# Broadcasters take their case against Aereo to the Supreme Court & Win



## Athlon646464

*Broadcasters take their case against Aereo to the Supreme Court *

Fox may have been making an empty threat when it said it would go the paid TV route, if Aereo continued to stream its content online. But, that doesn't mean the broadcasters were just going to stomp their feet and let the start up carry on with it's plans to expand its streaming and cloud DVR offerings.

Today, a group that includes not only Fox, but ABC, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, PBS and CBS petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case.

Full Story Here


----------



## comizzou573

I will definitely switch to this company from dish once they become big enough : )


----------



## Mike_TV

comizzou573 said:


> I will definitely switch to this company from dish once they become big enough : )


At $8 a month and the first month free, I think it's a no-brainer to try out and play with for a month or two. Just waiting for Chicago to come online and I'm there.


----------



## nmetro

Sometimes coporate greed ends up being poetic justice. The broadcasters are suing because they air informercials, fluffy news, 20 minutes of comeercials per hour, and something that resembles programming, as a "public performance". That their broadcasts are copyrighted. While the content is; their signals are not. Even though, the US government, i.e. US citizens, own the frequencies which they used for these so called "public performamnces". The Supreme Court may acually rule in the favor of Aereo, because the broadcastsers use publicly owned frequencies. This may open the "can of worms" regarding charging cable and satellite companies fees for retranmission of signals. In other words, the brodcasters coudl see this blow up in their greedy corpoarte boardrooms. The winners will be consumers who do not have to put up with ab naseum blackouts each time a retransmission consent agreement is being negotiated. Yes, broadcastsers could fight back, by streaming all their contents on the internet for a fee, but who will pay to watch commercial laden internet broadcasts for a fee? Especially, when more than 50% of prime time network programming consists of reality shows?


----------



## lparsons21

'who will pay to watch commercial laden internet broadcasts for a fee'?

HuluPlus subscribers already do that!


----------



## comizzou573

I think internet tv is going to be the next big thing, it would be like satellite where you can sub to any local market channel if you live in hawaii and want chicago locals instead you can get it. The only problem once they grow, your going to need really good internet connection that is the down side of it.


----------



## James Long

comizzou573 said:


> I think internet tv is going to be the next big thing, it would be like satellite where you can sub to any local market channel if you live in hawaii and want chicago locals instead you can get it. The only problem once they grow, your going to need really good internet connection that is the down side of it.


The big IF is if such at scheme is allowed. At the moment Aereo is keeping their service "in market", which matches the law that satellite follows (except for getting permission and paying for the stations carried). Delivering stations out of market ... especially to markets that have a competing station ... is something that Aereo has not tried.

I do not expect Aereo (or any other company) will get permission to deliver network content on out of market stations. At best I can see the local content on any station in the country being available - but not network content and not syndicated content (if the owners push to protect it).

If Aereo manages to get permission to continue to deliver in market channels without following cable or satellite rules I'll be surprised ... and hope it changes satellite delivery rules in the process.


----------



## SeaBeagle

Aereo is weird. If you do not have a credit card billing address that Aero likes Aereo will not let you subscribe. Great way to start a new company. It seems like more and more companies are like this.

These seem to me to be companies set to as a tax write off for someone.


----------



## inkahauts

Probably one way how they confirm you live in the market that you are getting service in. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48

Aereo is weird. If you do not have a credit card billing address that Aero likes Aereo will not let you subscribe. Great way to start a new company. It seems like more and more companies are like this.

These seem to me to be companies set to as a tax write off for someone.
perhaps because they dont provide service in that market....


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

The OTA TV broadcasters are also going after the Cablevision cloud DVR decision, "suggesting" that the case was wrongly decided, and that the Supreme Court erred when it refused to hear the arguments in 2009.


----------



## jsk

If the broadcasters were to win this fight, would it mean that I cannot stream signals from my OTA module via Sling?


----------



## inkahauts

No not the same thing at all. They are basically claiming that aero as a company is redistributing their signals and getting paid to do it. Not personal use at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## comizzou573

James Long said:


> The big IF is if such at scheme is allowed. At the moment Aereo is keeping their service "in market", which matches the law that satellite follows (except for getting permission and paying for the stations carried). Delivering stations out of market ... especially to markets that have a competing station ... is something that Aereo has not tried.
> 
> I do not expect Aereo (or any other company) will get permission to deliver network content on out of market stations. At best I can see the local content on any station in the country being available - but not network content and not syndicated content (if the owners push to protect it).
> 
> If Aereo manages to get permission to continue to deliver in market channels without following cable or satellite rules I'll be surprised ... and hope it changes satellite delivery rules in the process.


you can watch any news station you want over the internet, i dont see why it would be problem


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

inkahauts said:


> No not the same thing at all. They are basically claiming that aero as a company is redistributing their signals and getting paid to do it. Not personal use at all.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Not really. The Courts that have sided on Aero's behalf have used the Cablevison precedent, when Aero has argued that its technology is not different from Slingbox's.

If Aereo loses, so does Slingbox.

*********************************
http://digitalhhr.com/2013/02/copyright-disruption-in-the-cloud-u-s-courts-divided-over-rights-required-for-streaming-entertainment-content-from-the-cloud-%E2%80%93-could-a-u-s-supreme-court-showdown-be-looming/

The strength of the Cablevision Case's private versus public performance distinction was recently put to the test, however, when the TV networks sued Aereo in the Southern District of New York for direct and secondary copyright infringement. The only decision rendered in the case thus far concerns the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 1540 (AJN), 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 96309 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2012) ("Aereo Case"), which was specifically limited in scope, dealing only with the Plaintiffs' claims that Aereo was directly liable for publicly performing the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. At the outset, the court acknowledged that the core issue in deciding the motion was "the applicability of the Second Circuit's decision in Cablevision" given the similarity between Aereo's technology and Cablevision's RS-DVR. Accordingly, Aereo argued, much like Cablevision, that it effectively rents to its users remote equipment comparable to what these users could install at home, characterizing its system "as merely allowing users to rent a remotely located antenna, DVR and Slingbox-equivalent device, in order to access content they could receive for free and in the same manner merely by installing the same equipment at home."


----------



## inkahauts

Just because aero claims they are the same as sling doesn't mean the courts or anyone else agrees at all. It's bad form to even suggest this. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

you can watch any news station you want over the internet, i dont see why it would be problem


And as I said earlier in another thread news is not at all the same as the rest of tv. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

inkahauts said:


> Just because aero claims they are the same as sling doesn't mean the courts or anyone else agrees at all. It's bad form to even suggest this.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Fox disagrees. Ultimately, SCOTUS will decide.

*************
Why Slingbox Is Finally Getting the Aereo Treatment

March 8, 2013

http://variety.com/2013/digital/opinion/the-slingbox-paradox-broadcasters-dont-object-1200005356/

Fox disagrees, and its attorneys argued that "any purported right that Dish believes consumers have to 'place shift' live broadcast programming does not apply here because Dish is not a consumer. It is not 'consumer place-shifting' when Dish retransmits Fox's signal over the Internet, in violation of its license agreement, to get more people to subscribe to Dish Network. It is piracy."

......................

So what happens if Fox and other broadcasters prevail?

Analyst Richard Greenfield of BTIG Research noted in a recent blog post that if Fox wins, "it would mean that Slingboxes are illegal for consumers to use, unless an agreement is reached with content holders (which we doubt would ever happen)." He also noted the irony that many media industry executives are faithful users of Sling: They use it to check their operations around the country.

*************


----------



## inkahauts

FOX wants people to pay if they even sneeze. They are idiots. Sling isn't at all the same. It's one login at a time for a box connected at your home. Not a server farm somewhere else that stores all your info. How it's done make a big difference. 

FOX might get the idea of sling built in kicked but I doubt it. The fact is they are mad because it's allowing dish to circumvent the contracts DIRECTV and others have to stream the channels on tv everywhere platforms. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> It is not 'consumer place-shifting' when Dish retransmits Fox's signal over the Internet, in violation of its license agreement, to get more people to subscribe to Dish Network. It is piracy."


Fox has it wrong. DISH is not retransmitting Fox's signal over the Internet. The consumer is retransmitting the signal. The consumer is responsible for their own bandwidth at both ends of the service. DISH is not hosting a farm of streaming equipment at an ISP or other data co-location site (like Aereo is doing). DISH's Slingbox is an individual customer streaming to themselves.


----------



## tonyd79

This can get interesting. I never understood how Sling gets around the copyright and local market laws, just that they do.

But I am not sure I see the connection that is being made anyway. Sling is about moving content. Aero is a different delivery mechanism of the same content that cable and satellite provide in the same geographic space. From an Aero perspective, it seems that they would fall under the same must-carry or must-pay arrangements for cable and satellite but to drag Sling into it is overstepping. Different issue.


