Observers

@comcast.net
So using this logic, can Aereo expect any share of the broadcasters local ad revenue?

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by Observers :

So using this logic, can Aereo expect any share of the broadcasters local ad revenue?

Good point. I don't see why not, but the broadcasters would probably throw a massive tantrum.

HuskyC

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

hyperbole

@comcast.net
said by thecybernerd:

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.

The Chief Justice of USSC summed up what Aereo is doing:

»www.businessweek.com/news/2014-0···-court-1

“There’s no technological reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antennas other than to get around the copyright laws?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

And that issue is what the Aereo decision will hinge on.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Aereo is a service provider

Copyright laws? Oh give me a freakin' break.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL

Re: Aereo is a service provider

It's exactly correct. Aereo was told they had to do this in order to get around it, not that Aereo chose to. See »www.techdirt.com/articles/201304···ng.shtml for background.
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

2 recommendations

said by hyperbole :

The Chief Justice of USSC summed up what Aereo is doing...

What an absolutely asinine statement. I really think Roberts has lost some of his marbles these past few years. Of course Aereo implemented individual antennas to comply with compyright law. So what! The issue isn't what the motivation of Aereo is, the issue is purely whether they are compliant with the law as currently written. If Congress doesn't like that law any more, they are free to change it at any time.

Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
Reviews:
·Charter
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

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

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

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.

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

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by steevo22:

...

said by steevo22:

So we are talking about free TV here.

It is not FREE, it is paid for by advertisers for distribution in a limited area.
If you can't receive it at home, YOU are not in the prepaid audience.

davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

Re: Aero is a service provider


said by tshirt:

...

I think people have forgotten that it is the advertisers that sponsor the shows.

I like Netflix's model where the customer pays, and therefore we don't have commercials.

However, today with "Cable or Satellite" not only do you pay the middle man (Like Comcast), but you also pay the Networks, and then the advertisers pay the networks (we watch the commercials).

So, it's okay that I can erect a antenna, and watch, but if you're out of the watching area, it can't be piped to you, say via the internet without paying re-broadcast fees?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Aero is a service provider

You can with a Slingbox. Apparently though, if someone rents or leases you the Slingbox then it becomes copyright violation
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Aero is a service provider

MLB tried to stop slingbox because they were scared people would sling to themselves to bypass blackouts by putting their box into the home of a friend/family with a spare TV and box.

Got shot down because MLB has no given right to blackout.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
said by tshirt:

said by steevo22:

...

said by steevo22:

So we are talking about free TV here.

It is not FREE, it is paid for by advertisers for distribution in a limited area.
If you can't receive it at home, YOU are not in the prepaid audience.

Now you're just Making Stuff Up.

If I set up a Slingbox at home so I can watch Metro-Detroit TV while I'm vacationing up in Marquette, is that a copyright violation?

davidc502

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

Re: Aero is a service provider

said by jseymour:

...

Actually, I believe he's correct.
steevo22

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


said by steevo22:

So we are talking about free TV here.

It is not FREE, it is paid for by advertisers for distribution in a limited area.
If you can't receive it at home, YOU are not in the prepaid audience.

Why, that's just not true at all.

The broadcaster who has a radio spectrum license can put in commercials or not as they like.

You have the right because of their license "in the public interest" to view their programming with an antenna if you choose to, and they cannot stop you. For example, they cannot scramble anything.

If they choose to not insert commercials that is their right, and there are *many* religious channels that have no commercials, and you can view their programming as you like or not.

The networks for example cannot stop you from watching. They cannot charge you for watching. They cannot encrypt their programming.

They cannot stop you from putting up a 300' long rhombic antenna and watching their programming from hundreds or thousands of miles away if you like. Even from another country.

If I want to hire Aereo or anyone else to put up an antenna and let me watch TV that should not be anything anyone should have to pay for.

This is FREE TV.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
That's because they are selling you TV service. Aereo is selling you the "service" of managing your OTA TV.

The main difference? In effect you can do yourself everything Aereo does for you.... if you buy your own equipment and hardware, manage it yourself. You *Can't* buy why a Cable or Satellite provider provides you, they are selling you TV Content, which you can't get without buying it from them.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

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

1 edit
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.

•••

davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
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.

•••

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
I don't think that cable and sat providers should be paying retransmission fees for OTA broadcasts either as long as they are simply providing pipes and plumbing and nothing else.
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.

hyperbole

@google.com

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.
steevo22

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

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

Aereo should be able to retransmit for free, this is free TV.

No one should have to pay for free TV that they are entitled to, whether you have cable, satellite, an antenna or Aereo, if you watch free TV just as it was broadcast, you should not have to pay.

Now if like TWC and DirecTV you are inserting your own commercials, you should pay.

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.

•••••••

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.

•••••

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
desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

Re: free market!!

There was a time when local TV stations raised such a stink over the growing popularity of cable "pay" TV that they demanded that they have a place on the system for fear of going out of business.

For years, they received a free ride when their content was actually worth something. Now their content sucks and they want to be paid for it.

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.)
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Excellent Article

said by voipguy:

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.

I would agree with that IF the cable companies stopped charging people for the broadcast channels. On my Intenet-only Time Warner connection, for instance, I should be allowed to receive the broadcast channels for free. They should not be allowed to encrypt them. They would never agree to this since the price of the 'broadcast basic' package would need to be deducted from everyone's bill.

Probitas

@teksavvy.com

If broadcasters are required to transmit OTA for free...

then they have no right to demand fees from anyone who uses it. This is just bully whining about how someone figured out their scheme and found a legal way to go around it, and avoid their inflated tv fees.
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Re: If broadcasters are required to transmit OTA for free...

but they don't. They charge "broadcast fees" now that probably go into their pocket.
8744675

join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA

What are broadcasters bitching about???

