dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
730

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB to IowaCowboy

Premium Member

to IowaCowboy

Re: I am with the broadcasters on this one

said by IowaCowboy:

Aereo should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement with the broadcasters like every other cable/satellite provider. If they are taking a signal that I could get for free with an antenna and reselling it, then they should have to negotiate a retransmission agreement.

I get local tv streamed on my local network from a Hauppaug Broadway unit attached to an antenna. I don't own a tv set. I can log into that unit remotely from anywhere there is Internet access. Should I also need a retransmission agreement? I see no difference with what Aereo is doing, an antenna and a converter streamed to my computers. I can see where Aereo would be very useful for folks with bad OTA reception. Essentially you are renting an OTA antenna from them. What's the big deal?

Pacomartin
join:2013-03-18
Bethlehem, PA

1 edit

Pacomartin to Killersaurus

Member

to Killersaurus
said by Killersaurus:

This setup still conflicts with everything I know about OTA reception. Large rooftop antennas reflecting onto the dime sized ones? Does not compute.

I don't think that is correct. The antenna design is much like a phased array on a military system. From looking at patents, I don't think the technological hurdle is the simply receiving the signal for broadcast, it is assigning individual antennas to individual users to comply with the legal interpretation of what is permitted under current legislation.

Prior to about two years ago when Barry Diller began investing in the company it was called Bamboom Labs. You can google old articles about their efforts to make the technology legal. They are not the first company to try and do this, but the other ones were shot down by the courts. Bamboom did careful research into the legal rulings on their predecessors before designing their system.

Aereo's patent
»appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ ··· 20127363
said by RARPSL:

If you go back in history to the origin of cable TV, it was an Antenna that was placed somewhere (such as on a hill) and used to feed TVs that could not receive the signal directly (since it is in a valley with the hill blocking the signal)

Yes and it was called Community Access TeleVision (CATV) and not Cable TV. But you are making a philosophical discussion. Back in the 1950's CATV simply increased TV sales and ratings for advertisers. CATV was initially invented by people who wanted to sell TV's, and many potential customers weren't interested because they had no signal. CATV was economically beneficial to networks before it became competition.

Aereo might argue that the TV household with lousy OTA reception might play video games or watch Netflix instead of network TV. It is a solid argument that they are only helping the networks.

However in the advertising saturated world, a few extra viewers is not the economic advantage of being able to resell a signal. The real fear is that the cable operators will license a technology developed by Aereo and the networks will lose a substantial revenue source.