----------



## KyL416

Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of physics knows they are lying about the one antenna per subscriber thing since they are all working as a bay and one of those "innovative" micro antennas alone cannot receive the entire DTV spectrum from VHF 2 to UHF 52. If it were they would make way more money selling the antennas. Not to mention the wiring involved to devote a tuner and encoder for each subscriber would violate every single NEC code. Also, anyone with a basic packet sniffer could see that the urls are the same for everyone outside of the auth code, just by opening the media cache file on my iOS device I was able to watch multiple channels at the same time. The whole prepping the stream thing is just an artificial delay created by a javascript countdown. The problem is getting a judge to understand all the technical aspects when it comes to broadcasting and the internet.

If Aereo does win, will they have to abide by the other rules that cable and satellite providers have? i.e. EAS alerts (they carry Bloomberg so they can't rely on the local stations to do it), SAP feeds for Descriptive Video as part of the disability act, closed captioning, potential franchise requirements like Public/Educational/Government access, etc. They also have the problem of the low powered stations, for example in NYC there's several low powered stations that have signals that don't get past the 5 boroughs over the air, but they are providing them to the entire market which opens up another can of worms. Of course there's the whole upending the entire must carry/retransmission consent system since you know cable and satellite will cite this as a precedent, as well as the rights issues since in some cases not even the networks have the mobile and PC rights to their programming because of other conflicting deals. i.e. WPVI Philly is the local OTA station for the Eagles cable games, however Watch ABC cannot show these games because of the exclusive deal NFL made with Verizon.


----------



## James Long

tonyd79 said:


> This can get interesting. I never understood how Sling gets around the copyright and local market laws, just that they do.


Sling provides equipment. The closest they come to providing a service is connecting one's remote device to their own home equipment. They are not providing the programming themselves. They do not host the receivers (and do not, in their TOS, allow others to run Sling hosting farms). What people do with their Sling equipment is a personal choice. Sling promotes their products for legal use (personal use viewing of content from one's own home) and does not promote illegal viewing. Generally speaking, personal use has been upheld.

Aereo provides tuners, storage, hosting and streaming services from their site to their customers. They provide the content. On the plus side they do respect market areas and do their best to only deliver the content within each Aereo market. But without the content that they receive and deliver the would not have a product.


----------



## Mike_TV

KyL416 said:


> Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of physics knows they are lying about the one antenna per subscriber thing since they are all working as a bay and one of those "innovative" micro antennas alone cannot receive the entire DTV spectrum from VHF 2 to UHF 52. If it were they would make way more money selling the antennas. Not to mention the wiring involved to devote a tuner and encoder for each subscriber would violate every single NEC code. Also, anyone with a basic packet sniffer could see that the urls are the same for everyone outside of the auth code, just by opening the media cache file on my iOS device I was able to watch multiple channels at the same time. The whole prepping the stream thing is just an artificial delay created by a javascript countdown. The problem is getting a judge to understand all the technical aspects when it comes to broadcasting and the internet.


This is interesting and I'm sure the broadcasters have inspected the serivce under a microscope, from afar, to build their case against them. Is there a website that lays out these claims (everyone sees the same stream, the antennas actually don't receive the signal and go one-to-one with a subscriber, etc)?

I'm interested in the technical aspects of how the service works or doesn't work.
I'm curious from a technical standpoint on how the service works, or flat out misrepresents how it works.


----------



## KyL416

With software like URLSnooper, Wireshark or a jailbroken iOS device where you can access the media cache file you can see what the URLs are. If you are familiar with streaming servers you can tell how non-unique they are.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: Bloomberg: If Aereo wins in court, cable companies might buy it or build clones *

While TV broadcasters like CBS and Fox continue their legal battle against Aereo and its leased microantenna-to-internet streaming scheme, Bloomberg reports cable companies are watching more closely than ever.

Since they're currently paying retrans fees for a lot of the same content networks broadcast over the air (and that Aereo is catching, then streaming to its subscribers on various devices -- web browser, Roku, Apple TV via AirPlay, iOS and most recently Android) if Aereo wins, they might see it as a way out of deals said to be worth billions of dollars over the years.

Full Story Here


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> The big IF is if such at scheme is allowed. At the moment Aereo is keeping their service "in market", which matches the law that satellite follows (except for getting permission and paying for the stations carried). Delivering stations out of market ... especially to markets that have a competing station ... is something that Aereo has not tried.
> 
> I do not expect Aereo (or any other company) will get permission to deliver network content on out of market stations. At best I can see the local content on any station in the country being available - but not network content and not syndicated content (if the owners push to protect it).
> 
> If Aereo manages to get permission to continue to deliver in market channels without following cable or satellite rules I'll be surprised ... and hope it changes satellite delivery rules in the process.


I don't get why they have the geographic limitation in place. They've already poked the broadcasters in the eye, and their entire legal argument is that no current regulation or law on the books with regards to local broadcast station retransmission applies to them, so one would think they would have no problem letting someone who lives in Manhattan, Kansas subscribe and watch TV out of Manhattan, New York. I have to think it's probably a combination of not trying to bite off too many legal issues at once (maybe they'll loosen the geographic restrictions if they win the current round of lawsuits) and also as a way to ration the service, since bandwidth is not the only limiting factor given their novel technological solution. (I can imagine they'd have massive demand if you could subscribe to New York or LA stations from anywhere)



SeaBeagle said:


> Aereo is weird. If you do not have a credit card billing address that Aero likes Aereo will not let you subscribe. Great way to start a new company. It seems like more and more companies are like this.
> 
> These seem to me to be companies set to as a tax write off for someone.


This is a way to make sure you live in the service area for the city you are attempting to subscribe to.



jsk said:


> If the broadcasters were to win this fight, would it mean that I cannot stream signals from my OTA module via Sling?


Theoretically one would assume so, but the model is slightly different. As Fox has already started complaining about Dish receivers with Sling, obviously that is on the radar. I wouldn't expect them to come after individual subscribers and stand alone slingboxes would probably be harder to go after than integrated receivers like Dish receivers.



KyL416 said:


> Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of physics knows they are lying about the one antenna per subscriber thing since they are all working as a bay and one of those "innovative" micro antennas alone cannot receive the entire DTV spectrum from VHF 2 to UHF 52. If it were they would make way more money selling the antennas. Not to mention the wiring involved to devote a tuner and encoder for each subscriber would violate every single NEC code. Also, anyone with a basic packet sniffer could see that the urls are the same for everyone outside of the auth code, just by opening the media cache file on my iOS device I was able to watch multiple channels at the same time. The whole prepping the stream thing is just an artificial delay created by a javascript countdown. The problem is getting a judge to understand all the technical aspects when it comes to broadcasting and the internet.
> 
> If Aereo does win, will they have to abide by the other rules that cable and satellite providers have? i.e. EAS alerts (they carry Bloomberg so they can't rely on the local stations to do it), SAP feeds for Descriptive Video as part of the disability act, closed captioning, potential franchise requirements like Public/Educational/Government access, etc. They also have the problem of the low powered stations, for example in NYC there's several low powered stations that have signals that don't get past the 5 boroughs over the air, but they are providing them to the entire market which opens up another can of worms. Of course there's the whole upending the entire must carry/retransmission consent system since you know cable and satellite will cite this as a precedent, as well as the rights issues since in some cases not even the networks have the mobile and PC rights to their programming because of other conflicting deals. i.e. WPVI Philly is the local OTA station for the Eagles cable games, however Watch ABC cannot show these games because of the exclusive deal NFL made with Verizon.


I don't think it's as far fetched as you make it out to be. I won't speak to the physics of the antennas being able to pick up VHF to UHF frequencies, but as far as the wiring, have you seen a picture of their antenna array? It's a surface mounted antenna on a circuit board. They don't necessarily have to have a run of RG-6 going from the antenna to their tuners. From a technical standpoint, I don't even think they'd need an individual antenna per subscriber as much as an individual *tuner* per subscriber. Either way, you could miniaturize the antenna and the wiring to the tuner sufficiently that you're not looking at a wall of RG-6 coming into a rack. And, an encoder + tuner could theoretically be pretty small as well. You can get fairly small ATSC USB tuners, and if they have designed their own hardware, you could get it even smaller or designed in a way that is more efficient to put in their hosting locations. ATSC being digital already means all they need is one tuner per subscriber, they can just record the digital bitstream directly. The only "encoding" they need to do is when they play the video back to the customer, and in that case they would not need an encoder for each and every subscriber. Just a sufficient amount of CPU resources which is trivial.

And, sniffing out the URLs and expecting them to be different shows a lack of understanding of how web applications are programmed. Using sessions and cookies and other techniques, you can show personalized content via standardized URLs. We don't get custom URLs on this message board, for example, even though we see different content based on our preferences.

If they win, I think the whole point will have been to establish that they don't have to play by any of the rules governing cable or satellite, so all of the issues you cite in the last part of your post would be moot. That's entirely why they're getting sued.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'd like to see the entire DMA system blown out. If I want to pay for it, I should be able to get any station from anywhere in the country. There may have been technical issues with doing that by satellite, but not with the advent of streaming. This is one aspect of the 50s-60s TV model that needs to die. 