I don't understand why broadcasters are bitching about Aereo hurting their business, when it actually helps.

Broadcasters make their money by selling advertisements to pay for the content they broadcast on publicly owned airwaves, to the general public, for free, as required by the FCC. Broadcasters advertising rates are determined by the number of viewers who are watching specific content, which is determined by the scientific research conducted by the ratings companies like Nielsen. Good content attracts more viewers, gets higher ratings, which increases the price of advertising for that content, and makes more money for the broadcaster.

Aereo is simply extending the reach of broadcast TV to more users in several ways.

*Aereo serves a public good by extending peoples' access to public broadcast warnings and civil defense information for the protection of life and property during an emergency.

* Aereo allows people who can not get a decent OTA signal at home to view content (and advertisements) they would not normally watch due to poor reception (including emergency broadcasts). Ka-ching!

*Aereo allows people to view OTA content in more places; at work, on a bus, at a park or anywhere else without being tied to the TV and antenna at home in the living room. Ka-ching!

*Aereo allows people to view OTA content at times when they normally couldn't watch when it was only available on a TV in their living room. (i.e. at lunch time) Ka-ching!

The end result of Aereo is more eyes, viewing more often, at more and different times per day, causing higher ad prices and increased revenue. That is an advertisers wet dream, so what are they bitching about?

I don't mind paying someone to manage my antenna to get my free content. I do mind paying retransmission fees for content is supposed to be free, but I can't get due to a lousy signal 6 miles from the transmitter.

Let it Rain

@zscalertwo.net

One point of view

If I have a bucket and I rent this bucket to you and, I rent the property the bucket resides on, I don’t care or really have any control over what goes into this bucket. The bucket is designed to carry stuff. It could be water, gas or rocks. But to tell you the truth, most folks rent my buckets because of their prime location for rainfall. Most of my clients live in areas that are drought stricken. So, you can see the value of my service. Otherwise they would end up paying for a separate water main (network). Aereo’s got a bucket with an IP address and rain is free…..by law.
bluedyedvd

join:2007-04-15
Overland Park, KS

Areo is as good as dead

This supreme court is run by 5 corporatist if the sony betamax case was decided by this court we would have never had the vcr
Chuck_IV

join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

Re: Areo is as good as dead

Sadly, I agree with this assesment.

Anno

@comcast.net

Should be free, stop saying they should pay cause others do, not the same...

All of you saying they should have to pay if DirecTV, Comcast etc. do are fools.

For starters, those providers are paying for "bundles" of channels.
Aereo is ONLY providing what is free, OTA anyway.
They are not including 20 other channels per network like cable is.
That said, it's not cable/sat fault, they are forced or the networks don't let them "rebroadcast".
BUT if this is not struck down, it COULD change all of that and allow better pricing because your local cable/sat COULD now explore doing the same thing and not be forced to bundle crap people don't want which would be good for price.

That is why cable and sat. are charged, because they are forced to buy all the other crap none of us watch in order to get the channels.

And having close worked with these setups before, almost every company, Comcast, AT&T, DirecTV etc. do NOT use the OTA feed to pump to the subscribers. It's either provided via hardline or they receive it via satellite.

OTA is highly compressed which you can see depending on the content the network is streaming.
Cable and Sat get different feeds that, while may still be MPEG2 like OTA, have VERY different compression which gives them much better quality.

Compare a DirecTV local channel to OTA, you will see the difference, especially if fast motion is involved.

Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Should be free, stop saying they should pay cause others do, not the same...

said by Anno :

Compare a DirecTV local channel to OTA, you will see the difference, especially if fast motion is involved.

DirectTV and Dish Network are probably bad examples of that, due to them compressing the crap out of everything from needing to deal with the limited transponder space they have to work with to transmit everything that they need to get out there. Cable manages to get the upper hand here due to having more bandwidth, and a more efficient transport modulation to boot (QAM VS PSK).

To me a lot of the stuff I see on small dish systems are on par with OTA, and much worse than cable in the digital tiers, especially in HD. I know that is for sure in our system.

AlexNYC

join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO

Radio went through this, and survived, so will TV

We can now listen to hundreds of radio stations from all over the world for free over the internet. The same will happen sooner or later with TV, if it is not Aereo now it will be another company later.

Barry Diller is smart, very, very smart. Aereo is designed so each subscriber gets their own antenna so technically it is legal, however the cable providers as you can imagine are not too happy. Remember Video Killed the Radio Star ... progress is happening every day.

The current archaic tv subscription model is destined to change for the better. Remember what the cell phone bills were 20 years a go? I don't think in 10 years from now we will be paying the crazy high monthly tv cable bills we are paying right now.

Alex

john2020

@rcn.com

Re: Radio went through this, and survived, so will TV

said by AlexNYC:

I don't think in 10 years from now we will be paying the crazy high monthly tv cable bills we are paying right now.

Yeah, we'll be paying crazy high monthly internet bills instead.

Nevertheless, to stay on topic, this is a very interesting debate.

ImpldConsent
Under Siege
Premium
join:2001-03-04
Mcdonough, GA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·magicjack.com

Could I ...

just have a local installer ('cuz I ain't getting that roof) install an OTA antenna and just get free OTA without Aereo? Isn't that the point? I'll answer my own question: yes - making a call - Uverse TV is just too expensive and I find I'm only watching about 7 channels anyway. OTA + MythTV = problem solved.
--
That's "MISTER" Kafir to you Mr. Munafiq