mixdup join:2003-06-28 Alpharetta, GA |
mixdup
Member
2014-Jun-17 2:35 pm
Supreme Court...I have to think that fight would end up at the Supreme Court again, too. Whatever the FCC rules will just get appealed. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: Supreme Court...i do hope they win. due to the cartel of tv studio and such | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2014-Jun-17 10:01 pm
Re: Supreme Court...They will win as it is legal to rent antennas and dvrs. If the supreme court deem aero illegal then every leasing company from car deaerships, to houses, to rent-a-center places would all be illegal. | |
|
| | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2014-Jun-18 12:03 am
Re: Supreme Court...love to see cable box rental fees go away also | |
|
| | | | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-Jun-18 2:29 am
Re: Supreme Court...said by ArrayList:love to see cable box rental fees go away also Then the cost of service will just go up. You don't expect a company to pay hundreds for a box and not recoup that cost? | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Supreme Court...Kind of like they lowered it before and then added on the fee to keep it all the same?
Oh that's right... they didnt. They just raised your rate by adding this fee to begin with. | |
|
| | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to 78036364
They could, just maybe sell the box? | |
|
| | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
to 78036364
said by 78036364:said by ArrayList:love to see cable box rental fees go away also Then the cost of service will just go up. You don't expect a company to pay hundreds for a box and not recoup that cost? Not if force media companies to separate from cable tv companies. Comcast is now making movies and TV shows with owning NBC which is a huge conflict of interest. Comcast has no markup on showing lots of NBC/Universal movies and tv shows as they own them, but yet prices continue to go up. Break up these conflicts of interest companies and pass laws forcing them to allow competition on the community cable wires at reasonable regulated costs and prices will go down. | |
|
| | |
to firedrakes
I doubt they will win. The SC judges seemed clueless as to what Aereo is even actually doing. This was the first SC case I read the entire transcript of | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY
1 recommendation |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Jun-17 2:47 pm
Shutdown Broadcast?I do find it funny that the broadcasters are threatening to pull their OTA signals. What are they going to do? Run 24 hour infomercials instead? Those broadcast licenses will be canceled relatively quickly if they do that. Not to mention there are still many people, including myself, who cut the cord and watch OTA TV. I will definitely have to let the advertisers know that I am no longer watching their commercials. See how long the advertisers keep paying what they are paying now. | |
|
| |
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?They can go back to days of scrambled pay OTA channels. | |
|
| | ke4pym Premium Member join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC |
ke4pym
Premium Member
2014-Jun-17 3:02 pm
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?said by Joe12345678:They can go back to days of scrambled pay OTA channels. There was such a thing? | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?said by ke4pym:There was such a thing? Yep. Back in the late '70s and early '80s, a few stations, mostly in big cities, broadcast subscription programming. I believe that On TV and SelecTV were two of the big program distributors. These services really didn't last once cable entered these markets, but they had a run for a few years. | |
|
| | | |
to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:said by Joe12345678:They can go back to days of scrambled pay OTA channels. There was such a thing? Yes, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I lived in Queens, NYC (when the outer boroughs did not have Cable TV service yet), I remember there was the "Wometco Home Theater" OTA pay TV service. See: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wo ··· _Theater (where at the end of that article it also lists similar OTA pay TV services that once served other areas of the U.S.) | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?said by telcodad:Yes, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I lived in Queens, NYC (when the outer boroughs did not have Cable TV service yet), I remember there was the "Wometco Home Theater" OTA pay TV service. Oh my, yes! WHT/WWHT! I had almost forgotten about them! We lived out in rural western NJ (Hunterdon County) and this was the only way to get any premium programming back in the day. Ah, the memories... Dialling in the rotor so the 747-sized antenna could be properly pointed, fine tuning the Zenith Chromacolor II TV's analog channel selector, and then the magic of turning on the WHT set-top box. Remember Uncle Floyd show? That was a WHT exclusive for a long while. Watched a ton of movies over that service and back in the day was a *real* treat. Now we get hundreds of channels and nothing worth watching is ever on. *sigh* And we call this 'progress'! XD | |
|
| | | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
to ke4pym
oh yes, I was the master of holding the cable box dial right between the channel numbers and you had perfect cinemax, HBO and TMC. I don't know how many VHS tapes I filled for my parents.... and they kept buying tapes for me! I was a young hacker then. | |
|
| | | |
to ke4pym
Yep, we had one channel try it. They would scramble after a certain hour and mostly showed porn. | |
|
| BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to n2jtx
Why does everyone treat that threat as all-or-nothing? It's far from either of those, and it is a partially real threat.
They will just move their better shows off to cable, and backfill with cheap, low-quality syndicated content. The stations themselves aren't going anywhere... the shows might.