I've never been in favor of territorial protectionism. I've seen the same thing in other businesses, although it's by contract/agreement rather than by law. Vertex and Motorola two way radios (among others) is another example. If I wanted to buy a radio, I had to buy it from an authorized dealer in my state even if I could find a better price on the same model from an authorized dealer in another state.

I don't understand how businesses (in this case, TV stations) can be in favor of limiting their customer base/viewing audience.


----------



## KyL416

JosephB said:


> From a technical standpoint, I don't even think they'd need an individual antenna per subscriber as much as an individual *tuner* per subscriber.


Except the whole one antenna per subscriber thing is the main part of their argument to get around the retransmission consent system that cable and satellite have to follow.


JosephB said:


> And, sniffing out the URLs and expecting them to be different shows a lack of understanding of how web applications are programmed. Using sessions and cookies and other techniques, you can show personalized content via standardized URLs. We don't get custom URLs on this message board, for example, even though we see different content based on our preferences.


I work with streaming servers for a living, I know how all the various ones out there today function inside and out. The streaming server software they use is very common, it does NOT work the way you suggest it does. (Heck what I was using to playback the streams doesn't even support session cookies) The server has a different url for each stream hosted on the server. Streaming servers and message boards are different monsters. With a streaming server the actual URL seen by the media player refers to a specific publishing point on that server, a message board uses php scripts to fetch content from an SQL database. Oddly enough, the live DVR buffer feature is actually something built into the media player they use on their site. RTE in Ireland and BBC in the UK use the same player to power their live streams. It's one of the benefits to using HTTP Dynamic streaming which allows the player to cache the content from the point the end user started watching. I didn't have a chance to test their recording feature though to see how unique that is.


----------



## tampa8

SeaBeagle said:


> Aereo is weird. If you do not have a credit card billing address that Aero likes Aereo will not let you subscribe. Great way to start a new company. It seems like more and more companies are like this.
> 
> These seem to me to be companies set to as a tax write off for someone.
> 
> You're not getting what the service is I guess. Of course you need card billing address that Aereo (not Aero) likes. They are specifically providing locals, not distant channels. It's a relatively though not 100% good way to be sure you live in the area you are allowed to get the channels. And as for the tax write off, this company is set to make Millions of dollars it is a major breakthrough.


----------



## tampa8

KyL416 said:


> Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of physics knows they are lying about the one antenna per subscriber thing since they are all working as a bay and one of those "innovative" micro antennas alone cannot receive the entire DTV spectrum from VHF 2 to UHF 52. If it were they would make way more money selling the antennas. Not to mention the wiring involved to devote a tuner and encoder for each subscriber would violate every single NEC code. Also, anyone with a basic packet sniffer could see that the urls are the same for everyone outside of the auth code, just by opening the media cache file on my iOS device I was able to watch multiple channels at the same time. The whole prepping the stream thing is just an artificial delay created by a javascript countdown. The problem is getting a judge to understand all the technical aspects when it comes to broadcasting and the internet.
> 
> If Aereo does win, will they have to abide by the other rules that cable and satellite providers have? i.e. EAS alerts (they carry Bloomberg so they can't rely on the local stations to do it), SAP feeds for Descriptive Video as part of the disability act, closed captioning, potential franchise requirements like Public/Educational/Government access, etc. They also have the problem of the low powered stations, for example in NYC there's several low powered stations that have signals that don't get past the 5 boroughs over the air, but they are providing them to the entire market which opens up another can of worms. Of course there's the whole upending the entire must carry/retransmission consent system since you know cable and satellite will cite this as a precedent, as well as the rights issues since in some cases not even the networks have the mobile and PC rights to their programming because of other conflicting deals. i.e. WPVI Philly is the local OTA station for the Eagles cable games, however Watch ABC cannot show these games because of the exclusive deal NFL made with Verizon.


They 100% have one antenna used per account using the system. If 1,000 people (Accounts) are online watching, all are on a separate antenna. It isn't the same antenna each time, but it is dedicated to one account each time. It's the precise reason it has sailed through the courts. I'm surprised people are having trouble understanding how it works, only because it's really simple. It's one of those things people in the industry are wondering how it hadn't been done before.
And it has nothing at all to do with what Cable or Satellite has to follow. They are providing what is a free OTA signal, to people entitled to get it. Nothing more, nothing less. And no question DISH or other carriers are considering using the service, buying it, or replicating it.


----------



## tampa8

tonyd79 said:


> This can get interesting. I never understood how Sling gets around the copyright and local market laws, just that they do.
> 
> But I am not sure I see the connection that is being made anyway. Sling is about moving content. Aero is a different delivery mechanism of the same content that cable and satellite provide in the same geographic space. From an Aero perspective, it seems that they would fall under the same must-carry or must-pay arrangements for cable and satellite but to drag Sling into it is overstepping. Different issue.


I too have wondered how Sling gets around delivering a program anywhere. It has to be because they are not providing a signal but rather your own allowed programming and only via the internet In addition, only one can be signed in at a time. In the case of Aereo, I see it much clearer, a more obvious allowed use, as the Courts are apparently finding. They are following the law. They provide an antenna, within the DMA that only one account within the DMA can use at a time. You yourself can do this right now if you want to. Say you live on a hill, someone at the bottom can't get OTA signals well, but are entitled to. You can give them that signal, and charge for it as long as they are not using the same antenna as you are. There is no law prohibiting that. People are confusing Cable laws, or scrambled signals laws, with OTA laws. By the way, if you don't charge any money, you can give as many people as you want your OTA signal from one antenna. You can't do that with a cable/satellite signal.


----------



## JosephB

SayWhat? said:


> I'd like to see the entire DMA system blown out. If I want to pay for it, I should be able to get any station from anywhere in the country. There may have been technical issues with doing that by satellite, but not with the advent of streaming. This is one aspect of the 50s-60s TV model that needs to die.
> 
> I've never been in favor of territorial protectionism. I've seen the same thing in other businesses, although it's by contract/agreement rather than by law. Vertex and Motorola two way radios (among others) is another example. If I wanted to buy a radio, I had to buy it from an authorized dealer in my state even if I could find a better price on the same model from an authorized dealer in another state.
> 
> I don't understand how businesses (in this case, TV stations) can be in favor of limiting their customer base/viewing audience.


DMAs and geographic exclusivity have never been about technical issues, other than when TV was invented it was technically impossible for one TV station's signals to blanket the entire country. It's always, from the beginning, been about forcing you to watch your local channel so that they can count you in their ratings. There are no issues that would prevent DirecTV from broadcasting a local channel nationally. As a matter of fact, back when they first started doing LiL all the locals were on the national CONUS beams. Back then the signal was compromised and one of the selling points that hackers were using when selling hacked cards was that you could watch locals from one of 20 or so cities. Satellite companies specifically moved to spotbeams and engineered themselves into "technically" not being able to provide any locals anywhere because it's a more efficient use of their spectrum.

I'm torn when it comes to the DMA system and protectionism of local channels. Where I live, most of the local channels' news is crap. They do provide some service by having local weather broadcasts. At some level the reduction of locally originated programming overall is kind of sad. I don't know of any radio station that has local DJs anymore. The same would happen if you could get locals imported from anywhere. Every satellite company, and many cable companies, would instantly just switch to New York and LA nationally and dump the retransmission fees and complicated infrastructure they currently have to use for LiL service. Shortly thereafter local channels in probably all but the top 10 or so markets would go out of business.



KyL416 said:


> Except the whole one antenna per subscriber thing is the main part of their argument to get around the retransmission consent system that cable and satellite have to follow.
> I work with streaming servers for a living, I know how all the various ones out there today function inside and out. The streaming server software they use is very common, it does NOT work the way you suggest it does. (Heck what I was using to playback the streams doesn't even support session cookies) The server has a different url for each stream hosted on the server. Streaming servers and message boards are different monsters. With a streaming server the actual URL seen by the media player refers to a specific publishing point on that server, a message board uses php scripts to fetch content from an SQL database. Oddly enough, the live DVR buffer feature is actually something built into the media player they use on their site. RTE in Ireland and BBC in the UK use the same player to power their live streams. It's one of the benefits to using HTTP Dynamic streaming which allows the player to cache the content from the point the end user started watching. I didn't have a chance to test their recording feature though to see how unique that is.


True, the one antenna per subscriber thing is a critical part of their legal argument so I have to believe that is how it works. However I think their legal argument would also work if they had one antenna, split, and then one tuner per subscriber. At any rate, I'm sure they have what they say they do, because a court isn't just going to take their word for it. I'm sure they have to provide evidence and people have to testify under oath how the system is setup.

And when it comes to the streaming server, I don't know what specifically they are using, but you have no way of knowing if they are serving different streams to different people logged in with different usernames. It would be pretty dumb on their part to have all that hardware as a ruse and then be cheating by only streaming out of one encoder. Plus, the fact that they have DVR features, it can't be exactly the same stream for everyone.


