dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
20
« They had it coming
This is a sub-selection from Whats the difference?
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

jagged to tc1uscg

Member

to tc1uscg

Re: Whats the difference?

no

Aereo is renting you an antenna and a DVR. A real physical antenna connected to your Aereo account. Your cable company used to plug a single antenna at the head end unit and re-transmit to all customers. Now they get their local station feeds via fiber optic.

On Aereo you can stream trough a PC or a Roku or mobile device, but not on all at the same time. So even though I paid for 2 tuners we could watch on the Roku only, or on the PC only but not on both at the same time

Aereo is like having an over the air DVR hooked to a Slingbox

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

1 edit

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: Whats the difference?

and you are comparing apples to oranges. The cable co's PAY the stations to carry them. Im sure the stations would not resist Aereo if they played by the same rules.

ctaranto
join:2011-12-14
MA

ctaranto

Member

Re: Whats the difference?

Reading the various threads about Aereo, I get a sense you are in the minority, at least on dslreports, and I respect your point of view and consistency. But I tend to agree with the other side.

The stations pay for the fiber feed to rebroadcast, which ensures them 0 station fade and 100% quality. I would assume there is an inherent cost to that for the broadcasters (fiber, switches, etc). So reimbursement for that infrastructure is understandable. The rates they charge the cable/satellite operators are a different matter all together. I don't think any of us have seen the contracts signed between the broadcasters and cable/satellite companies. Perhaps the broadcasters word it as "infrastructure reimbursement". Who knows.

Aereo is pulling the free OTA signal. Key word there is free. Anyone can do it, as long as your residence is within range. I don't think the premise of the free OTA model was to exclude those who were 70+ miles away from a broadcasting antenna. Aereo provides the same signal that is free over OTA. They also provide the same kind of service that my Win7 WMC server does for me when I pull the signal over OTA (DVR). I pay $0 for the broadcast channel. I skip the commercials. I am the evil consumer.

But Aereo is doing the same thing. They aren't injecting commercials - they are providing the free OTA stream to those who are unable to unwilling to put up their own antenna. The broadcasters didn't pay for the frequencies. They aren't getting payed by the general public. I understand that the general public isn't, as you say, "rebroadcasting" the signal. But they aren't. They are providing a remote DVR service, just like Slingbox, which last I heard, isn't illegal.

Would it be illegal for me to set up a small PC, antenna, and Slingbox at a friend's house in Needham, MA (where the broadcasters are) so I could "remotely" watch the broadcast stations if my house was out in the Berkshires (western MA)?

Again. Fiber feed (cost) vs OTA (free). That is the fundamental difference.

All in my opinion, of course.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Whats the difference?

In the well actually category, you'd be in a different DMA in your example. Although for a Slingbox, if it's at your house, then it is legal. A friend's house is murky, not that anyone would really care though.

Anon48273
@verizon.net

Anon48273 to ITALIAN926

Anon

to ITALIAN926
If you look at who is on which side of the argument you will find Aereo and the Cable Co's on one side and the broadcasters on the other. The fact is IF Aereo manages to win then this is a way for the cable co's to eliminate the extortion fees they pay to the broadcasters. While there is no way in hell it would lower anyone's cable bill what it will do is force the broadcasters to either shut down their antennas (This option would cause them allot of grief) OR accept that they can no use the threat of a re-transmission fee dispute to turn off the signal to the cable co's which will drive down the cable co's costs when they go to re-negotiate.

While I think their chances are 50/50 at the supreme court I for one want to see them win just to knock the broadcasters down a peg.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX

Anon

Re: Whats the difference?

said by Anon48273 :

will ... force the broadcasters to ... shut down their antennas

Local affiliates would simply turn off their direct feeds to the cable companies who refuse to pay up, not shut down their broadcast signals.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

Re: Whats the difference?

I think you're missing the point of what you're replying to. If Aereo wins, and the Cable Co's are on their side, the broadcasters would have to shut down their OTA feed to cut off Aereo.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt

Premium Member

Re: Whats the difference?

said by smcallah:

I think you're missing the point of what you're replying to. If Aereo wins, and the Cable Co's are on their side, the broadcasters would have to shut down their OTA feed to cut off Aereo.