OTOH, for cable subscribers, who cares? | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2014-Jun-18 12:47 pm
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?said by BiggA:backfill with cheap, low-quality syndicated content. That is the current situation. It can't get much worse. | |
|
| | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Jun-18 5:48 pm
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?That has started to become the case, but they could do a lot more of it... | |
|
| | | elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to morbo
said by morbo:said by BiggA:backfill with cheap, low-quality syndicated content. That is the current situation. It can't get much worse. Actually, it has. Some major cities find their secondary stations are now multi-casting 5-15 channels of SD content, none in English. | |
|
| | | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Jun-19 8:03 pm
Re: Shutdown Broadcast?That sucks. Everything OTA should be a single channel with full-bitrate HD! | |
|
| elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx: What are they going to do? Run 24 hour infomercials instead? Those broadcast licenses will be canceled relatively quickly if they do that. No, they wouldn't. Several broadcast channels sold out to QVC and HSN over a decade ago (to invoke must-carry), and their licenses weren't cancelled. | |
|
| |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:I do find it funny that the broadcasters are threatening to pull their OTA signals. What are they going to do? Run 24 hour infomercials instead? Those broadcast licenses will be canceled relatively quickly if they do that. A) they will become a cable channel like A&E, TNT, TBS etc. B) If they are not broadcasting they won't need broadcast license now will they? Fox signally was going to be come a cable channel when they first started before deciding to go the OTA route. TBS was originally a broadcast station. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to n2jtx
The problem they could have if they pull their OTA is they could get sued by the advertisers for any refunds on already paid advertising slots. If I say buy time during CSI and CBS shuts down their transmitters my slots have just become worth less money because they promised me x Millions of viewers on average for that show in that timeslot. Now they have shut out millions of viewers who use Antennas, Meaning unless the contract provides a provision for them cutting off viewers they owe me a refund. | |
|
Beck38 join:2014-05-12 Centralia, WA |
Beck38
Member
2014-Jun-17 2:51 pm
Ultimate Goal is Banning OTA ReceptionThe real goal of the broadcasters is, and always has been, to ban OTA reception by the general public without gathering fees to do so.
Many communities/cities have already done so, banning antennas in order to force residents to buy expensive cable subscriptions, backing that up with dish bans (both of these are supposed to be federally protected 'rights' but have been upheld by State Supreme Courts as valid restrictions). | |
|
| |
Re: Ultimate Goal is Banning OTA ReceptionATT / Directv has the power to make the dish bans go away.
any ways my other real choices are comcrap cable, wow cable or dish. | |
|
| ke4pym Premium Member join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC |
to Beck38
said by Beck38:The real goal of the broadcasters is, and always has been, to ban OTA reception by the general public without gathering fees to do so.
Many communities/cities have already done so, banning antennas in order to force residents to buy expensive cable subscriptions, backing that up with dish bans (both of these are supposed to be federally protected 'rights' but have been upheld by State Supreme Courts as valid restrictions). Care to cite something where the FCC's OTA/Dish rule was overturned by a state? | |
|
| |
to Beck38
It is illegal to prevent anyone from putting up an antenna to receive OTA TV signals, period! | |
|
| | |
atcotr
Anon
2014-Jun-17 3:53 pm
Re: Ultimate Goal is Banning OTA Receptionsaid by 8744675:It is illegal to prevent anyone from putting up an antenna to receive OTA TV signals, period! A landlord or HOA can't ban antennas per se, but they can effectively make it impossible to use one without violating some other rule. If apartment dwellers can't receive a clean signal inside, have no exclusive use space such as a balcony, and management refuses roof access, or refuses to let them tap into a line from their unit to the roof, then they are stuck with the cable company that bribed the hyperlocal authority. Or they might just bundle CATV with rent. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Ultimate Goal is Banning OTA ReceptionNo they can't. They cant go out of their way to prevent it and the same is true for dish antennas.
You simply can't make any permanent attachment to the building that will deface their property. However, if you need to run a 20 foot pool up above the roof line from your balcony you can do so as long as you are able to safely secure it (in a none permanent way). | |
|
| |
EdInStLouis to Beck38
Anon
2014-Jun-17 3:34 pm
to Beck38
Illegal 100% of the time. A community cannot force you not to have an antenna or a dish. From FCC website: The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. | |
|
| | ••••• |
| tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to Beck38
said by Beck38: The real goal of the broadcasters is, and always has been, to ban OTA reception by the general public without gathering fees to do so. WTF? I think you missed the point of the broadcast industry. It's not the broadcasters wanting to ban OTA, it is the repackagers of local broadcast (cable, dish, even Aereo) who would like to be the only outlets for that content Aereo is just trying to avoid/break the rebroadcast fees system endorsed by the FCC as fair compensation...Take that away and broadcast may be forced to give in to cable and dish who will still pay but have the ability to walk away. Aereo who pays nothing will get nothing. Public television has shown even with all the pledge breaks(ads) in the world, the voluntary payment/donation content model is not 100% self fundable/sustainable and could not churn out the common pablum of filler content fast enough for the current OTA market let alone enough to fill the pay channels. | |
|
| BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
to Beck38
HUH? OTARD protects their rights. | |
|
|
bluffCall the broadcasters bluff,guys are so afraid to face to future | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2014-Jun-17 3:14 pm
What say would the FCC even have?Aereo is not bound by their rules, As long as their antennas and electronics comply with Part 15 for electronic devices the FCC has no ability to do anything to them since they are an IP video service running over the existing internet, They do not transmit any RF.
Also if the SCOTUS declares them legal isn't the SCOTUS higher than the FCC? | |
|
| •••• |
ev @74.140.91.x |
ev
Anon
2014-Jun-17 3:25 pm
TuneInFunny how CBS Radio doesn't seem to mind a content aggregator like TuneIn but their TV brethren loathe Aereo with a fiery burning passion... | |
|
| ••••••• |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Jun-18 2:21 am
We all know where THAT fight would end........ it wouldn't be with an Aereo victory. | |
|
|
What about ustvnow?I've been watching ustvnow for a while and I've been wondering what happens if the supremes do rule against aereo. Would this be curtains for ustvnow also? Even if the big corporations that now rule Amerika do manage to take over tv entirely shutting down aereo and ustvnow and ota broadcast what good would it do them? They would still have to fight against bit torrent and news groups and so forth. Even defeating them, new technologies are sure to arise. And, of course, we still have dvd's and if needs be we would still be able to sit around campfires and tell stories. The people will not be defeated no matter what happens! | |
|
|
|