----------



## James Long

tampa8 said:


> They 100% have one antenna used per account using the system. If 1,000 people (Accounts) are online watching, all are on a separate antenna. It isn't the same antenna each time, but it is dedicated to one account each time. It's the precise reason it has sailed through the courts. I'm surprised people are having trouble understanding how it works, only because it's really simple. It's one of those things people in the industry are wondering how it hadn't been done before.


That particular issue was not challenged in the case. I wish it was. The broadcasters focused on the rebroadcast of signals not the deeper technical issues. I place it between the best scientific discovery in TV reception and the greatest lie ever told by a rebroadcaster. I'd like to see the technology proven. Sell me one dime size antenna and micro receiver/DVR that does what Aereo claims. Show me that one works ... and then show me the technology scaled up to the alleged thousands of individual antennas and receivers. Audit the system ... show how many people are watching live and recording during each hour of peak programming and prove that there are enough antenna/receiver/DVRs to handle peak demand. If 1000 people are recording a show at the same time are there 1000 tuners feeding 1000 recorders creating 1000 files? Are the recordings truly independent or is it just part of the lie? Challenge the technology.

As long as the broadcasters are focusing only on the rebroadcasts and not the technology we won't get an answer in court.



tampa8 said:


> And it has nothing at all to do with what Cable or Satellite has to follow. They are providing what is a free OTA signal, to people entitled to get it. Nothing more, nothing less. And no question DISH or other carriers are considering using the service, buying it, or replicating it.


That is the theory ... and all other rebroadcasters are doing are providing free OTA signals to people entitled to get it. They are simply using different technology. If the court rules that delivering free OTA signals to people entitled to get the signals is protected then why shouldn't other rebroadcasters get to do the same? If the question is simply providing free OTA signals to people entitled to get the signals then Aereo has already lost --- they lost a long time ago when cable and satellite was told that THEY could not deliver free OTA signals to people entitled to get the signals without the permission of the stations involved.

If the difference is in the technology the court should be focusing on the technology ... prove that the technology actually exists. And if it does exist then other rebroadcasters should be able to use it. Anything less would be unfair.


----------



## JosephB

The difference is entirely in the technology.

Cable and satellite "rebroadcast" (read: copy) the signal from the channels that they carry. They actively take one signal, reprocess it, and a different and distinct "copy" is what comes out the other end.

Aereo, on the other hand, is essentially leasing you a few square inches in their datacenter. Their argument is, it's no different if you rented a building downtown and put an antenna and TiVo and slingbox all on your own. They just do all the work for you. It's not a "common carrier" like cable or satellite--quite the opposite, there's noting "common" about it since each subscriber has their own antenna and encoder.


----------



## James Long

They need to prove the technology. The difference between a individual's Sling installation and Aereo is ownership. Sling TOS does not allow a data center "Sling hosting" installation. The Sling solution is individual owned and operated equipment. Aereo is admittedly shared (allegedly one subscriber uses an antenna/tuner/recorder while it is not in use by another subscriber). Plus they have yet to prove their claim that they are not simultaneously sharing antennas and receivers between subscribers ... and their DVR functions are most certainly making a copy of the programing on equipment that is not unique to the subscriber. There are holes in their system that the broadcasters should be looking at.


----------



## KyL416

JosephB said:


> And when it comes to the streaming server, I don't know what specifically they are using, but you have no way of knowing if they are serving different streams to different people logged in with different usernames. It would be pretty dumb on their part to have all that hardware as a ruse and then be cheating by only streaming out of one encoder. Plus, the fact that they have DVR features, it can't be exactly the same stream for everyone.


Again, I know streaming servers in and out, most, including the one they use, actually report the software and version that is powering their streaming server to the media player, with certain tools like curl or ffmpeg on verbose mode you can see this data. If you are familiar with how that streaming server works you can easily tell what's unique and what's not. As for the live DVR features, that is something BUILT IN to the flash player they use on their site, it functions by taking advantage of the way HTTP Dynamic streaming works and locally caching the video from the point the end user starts watching. BBC, RTE and many other sites use the exact same player for their live streams. As for the recordings not being the same for everyone, I couldn't test this feature, but most encoding software has an option to store copies of everything being sent to the streaming server. They could easily segment it based on the station's schedule and use that to deliver recordings.

As for regulations not applying to them, that gets tricky. Live online streams actually do have to follow closed captioning rules, (some stations were forced to open caption their live streams if they couldn't support some form of subtitles) the rest of the disability act like SAP feeds for descriptive video might apply to them too. Right now the providers in the top 25 markets have to carry the SAP feed, by 2015 it will be the top 50 markets. If they want people to use Aereo as a primary viewing source, the FCC would likely want them to be part of the EAS alert system since they are not limited to OTA broadcasts anymore, they also carry Bloomberg TV. Nielsen would likely get involved too if it turns out someone in their survey is now using Aereo as their only source of TV and is no longer receiving the inaudible signals Nielsen uses to determine what they are watching.


----------



## JosephB

KyL416 said:


> As for regulations not applying to them, that gets tricky. Live online streams actually do have to follow closed captioning rules, (some stations were forced to open caption their live streams if they couldn't support some form of subtitles) the rest of the disability act like SAP feeds for descriptive video might apply to them too. Right now the providers in the top 25 markets have to carry the SAP feed, by 2015 it will be the top 50 markets. If they want people to use Aereo as a primary viewing source, the FCC would likely want them to be part of the EAS alert system since they are not limited to OTA broadcasts anymore, they also carry Bloomberg TV. Nielsen would likely get involved too if it turns out someone in their survey is now using Aereo as their only source of TV and is no longer receiving the inaudible signals Nielsen uses to determine what they are watching.


The difference between Aereo streaming and the stations' own streaming is that the stations have an FCC license. Theoretically the FCC could say every local station in the country has to paint the floor in their studio pink or lose their license and they'd have to comply. With Aereo, the FCC has no such leverage. If Aereo wins, they explicitly will set the legal precedent that they are not a carrier under any law that gives the FCC authority over them. The Aereo decision will impact that side of their business as much as the retransmission fee question.


----------



## SayWhat?

JosephB said:


> I'm torn when it comes to the DMA system and protectionism of local channels.


I'm not, and I'm not talking about 20 cities, or 100 cities. I'm talking about all cities, big and small. If somebody grew up in Paris, TX and moves to Poughkeepsie, NY, they SHOULD be able to watch their Paris, TX station if they choose. Maybe Dish couldn't handle that kind of on-demand locals, but the web can if the Paris, TX station streams. As for commercials, maybe this gut is gift shopping for his mother and she prefers a local Paris store. So he watches the station, sees one of their ads and is able to buy something for her. Doing so isn't hurting the Poughkeepsie station, that's for sure. It may or may not be helping the Paris station.

There is no VALID reason against it. The commonly stated reasons are all balderdash.


----------



## tampa8

Aereo technology was never challenged in Court because it materially exists and is no secret. They DO have hundreds/thousands of antennas for each city. Some posts make it seem like a conspiracy theory.

http://paidcontent.org/2013/03/19/five-companies-that-want-to-break-up-your-cable-bundle/ Scroll down.

http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-thats-changing-how-we-watch-tv/


----------



## JosephB

SayWhat? said:


> I'm not, and I'm not talking about 20 cities, or 100 cities. I'm talking about all cities, big and small. If somebody grew up in Paris, TX and moves to Poughkeepsie, NY, they SHOULD be able to watch their Paris, TX station if they choose. Maybe Dish couldn't handle that kind of on-demand locals, but the web can if the Paris, TX station streams. As for commercials, maybe this gut is gift shopping for his mother and she prefers a local Paris store. So he watches the station, sees one of their ads and is able to buy something for her. Doing so isn't hurting the Poughkeepsie station, that's for sure. It may or may not be helping the Paris station.
> 
> There is no VALID reason against it. The commonly stated reasons are all balderdash.


There are valid reasons, but you may not be concerned about them, which in and of itself is perfectly valid. Many cities' local stations would go out of business, though, if there were no protections forcing cable and satellite companies to carry them vs. just importing ABC from New York or Los Angeles.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> There is no VALID reason against it. The commonly stated reasons are all balderdash.


Anything that the local station has the RIGHT to transmit outside of their own market ... and that is the big problem. Stations license most of their programming for their own market. Anything network or syndicated can only be retransmitted within the area that the station has licensed.

Licensing and rights are a pain in the butt. After all of the deletions for stuff that the station CANNOT retransmit outside of their market what are they left with? Local production news and local commercials? Perhaps. But even then there can be limitations. Some of the music and effects used in commercial production is licensed to the station's market.

You may think it is balderdash ... but licensing is just another thing that stations have to deal with.


