dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
reply to guppy_fish

Re: Licensed for unlimited retransmit fees

Aereo was keeping prices in check? Please explain. All these people who have Aereo still have the opportunity to pitch an antenna in, or on, their house.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
I can receive 1, maybe 2 channels with an antenna. With Aereo I could have many more by using their antenna.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

1 recommendation

it provided a service that people wanted.

Chuck_IV

join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

2 recommendations

reply to ITALIAN926
Once again a poster simply assumes because they can receive a digital signal with an antenna, everyone else can too.

This is wrong. That was one of the points behind Aereo... giving those people a rented antenna to receive these signals, which they are entitled to but could not receive with their own antennas.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Nobody assumed that. If you cant receive the signals, too bad. Cable TV was INVENTED due to line of site issues with OTA.


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Aereo was keeping prices in check? Please explain. All these people who have Aereo still have the opportunity to pitch an antenna in, or on, their house.

Unless they live in an apartment.

Besides: With everything being on UHF now, and power levels reduced (thank you, FCC, for nothing, again): For many people: When the weather acts up, the signals go all to hell, making the stations unwatchable OTA.

No, I think that, instead, just turn it off.

Jim

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Chuck_IV
Truth be told, a lot of the people who claim they can't receive OTA signals in fact can. Not everyone, but a lot. They just don't want to put a little time toward figuring out the best way to receive the signal or falsely assume they need a rooftop antenna, which most people absolutely do not need. They just expect things to work without having to put forth a little effort.


Lark3po
Premium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
Reviews:
·Knology
said by silbaco:

Truth be told, a lot of the people who claim they can't receive OTA signals in fact can.

Do you have data to back that up or did you just pull that out of your derriere?


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Lark3po:

said by silbaco:

Truth be told, a lot of the people who claim they can't receive OTA signals in fact can.

Do you have data to back that up or did you just pull that out of your derriere?

»www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=···temid=29
I would never want OTA, but according to this, I should be able to receive 13 channels.


Lark3po
Premium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
Thanks for the link but that's not the data I was asking about...


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
reply to ArrayList
It provided an equipment service leasing company that people wanted.
Now the supreme court says it is not legal to lease equipment which is insane.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
reply to ptrowski
I receive more local channels with my attic antenna than I did with cable. Cut the cord 2 years ago.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
It would be great if I could, but due to location and topography I would need the Eiffel Tower to get channels.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
reply to r81984
Sorry, they were retransmitting copyright. But feel free to rent a nail-gun from Home Depot if you like.


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to Lark3po
Except that it is. That site shows you which OTA channels you can get in which areas. If you actually bothered to check, you'd find that most can actually receive OTA channels. The number of channels obviously differ depending on location, but OTA is still available to most, even those who don't believe it to be true.

If you look at their online map and move the location mark around the entire continent, you'll find there are at least 4-10 stations available at any given location. I'd say that's pretty substantial as far as "proof" is concerned.
--
Weeeeeee


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to silbaco
So I stand corrected, using tvfool.com unless I put an antenna on the roof at least I can receive possibly 6 channels.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to jseymour
said by jseymour:

said by ITALIAN926:

Aereo was keeping prices in check? Please explain. All these people who have Aereo still have the opportunity to pitch an antenna in, or on, their house.

Unless they live in an apartment.

Besides: With everything being on UHF now, and power levels reduced (thank you, FCC, for nothing, again): For many people: When the weather acts up, the signals go all to hell, making the stations unwatchable OTA.

No, I think that, instead, just turn it off.

Jim

In the DC area, two of teh major networks are on VHF. CBS and ABC. They went from being some of the strongest stations(when on UHF) to some of the weakest(on VHF)


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Sorry, they were retransmitting copyright. But feel free to rent a nail-gun from Home Depot if you like.

Sorry, but they leased an antenna, dvr software, and harddrive space for your recordings all over a long cord.
They charged a leasing fee per month so that you could watch any TV that your leased antenna picked up.
Aereo provided no media service or any retransmissions. You only got what your leased individual antenna picked up.