Sounds good. Then the spectrum can be used for something else. The vast majority of people don't get their local stations from OTA. It's pretty much a waste of spectrum at this point.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX to smcallah

Anon

to smcallah
No, I'm ignoring the [supposed] "point" entirely. I'm simply correcting a misconception that cable companies pull a signal (OTA) from local broadcasters--they don't. (Two different things)

Anon48273
@verizon.net

Anon48273

Anon

Re: Whats the difference?

You missed my point as well, my point is that if the broadcasters are still doing OTA transmissions and a cable company gets into a dispute they can go the same route as Aereo and build a huge mini-antenna array and bypass them all-together. This is what the broadcasters are scared of, they would loose there millions in extortion fees (rebroadcast fees) if the cable company's take the same route as Aereo which is why the cable company's are on the same side as Aereo.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX

Anon

Re: Whats the difference?

said by Anon48273 :

You missed my point as well

So... you didn't actually read my post? ...or you didn't understand it? (Your "loose there" would seem to indicate the latter.)

Well, I'll just ignore you more fully now.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

1 recommendation

BiggA to Anon48273

Premium Member

to Anon48273
Yeah, I don't see cable companies doing individual streams of OTA channels to each customer. Seems a bit far-fetched.
BiggA

BiggA to Anon48273

Premium Member

to Anon48273
No one is going to shut down OTA. If there are a significant amount of Aereo users, certain top shows will be moved to cable networks, like they are now, and backfilled with cheap syndicated content on the OTA networks. They aren't just going to disappear overnight. However, for Aereo to have more subs than OTA has now is going to take quite a while, if it ever happens. And the idea of the cable companies somehow deploying VOD streams to each house with little antennas on the other end is a bit far-fetched, at least for now...
ptb42
join:2002-09-30
USA

ptb42 to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

and you are comparing apples to oranges.

No, he's not. This is exactly how the law distinguishes what the MSO's are doing, vs. what Aereo is doing. If the MSO uses a shared antenna or a feed from the broadcaster, the broadcaster can charge a fee. Aereo maintains a separate antenna for each user. You may not see the difference, but that's how the law distinguishes between MSO's and individual users that have installed an antenna on their roof.
said by ITALIAN926:

The cable co's PAY the stations to carry them.

Only if the broadcaster demands it. Under "must carry" rules, an MSO must redistribute all content that is broadcasted within its service area, with no fee charged to the broadcaster. If the broadcaster demands a fee, the MSO can choose to not redistribute the signal.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: Whats the difference?

and once again, I will say, that if Aereo wins, the MSOs will EASILY replicate this in order to circumvent carriage fees. To make matters worse, when this is done, the stations will pull their good content from OTA, or pull out altogether.

It will NOT be approved.
ptb42
join:2002-09-30
USA

ptb42

Member

Re: Whats the difference?

said by ITALIAN926:

and once again, I will say, that if Aereo wins, the MSOs will EASILY replicate this in order to circumvent carriage fees. To make matters worse, when this is done, the stations will pull their good content from OTA, or pull out altogether.

That may be the outcome if Aereo wins. But, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether it is legal.
said by ITALIAN926:

It will NOT be approved.

You are assuming the Supreme Court will rule in the broadcasters' favor, simply because they fear the broadcasters will react negatively. While you might be that cynical, I'm not.

However, if the Court does rule in Aereo's favor, what I expect is the broadcasters to attempt to change the law. The broadcasters have some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, and they have plenty of money to spend and a bully pulpit to promote their views.

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) is sunsetting on 2014-12-31, and will require an extension. Lobbyists will inevitably try to convince Congress to also amend the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, to undercut Aereo.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah to jagged

Member

to jagged
There is no "used to." They still have antennas for local broadcasters for a backup. If there is a fiber cut that takes out the broadcaster's direct feed, they don't want to have a black screen for a few hours while the fiber is fixed.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: Whats the difference?

Actually, speaking from experience at Verizon, it would probably be the next day or two; rarely a few hours.
« They had it coming
This is a sub-selection from Whats the difference?