----------



## Mike_TV

tampa8 said:


> Aereo technology was never challenged in Court because it materially exists and is no secret. They DO have hundreds/thousands of antennas for each city. Some posts make it seem like a conspiracy theory.
> 
> http://paidcontent.org/2013/03/19/five-companies-that-want-to-break-up-your-cable-bundle/ Scroll down.
> 
> http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-thats-changing-how-we-watch-tv/


There are other forums where TV broadcast engineers hang out and post that Aereo technology doesn't exist, it's magic, can't possibly work with such a small antenna per customer and they are fooling everyone. They repel at the fact that someone has invented a better mousetrap and threaten their existing business.


----------



## James Long

Mike_TV said:


> There are other forums where TV broadcast engineers hang out and post that Aereo technology doesn't exist, it's magic, can't possibly work with such a small antenna per customer and they are fooling everyone. They repel at the fact that someone has invented a better mousetrap and threaten their existing business.


That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.

Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?

The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

James Long said:


> Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?
> 
> The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


What about the Amazon and Google cloud-based music services? If SCOTUS rules that Aereo's business model is unconstitutional, not only will the Cablevision cloud-based DVR be illegal, but so will cloud-based music lockers.


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> What about the Amazon and Google cloud-based music services? If SCOTUS rules that Aereo's business model is unconstitutional, not only will the Cablevision cloud-based DVR be illegal, but so will cloud-based music lockers.


There are two ways to solve that problem ... one is licensing and the other is making it personal storage. Licensing would mean that the service would pay for the privilege of offering stored online content to their customers. This would fit the Amazon or DISH Online model where the rights to offer the content is paid for by the service provider. The same content is shared among all users who pay for access ... and the license fee is paid to the content owner.

Personal storage would be empty space that the individual customer would fill. Your uploaded content would be separate from my uploaded content. If you wanted something on your cloud player you would have to upload it yourself ... you could not play content I uploaded. It is similar to the home DVR where you cannot play content off of my DVR.

The content Aereo is offering is not uploaded by individuals to their cloud media server. Aereo places the content on the server. Aereo claims that each copy of the content is recorded from an individual tuner that is not in use for any other user or live viewing. I'd like to see an audit of that claim. The broadcasters stop at the word copy ... Aereo has copied the broadcast to their server. That is enough of a violation in their opinion.

Cablevision's DVR system is close to what Aereo is doing ... hosted DVR recording. Such a scheme violates the statutory license granted to cable systems for the rebroadcast of television stations. They could do like Amazon does and license the copies they offer. Such a scheme isn't forbidden by law it is simply not allowed under the statutory license. If the station does not object all is well. The stations are objecting to Aereo. All is not well.


----------



## kenglish

You know....the FCC has a very nice laboratory at Powder Springs, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta.
I'll bet they'd just love to test out AEREO's antennas and other "discoveries".


----------



## inkahauts

That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.

Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?

The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


I agree test it. 

But.. 

I can get a tiny bit part of a paper clip to use as an antenna to grab stations I don't see why it wouldn't work if its located on a spot that has excellent signal strength. 

The bigger question in my mind is how they store what they record.


----------



## Satelliteracer

kenglish said:


> You know....the FCC has a very nice laboratory at Powder Springs, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta.
> I'll bet they'd just love to test out AEREO's antennas and other "discoveries".


LOL. Yup.


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.
> 
> Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?
> 
> The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


Part of the "magic" of the Aereo antennas is that they are tunable, electrically. They only pick up one channel at a time. When you tune a station, they change the physics of the antenna and it only receives the specific frequency you've requested. It's not like anything you've used prior.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> What about the Amazon and Google cloud-based music services? If SCOTUS rules that Aereo's business model is unconstitutional, not only will the Cablevision cloud-based DVR be illegal, but so will cloud-based music lockers.


Amazon and Google (and Apple for that matter) have license agreements with the music companies. Also, Amazon's original service (not sure if they still do it this way) was an upload service, so you would upload your files, and when you listened they served you YOUR files. There was no deduplication or reusing master copies. It was essentially dropbox with a music player built in.


----------



## bobcamp1

James Long said:


> That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.
> 
> Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?
> 
> The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


You could also spend money investigating cold fusion or the existence of unicorns, but I'm sure you'd come to the same conclusion. It's a fraud. (At least I HOPE that's your conclusion.  )

That antenna isn't large enough nor is it oriented in the correct way to receive both UHF and VHF signals, especially if the signals are coming from various directions. Cell phone antennas are longer than these supposed HD antennas, even though they can be shorter because cell phones operate at higher frequencies. Also, cell phones have multiple antennas, including one for 850 MHz, one for 1900 MHz, one for Wifi (2.4 GHz), one for GPS (1575 MHz), and even a separate diversity antenna which is a secondary receive-only antenna. There is great care taken to isolate the diversity antenna from the primary antenna. Not only is there no effort to isolate each of these tiny Aereo antennas from each other, but HDTV is broadcast at three different frequency bands and I only see one antenna per customer.

By being near other pieces of metal that may or may not share a connection, that allows inductive and capacitive coupling which basically means the Aereos act just like a large array. It actually IS an array, even if the antennas are not directly connected together, but you'd have to explain advanced RF theory to 12 people who might not have high school degrees, who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, and who probably hate their cable companies. These technical court cases (like patent infringement) are not about who's right, but about who has the better lawyers.

The reason the antennas' individuality weren't disproved in court during the injunction hearing was that the plaintiff's expert witness couldn't testify in person, and the court allowed a hugely flawed experiment conducted by Aereo to stand as evidence. I don't expect the plaintiffs to make that mistake again. I like the fact that somebody is trying to work around the broadcasters. But make no mistake the antennas are part of an array, and they act together to pull in the HDTV signals.


----------



## inkahauts

So explain why a small paper clip Works for me? Is it also using nearby structure to create an array?

I guess the question is if they are totally separate and not connected but only getting signal because there's so many there does tat matter? Or would each have to be able to stand on its own without anything else nearby or a certain distance?

And how do you know they are pointed wrong? In Los Angeles all but a couple major stations come from the same place. San Diego does use multiple spots. What's to say they don't have multiple arrays for each location there at some point?

Just curios not trying to argue.


----------



## KyL416

inkahauts said:


> So explain why a small paper clip Works for me? Is it also using nearby structure to create an array?


A paper clip connected directly to the TV's input doesn't need to worry about having enough gain to make it across a 25+ feet coax drop (possibly in the hundreds range if their facility is on a lower floor).


----------



## JosephB

KyL416 said:


> A paper clip connected directly to the TV's input doesn't need to worry about having enough gain to make it across a 25+ feet coax drop (possibly in the hundreds range if their facility is on a lower floor).


You totally didn't read my post did you?

The Antennas are very, very near the tuners. Also, they can be small because they electrically tune the antenna to only receive the requested channel. It doesn't have to pick up the entire RF spectrum.


----------



## KyL416

JosephB said:


> You totally didn't read my post did you?
> 
> The Antennas are very, very near the tuners. Also, they can be small because they electrically tune the antenna to only receive the requested channel. It doesn't have to pick up the entire RF spectrum.


I did, did you bother to read mine and everyone elses? Until they have independent testing and verification of that technology, it could easily be just another false claim like their streaming servers, the javascript delay to give the illusion that something is happening in the background, or acting like the live DVR features on their site requires special functionality in the backend despite it being built into the open source flash media player they use that is used by many other sites to provide the same function on their live streams.

Again I was able to watch MULTIPLE channels at once just by modifying the publishing point in the URL, you admitted that you don't know how streaming servers work, but I do as I work with them for a living and know all of them inside and out. If something is really on command like they claim it does, playback would not begin instantly when using it inside another media player like ffmpeg or a locally hosted installation of the same open source media player, when testing with multiple accounts they wouldn't point to the same publishing point on the same server for the same channel. I would not be able to watch multiple channels at the same time, the same publishing points would not have the same channel months later, it would show a different channel based on whatever the person who is supposidly controlling the tuner on that publishing point is watching or they would not work at all if no one is watching, and the stream I'm watching in an external player would be affected each time I used the live DVR functions on their site if it operated the way they claim it does. The thing is, like bobcamp1 said, getting a jury or a judge to understand all this is hard since most of it would go over their head as like you were speaking a foreign language. especially if you start bringing in the technical terms when they have no IT or broadcasting background.

It begs the question, if they really made this breakthrough in television reception, especially eliminating the problems that are common with OTA reception in NYC highrises that constantly cause breakups like multipath, weaker signals due to the steel and concrete in the buildings, as well as other sources of interference, why are they spending all this money on legal fees picking fights with broadcasters? They could make millions licensing this technology to manufacturers to integrate into TVs, set tops and PC tuner cards, selling it directly to consumers, along with integrated software so the consumers do the streaming themselves avoiding the costs to set up and maintain the service in each market. Just take a look at all the issues people in the OTA forum or other sites like AVS have when their market has channels on VHF lo, VHF hi and UHF and don't want to or simply can't install a proper solution for whatever reason (they rent, no access to a place to do it like a balcony, their building is behind the times when it comes to OTA and have a VHF or UHF only antenna, or uses old amplifiers that worked with analog but causes too much distortion for digital), this antenna would solve them all if it does what it claims to do.