Technically according to the supreme court leasing a nail gun from home depot would be infringing on the copyrights of the nails used in the gun.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ITALIAN926
Your assumption is that everyone owns their dwelling that allows them to pitch an antenna and when pitched it actually gets signal.

Be your statement stating they are "retransmitting copyright", then every single person in the world that owns an antenna is also retransmitting copy right by your definition. Thur for antenna makers should be required to pay into a copyright fund to cover for their enabling of copyright violation like writable CD's and DVDs.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

said by ITALIAN926:

Sorry, they were retransmitting copyright. But feel free to rent a nail-gun from Home Depot if you like.

Sorry, but they leased an antenna, dvr software, and harddrive space for your recordings all over a long cord.
They charged a leasing fee per month so that you could watch any TV that your leased antenna picked up.
Aereo provided no media service or any retransmissions. You only got what the antenna picked up.

Technically according to the supreme court leasing a nail gun from home depot would be infringing on the copyrights of the nail gun for purchase.

Leasing a nail gun isn't the same thing at all. That's a totally different aspect of the law. This case had to do specifically with retransmission of video. Period. It applies to nothing else.

While I'm disappointed that Aereo will be no more, I have to agree with the SCOTUS decision. All considerations of ramifications aside (what this will mean for cloud computing, e.g., and other video delivery) they ruled on the law. The law specifically creates this dichotomy with local broadcast. I think the law should go away - but while the law is on the books, I'm glad that the supreme court did what they did. They're not supposed to look at things like 'possible negative ramifications in other areas'. They're supposed to look at the law. Period. And sorry but there simply is no equivalent of the 1996 telecommunications law in the home improvement rental industry. It's a non-sequitir.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Sure it is just as ridiculous as the supreme court ruling.

Aereo never transmitted video. They just leased you an antenna, DVR, and software. You could use your leased equipment to watch whatever your leased antenna picked up.

Aereo has never transmitted video. They just leased you equipment.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

1 recommendation

How in the world is it any different than what, say, Comcast does? Cable companies do what with local broadcast? They receive it over some kind of equipment, and ship it to consumers who are leasing their equipment. I also dispute the notion that the customer's leased antenna is, all by itself, receiving the video. I think that's garbage. You set up dozens of these in an array, and there is no way that they're not collectively receiving the signal.

What you're describing is called 'retransmission'. Which is what the law is written against. You seem to be stuck on the fact that the court took issue with the leasing scheme. That has zero to do with this. If Aero came out to your house, and leased you an antenna that you put on your own roof, there would have been no case against them. The fact that they're collectively receiving a signal and then resending that signal to your house is the distinction here.

The reason your argument is a non-sequitir is precisely because this case has NOTHING to do with the leasing of the equipment. Even if Aereo gave all their stuff away for free (which they do as well - you can watch an hour of TV for free off their service, every day) it's STILL a violation of the law. Again, it has NOTHING to do with the equipment. It has everything to do with the fact that they are transmitting video. That's why your argument about the nail guns makes no sense.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

1 edit
Comcast re-transmits video.
Comcast uses one community antenna or satellite stream to pick up the OTA broadcasts.
They then split that signal and transmit it on their network for their end users to watch.
If comcast paid to use Aereo's patented micro antenna arrays then comcast could do the same thing as long as they lease one antenna per customer.
They can pay to use Aereo's tech if they want: »www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/aereo-inc/

Aereo just leases you an individual antenna over a long cord so their is no re-transmission. What Aereo does is no different than if they lease you an antenna that they put on the roof of your house as there is no law for the length of the cord.
What makes Aereo legal is they built micro antenna arrays with thousands of small antennas and they lease one antenna to only one person at a time.
Even the dissenting justices in this case say the ruling against aereo was full of shit.

All aereo does is lease equipment and software. They dont retransmit anything.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
said by r81984:

Comcast re-transmits video.
Comcast uses one community antenna or satellite stream to pick up the OTA broadcasts.
They then split that signal and transmit it on their network for their end users to watch.

