jjoshua Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ
1 recommendation |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 12:38 pm
Aero is a service providerWhy 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 Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 12:58 pm
Re: Aero is a service providerCable 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 | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Aero is a service providerThey 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 Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 1:48 pm
Re: Aero is a service providersaid 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 |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Apr-22 1:58 pm
Re: Aero is a service providerIn 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. | |
|
| | | | Pirate515 Premium Member join:2001-01-22 Brooklyn, NY |
to tshirt
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? | |
|
| | | | | |
Killa200
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 3:23 pm
Re: Aero is a service providerTypical 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 Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to Pirate515
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. | |
|
| | | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
to tshirt
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/article ··· ng.shtml as noted. | |
|
| | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | ke4pym Premium Member join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC
2 recommendations |
ke4pym
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 2:21 pm
Re: Aero is a service providersaid 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. | |
|
| | | | | karpodiemHail to The Victors Premium Member join:2008-05-20 Troy, MI |
Re: Aero is a service providerTHIS. A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS. WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND? | |
|
| | | | |
to tvoldtimer
So using this logic, can Aereo expect any share of the broadcasters local ad revenue? | |
|
| | | | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: Aero is a service providersaid 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. | |
|
| | | |
to thecybernerd
Bingo! Cable takes one feed and sends it to many (retransmission) Aereo takes one feed and sends it to one. | |
|
| | | |
to thecybernerd
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/new ··· -court-1Theres 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. | |
|
| | | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: Aereo is a service providerCopyright laws? Oh give me a freakin' break. | |
|
| | | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
Re: Aereo is a service providerIt'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/article ··· ng.shtml for background. | |
|
| | | | Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
2 recommendations |
to hyperbole
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. | |
|
| | |
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 | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to amungus
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 | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
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. | |
|
| | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 4:58 pm
Re: Aero is a service providersaid 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. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Aero is a service providerI 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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
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 | |
|
| | | | | | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 7:11 pm
Re: Aero is a service providerMLB 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. | |
|
| | | | |
to tshirt
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. 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? | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Aero is a service providerActually, I believe he's correct. | |
|
| | | | |
to tshirt
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. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to amungus
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. | |
|
| tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA 1 edit |
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. | |
|
| | ••• |
| |
to jjoshua
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 Member join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 4:06 pm
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. | |
|
|
aerosfirst aereo through hollywood.. good luck | |
|
|
PostArgument
Anon
2014-Apr-22 12:52 pm
Aereo is optimisticTheir lawyer didn't take questions... but he was quoted as being "cautiously optimistic"... | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America
1 recommendation |
amungus
Premium Member
2014-Apr-22 12:56 pm
I'm sorry, but I don't get this part"the innovation of remotely providing Internet users access to content theyre 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
Anon
2014-Apr-22 3:07 pm
Re: I'm sorry, but I don't get this partsaid by amungus:"the innovation of remotely providing Internet users access to content theyre 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. | |
|
| | |
Re: I'm sorry, but I don't get this partAereo 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. | |
|
|
The thing that makes Aereo differentis, 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. | |
|
| ••••••• |
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Level the playing fieldEither 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. | |
|
| ••••• |
|
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. | |
|
| |
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 ArticleThis article tells pretty much the entire story very well: » features.blogs.fortune.c ··· 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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Re: Excellent Articlesaid 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
Anon
2014-Apr-22 4:00 pm
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. | |
|
| |
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. | |
|
|
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
Anon
2014-Apr-22 4:38 pm
One point of viewIf I have a bucket and I rent this bucket to you and, I rent the property the bucket resides on, I dont 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). Aereos got a bucket with an IP address and rain is free
..by law. | |
|
|
Areo is as good as deadThis supreme court is run by 5 corporatist if the sony betamax case was decided by this court we would have never had the vcr | |
|
| |
Re: Areo is as good as deadSadly, I agree with this assesment. | |
|
|
Anno
Anon
2014-Apr-22 4:48 pm
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 Member
2014-Apr-22 10:39 pm
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. | |
|
|
Radio went through this, and survived, so will TVWe 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
Anon
2014-Apr-25 5:23 pm
Re: Radio went through this, and survived, so will TVsaid 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. | |
|
ImpldConsentScouts Out Premium Member join:2001-03-04 North Port, FL ·Comcast XFINITY
|
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. | |
|
|
|