----------



## JosephB

KyL416 said:


> you admitted that you don't know how streaming servers work


I did not. I have worked with streaming servers in the past. I stated I did not know the physics behind antennas. Since several news outlets have reported on the tunability of the antennas and they have sworn under oath, I have to take them at their word for the time being. I don't think they would have raised $50 million if it was all a scam.


----------



## JosephB

KyL416 said:


> It begs the question, if they really made this breakthrough in television reception, especially eliminating the problems that are common with OTA reception in NYC highrises that constantly cause breakups like multipath, weaker signals due to the steel and concrete in the buildings, as well as other sources of interference, why are they spending all this money on legal fees picking fights with broadcasters? They could make millions licensing this technology to manufacturers to integrate into TVs, set tops and PC tuner cards, selling it directly to consumers, along with integrated software so the consumers do the streaming themselves avoiding the costs to set up and maintain the service in each market. Just take a look at all the issues people in the OTA forum or other sites like AVS have when their market has channels on VHF lo, VHF hi and UHF and don't want to or simply can't install a proper solution for whatever reason (they rent, no access to a place to do it like a balcony, their building is behind the times when it comes to OTA and have a VHF or UHF only antenna, or uses old amplifiers that worked with analog but causes too much distortion for digital), this antenna would solve them all if it does what it claims to do.


Because they're specifically engineered to do what they're doing. They're not designed to be stuck in any TV in any orientation 75 miles away from the transmitters. They rented a specific office space in a specific building with direct line of sight with no buildings between them and the Empire State Building in NYC, for example. They didn't take a bunch of ATI TV Wonders and rabbit ear antennas and set this up. It is possible for people to be smarter than you and think of novel new ways of doing things.


----------



## bobcamp1

JosephB said:


> Because they're specifically engineered to do what they're doing. They're not designed to be stuck in any TV in any orientation 75 miles away from the transmitters. They rented a specific office space in a specific building with direct line of sight with no buildings between them and the Empire State Building in NYC, for example. They didn't take a bunch of ATI TV Wonders and rabbit ear antennas and set this up. It is possible for people to be smarter than you and think of novel new ways of doing things.





KyL416 said:


> I did, did you bother to read mine and everyone elses? Until they have independent testing and verification of that technology, it could easily be just another false claim like their streaming servers, the javascript delay to give the illusion that something is happening in the background, or acting like the live DVR features on their site requires special functionality in the backend despite it being built into the open source flash media player they use that is used by many other sites to provide the same function on their live streams.
> 
> Again I was able to watch MULTIPLE channels at once just by modifying the publishing point in the URL, you admitted that you don't know how streaming servers work, but I do as I work with them for a living and know all of them inside and out. If something is really on command like they claim it does, playback would not begin instantly when using it inside another media player like ffmpeg or a locally hosted installation of the same open source media player, when testing with multiple accounts they wouldn't point to the same publishing point on the same server for the same channel. I would not be able to watch multiple channels at the same time, the same publishing points would not have the same channel months later, it would show a different channel based on whatever the person who is supposidly controlling the tuner on that publishing point is watching or they would not work at all if no one is watching, and the stream I'm watching in an external player would be affected each time I used the live DVR functions on their site if it operated the way they claim it does. The thing is, like bobcamp1 said, getting a jury or a judge to understand all this is hard since most of it would go over their head as like you were speaking a foreign language. especially if you start bringing in the technical terms when they have no IT or broadcasting background.
> 
> It begs the question, if they really made this breakthrough in television reception, especially eliminating the problems that are common with OTA reception in NYC highrises that constantly cause breakups like multipath, weaker signals due to the steel and concrete in the buildings, as well as other sources of interference, why are they spending all this money on legal fees picking fights with broadcasters? They could make millions licensing this technology to manufacturers to integrate into TVs, set tops and PC tuner cards, selling it directly to consumers, along with integrated software so the consumers do the streaming themselves avoiding the costs to set up and maintain the service in each market. Just take a look at all the issues people in the OTA forum or other sites like AVS have when their market has channels on VHF lo, VHF hi and UHF and don't want to or simply can't install a proper solution for whatever reason (they rent, no access to a place to do it like a balcony, their building is behind the times when it comes to OTA and have a VHF or UHF only antenna, or uses old amplifiers that worked with analog but causes too much distortion for digital), this antenna would solve them all if it does what it claims to do.


They could license it to cell phone manufacturers, too. Currently the entire back of the HTC One is one giant honking antenna. It would also prevent iPhone users from holding their phone wrong.


----------



## bobcamp1

JosephB said:


> Because they're specifically engineered to do what they're doing. They're not designed to be stuck in any TV in any orientation 75 miles away from the transmitters. They rented a specific office space in a specific building with direct line of sight with no buildings between them and the Empire State Building in NYC, for example. They didn't take a bunch of ATI TV Wonders and rabbit ear antennas and set this up. It is possible for people to be smarter than you and think of novel new ways of doing things.


But they're not engineered correctly! Since no care is taken to actively isolate the antennas from each other, and they are all trying to receive the same exact signal, they are by definition an antenna array. The antennas, even if they could somehow work individually, would have to be at least 1 foot apart (and probably over 30 feet apart for the VHF HD band) to ensure some amount of isolation (I'll have to calculate that better later). The pictures I see show the antennas right next to each other.

Besides, the single office building trick may work in NYC, but I bet other cities have the antenna towers scattered around, usually nowhere near any office buildings. The other problem that NYC has is multipath, which is even present with line-of-sight, but believe it or not an antenna array would help solve that.

You're basically telling me that Aereo has developed something like a warp drive. I think it might be possible, but not with our current understanding of physics.


----------



## inkahauts

I have to admit I have never heard that an antenna causes interference in another antenna if it's close to it.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> I have to admit I have never heard that an antenna causes interference in another antenna if it's close to it.


We like it when the forum is educational. 

Those of us who deal with antennas on a regular basis may take our knowledge as granted. The antennas I dealt with were normally half or full wave spaced.

Trying to have two adjacent antennas receive different frequencies with each antenna tuned for it's own 6 mHz band (as Aereo claims) without adjacent antennas interfering can be a problem. If Aereo organized its antennas so that all of the antennas receiving the same channel were in the same bank of antennas they could avoid interference. But then you're back in the situation where the antennas are acting as an array - losing the independence of each antenna.

Personally I do not believe the broadcasters care if the reception technology is real or not. Aereo could install full sized omnidirectional antennas connected to full size tuners and digital encoders to feed their customers and the stations would still object to the commercial rebroadcast of their programming.


----------



## inkahauts

We like it when the forum is educational. 

Those of us who deal with antennas on a regular basis may take our knowledge as granted. The antennas I dealt with were normally half or full wave spaced.

Trying to have two adjacent antennas receive different frequencies with each antenna tuned for it's own 6 mHz band (as Aereo claims) without adjacent antennas interfering can be a problem. If Aereo organized its antennas so that all of the antennas receiving the same channel were in the same bank of antennas they could avoid interference. But then you're back in the situation where the antennas are acting as an array - losing the independence of each antenna.

Personally I do not believe the broadcasters care if the reception technology is real or not. Aereo could install full sized omnidirectional antennas connected to full size tuners and digital encoders to feed their customers and the stations would still object to the commercial rebroadcast of their programming.


Are you really killing their independence though if arrangement is merely allowing you to avoi interference? 

And yeah, I think that is the reason I part they aren't after how they are using antennas. Maybe they could I after the DVR part at some point though.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Are you really killing their independence though if arrangement is merely allowing you to avoi interference?


Yes. If the antenna you are using for a tuner receives a better signal because it is next to an antenna that is also receiving the same signal the antennas are working together. They are not independent.


----------



## inkahauts

To me, I've always considered working better together is because they are better at picking up a signal, not canceling out interference. I guess that may not be the proper way to look at it legally though, or the proper definition.


----------



## James Long

In this case the "avoiding interference" could come from not causing interference by placing an antenna tuned for another channel too close. Antennas in an array all tuned for the same frequency (traditionally cut to the wavelength or an appropriate fraction of the wavelength) work better than a group of antennas tuned to different frequencies. (Please note, I am talking about antenna tuning, not receiver tuning. Aereo is claiming that their small antennas are tuned for the 6 mHz band used by the precise channel being received on that antenna at that time.)


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Are Said to Weigh Aereo-Type Services*

DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Charter Communications Inc., taking a page from Aereo Inc., are considering capturing free broadcast-TV signals to avoid paying billions of dollars in so-called retransmission fees, said people with knowledge of the deliberations.

Aereo, which charges $8 a month for online access to broadcast TV, is locked in a court battle with CBS Corp. and other media companies over the legality of its service. If Aereo prevails, cable companies could use the same approach to bypass the fees they now pay for network signals, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are at an early stage. Time Warner Cable has even considered buying Aereo, said one of the people.