Aereo just leases you an individual antenna over a long cord so their is no re-transmission. What Aereo does is no different than if they lease you an antenna that they put on the roof of your house as there is law for the length of the cord.
Even the dissenting justices in this case say the ruling against aereo was full of shit.

The supreme court disagrees with you that it was just about 'leasing equipment'. They never ruled on whether it was ok to lease equipment or not (again, why your argument about nail guns makes no sense). They ruled on retransmission. And they found that what Aereo was doing was the same as what cable companies do. You don't think they're retransmitting? Good for you. But the supreme court DOES. Again, they NEVER ruled on whether it was legal to lease equipment! I'm not sure where you're getting that from. They clearly didn't see this as 'leasing equipment'. They saw it as a case about retransmission.

So... question - if Aereo gives it all away for free... are they still in violation of the law? Yes! Which means what? This has NOTHING to do with leasing equipment. You may think it is... but it has nothing to do with the case. Read the dissenting opinions (and I've read a good chunk of them) and I challenge you to find one place where Scalia said that that's all this was. Yes, Scalia said that the case against Aereo was shaky. But as far as I can tell he never said that it was because this was a simple case about leased equipment. He just disagreed with the court that Aereo was retransmitting. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito said that they weren't retransmitting. And the rest disagreed, and said that what Aereo was doing did fit the definition of retransmission. I also challenge you to point out anywhere in the assenting opinion that says anything about leasing equipment.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Actually no they dont.
6 justices did not understand that Aereo leases equipment.
3 justices harshly commented on the fact that the other 6 did not understand what they were ruling on.

Technically this supreme court decision said what Aereo did was illegal, but it incorrectly stated what Aereo did. Their ruling did not actually say what Aereo was really doing was illegal.
So it did not technically ban leasing the antennas and dvr which is all Aereo does.

This supreme court ruling technically does not prevent anyone else from leasing an antenna, dvr, and software over a long cord.
Other companies are still free to do this, but will have to have deep pockets to fight lawsuits even though it is still legal to lease antennas and dvrs.

I have a feeling that once Aereo's antenna patents expire all the cable companies out there will copy their idea to avoid retransmission and paying retransmission fees.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Lark3po
Premium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
Reviews:
·Knology
reply to nekkidtruth
said by nekkidtruth:

Except that it is. That site shows you which OTA channels you can get in which areas. If you actually bothered to check, you'd find that most can actually receive OTA channels.

No, that IS NOT the data I was asking for. Please re-read my previous post again.

On a side note, the site listed is completely theoretical and only lists what a person *may* be able to recieve. For my location it shows three channels that I *should* be able to receive ( 3 being the ones in green) yet I only receive one thanks to a mountain between me and the mountain with the majority of the broadcasters.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
The ones in GREEN are for STB-like antennas, lets talk about pitching an antenna on roofs. The point is, people can do it, they choose not to.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

Be your statement stating they are "retransmitting copyright", then every single person in the world that owns an antenna is also retransmitting copy right by your definition.

How can you possibly reach that conclusion?

My antenna:
- Connected to a piece of coax which in turn is connected to my TV
- Receives an electrical signal which, thanks to conductivity of materials and movement of electrons, is received by my TV
- Reception and no retransmission

Aereo micro-antenna:
- Connected to a tuner in server farm that receives the electrical signal not much different than my antenna
- That signal is then stored and/or transcoded
- That transcoded content/signal, whether near realtime or time shifted, is then sent to another receiver using the Internet as a medium

So, drawing parallels, I'll grant you that an antenna is an antenna. I also agree that the coax connected to my antenna isn't much different than the Internet connecting Aereo's micro-antenna to my "tuner". There very real difference is the reception, transcoding, storage, and transmission of the content.


bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

They just expect things to work without having to put forth a little effort.

Haha. That's the problem with everything these days. Being lazy and entitled.