Full Story Here


----------



## JosephB

bobcamp1 said:


> But they're not engineered correctly! Since no care is taken to actively isolate the antennas from each other, and they are all trying to receive the same exact signal, they are by definition an antenna array. The antennas, even if they could somehow work individually, would have to be at least 1 foot apart (and probably over 30 feet apart for the VHF HD band) to ensure some amount of isolation (I'll have to calculate that better later). The pictures I see show the antennas right next to each other.
> 
> Besides, the single office building trick may work in NYC, but I bet other cities have the antenna towers scattered around, usually nowhere near any office buildings. The other problem that NYC has is multipath, which is even present with line-of-sight, but believe it or not an antenna array would help solve that.
> 
> You're basically telling me that Aereo has developed something like a warp drive. I think it might be possible, but not with our current understanding of physics.


You and I have the exact same knowledge of the details of how Aereo's antennas are designed, which is not very much. You really don't know how they are designed so it's not appropriate for you to say they are not engineered correctly. You have no idea how they're engineered.



James Long said:


> Yes. If the antenna you are using for a tuner receives a better signal because it is next to an antenna that is also receiving the same signal the antennas are working together. They are not independent.


Even if they are working as an array, if each physical antenna is separately connected to a tuner, even as an array, the legal argument would still hold water. Each subscriber would still be getting an un-copied signal from their own antenna to their own tuner. Given that the antennas are 'multi-tenant' in that any given antenna is made available to any subscriber that needs it suggests you might even be correct. I don't think that would affect their legal argument.


----------



## peds48

So I guess this should not be working....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jsk

Would cable/satellite companies have to license the technology from Aero in order to make such offerings?

Also, I'm sure all of the cable/satellite companies are considering using the technology or buying the company, unless they also own TV stations. Heck, the TV station owners are probably considering buying the company so they can shut it down.


----------



## Joe Tylman

jsk said:


> Would cable/satellite companies have to license the technology from Aero in order to make such offerings?
> 
> Also, I'm sure all of the cable/satellite companies are considering using the technology or buying the company, unless they also own TV stations. Heck, the TV station owners are probably considering buying the company so they can shut it down.


Last I checked AERO is not a publicly traded company so they cannot do a hostile take over. It also wouldn't change the legality of the service. If AERO is successful in the courts it won't stop anyone from being able to do this legally.


----------



## JosephB

peds48 said:


> So I guess this should not be working....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I think what he's talking about when it comes to antennas being close together is slightly more complicated than that....



jsk said:


> Would cable/satellite companies have to license the technology from Aero in order to make such offerings?
> 
> Also, I'm sure all of the cable/satellite companies are considering using the technology or buying the company, unless they also own TV stations. Heck, the TV station owners are probably considering buying the company so they can shut it down.


Whether or not cable/satellite companies would need to license Aereo technology would depend on whether or not Aereo has a patent on some of the key aspects of their setup, and also depending on how the legal argument turns out. If they could get away with one antenna with splitters, and they only needed an individual tuner, then I don't see anything patentable. If the completely independent antenna is a required part of the legal theory, and Aereo has a patent on the method of tuning it electrically to one specific channel, then there would be licensing implications.

When it comes to buying them out, I'm sure the cable and satellite companies are looking into it. However, being a private company as was mentioned above, Aereo doesn't have to sell to anyone they don't want to. Plus, if it is established to be legal, they don't have to sell out to be useful to the cable or satellite companies. They can simply setup a clone, licensing issues aside.


----------



## James Long

JosephB said:


> You and I have the exact same knowledge of the details of how Aereo's antennas are designed, which is not very much. You really don't know how they are designed so it's not appropriate for you to say they are not engineered correctly. You have no idea how they're engineered.


It is fair to say you have no idea how they are engineered ... you can speak of your own experience and qualifications. But to say others have no way they are engineered is stretching what you know too far.

And if you're saying that the antennas are engineered correctly your proclamation of what you know just disqualified yourself from making that judgement. 



JosephB said:


> Even if they are working as an array, if each physical antenna is separately connected to a tuner, even as an array, the legal argument would still hold water. Each subscriber would still be getting an un-copied signal from their own antenna to their own tuner.


If the antennas are working as an array the antennas are not independent. Say the "one" antenna that is physically attached to the tuner is using six adjacent antennas tuned to the same 6 mHz band to help tune the channel. If one of those six antennas are feeding another customer's tuner then that antenna is in use by more than one customer at the same time.



JosephB said:


> Given that the antennas are 'multi-tenant' in that any given antenna is made available to any subscriber that needs it suggests you might even be correct. I don't think that would affect their legal argument.


Considering the broadcasters are concentrating on the bigger picture argument of commercial copying our discussion of the potential flaws in the theory of operation does not affect the actual legal argument.



peds48 said:


> So I guess this should not be working....


I figured someone would post something like that.
Here's a question ... how many wavelengths are the antennas separated? Do you even know the wavelength of the signals involved?

With TV the wavelength varies from 18ft (low edge of channel 2) to 1.38ft (high edge of channel 51). The center of the DBS band is 24 mm (under an inch).


----------



## James Long

JosephB said:


> Whether or not cable/satellite companies would need to license Aereo technology would depend on whether or not Aereo has a patent on some of the key aspects of their setup, and also depending on how the legal argument turns out.


Aereo holds four releated patents:
20120127363 - Antenna system with individually addressable elements in dense array
20120127374 - System and method for providing network access to antenna feeds
20120129479 - Method and system for processing antenna feeds using separate processing pipelines
20120131621 - System and method for providing network access to individually recorded content

Source: http://anewdomain.net/2012/07/12/aereo-antenna-tech/


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> It is fair to say you have no idea how they are engineered ... you can speak of your own experience and qualifications. But to say others have no way they are engineered is stretching what you know too far.
> 
> And if you're saying that the antennas are engineered correctly your proclamation of what you know just disqualified yourself from making that judgement.


I don't know 100% that they're "engineered correctly" other than they say that's how they work, that they are actually working, and they have several patents as you posted. I'm not an RF engineer. You or bob may be, I don't know. Either way none of us work for Aereo. I didn't claim they were "engineered correctly" I simply said that it's not fair or correct to state out of hand that there is no way they could possibly work in the way they claim, since the only public information is pretty generic. Being a young person who works in the tech industry, I usually find when someone who has worked in a technological industry for 30-40 years and claims "there's no way XYZ works" or dismisses it out of hand, nine times out of ten the old timer is wrong. Technology advances, and just because antenna technology operated in a certain way for a certain amount of time doesn't mean they didn't have a breakthrough that solved some problem. The point I'm trying to make is that technology advances, even in our own industries, whether we understand it or not.


----------



## James Long

And then there are the whippersnappers who think that they know it all because they can use the Internet. (Some of them can't even spell Internet correctly - but they are experts.) I'll be glad to ignore all the comments in your post that reflect bias against qualified professionals.

Sad to say but the occupation of "broadcast engineer" is fading away. It is hard to find people who actually understand the technology and know how it works and those that do don't want the responsibility, pay and hours that come with the job. Owners that further devalue the remaining engineers to the point where they no longer keep one around. They can always get someone to Google the answer ... and if that doesn't work they can use Bing. 

You claim that "they are actually working". You can only base that claim on the claims of Aereo. You believe them, that is fine. But belief is not proof.


I've left the door open and have invited Aereo to show me. A practical demonstration would be nice. It is amazing that a dime sized piece of metal can be specifically tuned to any channel on such a huge spectrum. Show me the technology.


----------



## inkahauts

I'd simply say I can't believe or disbelieve it but in reality I think that the reason the broadcasters aren't going after that part is because there are technically ways around this entire issue if their antennas where not real. They could literally put up larger antennas. It'd cost a boat load more but they could physically do it. They need to stop the right to do it, not the method.


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> And then there are the whippersnappers who think that they know it all because they can use the Internet. (Some of them can't even spell Internet correctly - but they are experts.) I'll be glad to ignore all the comments in your post that reflect bias against qualified professionals.
> 
> Sad to say but the occupation of "broadcast engineer" is fading away. It is hard to find people who actually understand the technology and know how it works and those that do don't want the responsibility, pay and hours that come with the job. Owners that further devalue the remaining engineers to the point where they no longer keep one around. They can always get someone to Google the answer ... and if that doesn't work they can use Bing.
> 
> You claim that "they are actually working". You can only base that claim on the claims of Aereo. You believe them, that is fine. But belief is not proof.
> 
> I've left the door open and have invited Aereo to show me. A practical demonstration would be nice. It is amazing that a dime sized piece of metal can be specifically tuned to any channel on such a huge spectrum. Show me the technology.


I don't "believe" to 100% certainty that they work like they say, but I have to take them at their word. They have been sued multiple times and testified under oath and submitted the technical documentation. They've also raised tens of millions of dollars. I don't think they would have done either of those if it were all a scam. However, I wouldn't bet my life on it. There are degrees of belief. At any rate, it's not impossible, and without any knowledge of how they actually work it's not correct for anyone--lay person or 50 year broadcast engineer--to dismiss it out of hand.


----------



## James Long

JosephB said:


> I don't "believe" to 100% certainty that they work like they say, but I have to take them at their word.


No, you do NOT have to take them at their word. There is no such requirement.



JosephB said:


> At any rate, it's not impossible, and without any knowledge of how they actually work it's not correct for anyone--lay person or 50 year broadcast engineer--to dismiss it out of hand.


It is not correct to accept the claims out of hand either. The "if you don't know it must be true" attitude is what allows rumors and incorrect knowledge to spread. For example, when your banking information is lost by your bank they will send you an email directing you to a non-secure website to reenter your current banking information so they can reset it for you. If you don't know that is a scam then it must be true. Someone in Africa has personally chosen you, yes you, out of the millions of people on the Internet to help them transfer millions of dollars between accounts. They will pay you thousands of dollars for helping them. If you don't know that is a scam then it must be true.

I'm sure that in your experience there are hundreds if not thousands of things that you know are scams yet every time you hear about a friend or neighbor falling victim you think really? You fell for that? (I had a boss who would forward his spam to me asking if it were true. Aggravating.) There is nothing wrong with being skeptical.

The legal arguments on the separate antennas, tuners and storage issue reflect the discussion here. So far Aereo has been more convincing than those challenging their service. But that is only a "so far". With the common man's grasp of technology and "if you don't know it must be true" attitude I can see why the broadcasters are focusing on the rights argument.

The courts ruled decades ago that the public broadcast TV signals were the property of the broadcasters and the broadcaster could decide whether or not cable or satellite could retransmit their signal. Overturn that ruling and everyone wins (except the broadcasters). Aereo is retransmitting. They own the antennas, receivers, storage and charge a fee for access. Why shouldn't they be treated just like cable and satellite?


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> The courts ruled decades ago that the public broadcast TV signals were the property of the broadcasters and the broadcaster could decide whether or not cable or satellite could retransmit their signal. Overturn that ruling and everyone wins (except the broadcasters). Aereo is retransmitting. They own the antennas, receivers, storage and charge a fee for access. Why shouldn't they be treated just like cable and satellite?


Well, that's what the courts have to decide, I suppose.

I will say this. The airwaves belong to us, not the broadcasters. If they abandon them for cable they owe us quite a bit for allowing them to use our airwaves to build their business. I think retransmission fees are a load of crap, to be perfectly honest. They should pick either being a free broadcaster or a pure cable channel--Aereo style "disruption" or not.


----------



## sregener

James Long said:


> The courts ruled decades ago that the public broadcast TV signals were the property of the broadcasters and the broadcaster could decide whether or not cable or satellite could retransmit their signal. Overturn that ruling and everyone wins (except the broadcasters). Aereo is retransmitting. They own the antennas, receivers, storage and charge a fee for access. Why shouldn't they be treated just like cable and satellite?


The problem is that the legal definition of retransmitting doesn't include Internet point-to-point communication. If you have a Hopper or SlingBox or an "Advanced" DirecTV DVR that can stream your video, it could also then be technically retransmitting the broadcast signal. What Aereo does is lease you a tuner+antenna combination and then allows you to access "your" antenna+tuner via the Internet. In theory, it would be no different for them to have 5,000,000 Dish Hoppers and receivers set up and allowed you to access "your" DVR through the Dish app (although this would violate Dish's terms of service, the technical and legal hurdle WRT the broadcasters would be the same.) However, the courts have not ruled so far that using Sling or other technology to watch your DVR's programs from a remote location violates copyright in any way.


----------



## kenglish

AEREO must gave some special patents on genetic manipulation, too.
They'd have to breed some very, very small machinists, to have them crawl inside there and "tune" those antennas to different channels every time.
FILTERS could be used to change the tuning of each receiver, but that would be the same technology that's been used for decades, in TV sets and Cable TV processors.


----------



## bobcamp1

James Long said:


> Aereo holds four releated patents:
> 20120127363 - Antenna system with individually addressable elements in dense array
> 20120127374 - System and method for providing network access to antenna feeds
> 20120129479 - Method and system for processing antenna feeds using separate processing pipelines
> 20120131621 - System and method for providing network access to individually recorded content
> 
> Source: http://anewdomain.net/2012/07/12/aereo-antenna-tech/


Thanks for doing this! I was going to pull up their patents this weekend, but you beat me to it.

They work exactly the way I thought they would work. The antenna is an array (it's in the title of the patent), and each element within it is addressable. That's not really a new idea. But the proper definition of "antenna" would be the entire array. You need the effects of the entire array to get a decent signal from any of its individual elements. An individual element cannot get a decent enough signal on its own.

So customers are sharing an antenna and are paying to access a tiny bit of it.

Whether that has any bearing on the larger issue at hand depends on how "receiving" and "rebroadcasting" are defined.

Also, note that no one can copy Aereo's design without paying them a royalty. If the royalty is more (or even slightly less) than the rebroadcast fees, what's the point?


----------



## Laxguy

bobcamp1 said:


> Thanks for doing this! I was going to pull up their patents this weekend, but you beat me to it.
> They work exactly the way I thought they would work. The antenna is an array (it's in the title of the patent), and each element within it is addressable. That's not really a new idea. But the proper definition of "antenna" would be the entire array. You need the effects of the entire array to get a decent signal from any of its individual elements. An individual element cannot get a decent enough signal on its own.


How do you know the latter?


----------



## bobcamp1

Laxguy said:


> How do you know the latter?


Physics. And I read the patent. Isolation is not mentioned at all in the patent, and the fact they use the word "array" all the time strongly implies that each element isn't designed to get the signal on its own.

There are several antenna arrays, and each array is further divided into groups. Each group is tuned for one specific channel, though there may be multiple groups assigned to a specific channel across multiple arrays. When you request to tune into channel A, you dynamically get assigned an element that belongs to the group that is already tuned into channel A. If you change to channel B, then the element you were using is released (but stays tuned to channel A) and you are dynamically assigned an element to a group that was already tuned to channel B. Element assignment is based on several factors including RSSI. This allows them to cherry-pick the best elements for use, which means there are elements that could be sacrificial.

The patent does its typical "patent thing" and also covers other similar-but-not-implemented implementations, but theirs is most likely the first one mentioned in the patent because it has the most detail and other patents (including mine) are written like that. It does cover the implementation of one element permanently assigned to a user, though doesn't say how well it would work. It also says that each array can have different sized elements, which would address James Long's and my concern over how each element could cover the three different bands on its own (it can't, but doesn't have to. One could buy or lease three different-sized elements or one element that is permanently tuned for each TV station).


----------



## James Long

bobcamp1 said:


> Physics. And I read the patent. Isolation is not mentioned at all in the patent, and the fact they use the word "array" all the time strongly implies that each element isn't designed to get the signal on its own.


They are trying to push their claim with "individually addressable elements", "separate processing pipelines" and "individually recorded content". I'd love to run a packet sniffer on the internal network to see how everything stays dedicated to the individual.


----------



## James Long

sregener said:


> The problem is that the legal definition of retransmitting doesn't include Internet point-to-point communication. If you have a Hopper or SlingBox or an "Advanced" DirecTV DVR that can stream your video, it could also then be technically retransmitting the broadcast signal.


The legal definition needs to open up to be technology free ... otherwise FIOS could retransmit any station anywhere without permission or payment.



sregener said:


> What Aereo does is lease you a tuner+antenna combination and then allows you to access "your" antenna+tuner via the Internet.


That is the theory ... but there is a lot more shared resources in the Aereo model than with individually owned and operated antenna / tuner / recorder setups.



sregener said:


> In theory, it would be no different for them to have 5,000,000 Dish Hoppers and receivers set up and allowed you to access "your" DVR through the Dish app (although this would violate Dish's terms of service, the technical and legal hurdle WRT the broadcasters would be the same.)


The broadcasters will NEVER be 100% happy with any arrangement where their signal is retransmitted. But looking at it realistically, "hosting" in the same market (not violating distribution rules and blackouts) would probably be permitted by the courts ... and a Sling / Hopper combination would have both the permission and payment that comes with a subscription to the service. The channels can charge DISH for such a rebroadcast. Aereo isn't paying the stations.



sregener said:


> However, the courts have not ruled so far that using Sling or other technology to watch your DVR's programs from a remote location violates copyright in any way.


Other than the integration with some DISH products Sling is a separate product that is owned and operated by the consumer. In the battle over Aereo the broadcasters have attacked Sling (claiming that the rights they sold DISH to rebroadcast their signals to homes does NOT include devices outside the home).

I'm not sure how this case will end ... and how much of a landmark it will be. It has the potential to remove a lot of restrictions on broadcast retransmission or to add further restrictions. Stay tuned ...


----------



## Laxguy

Stay tuned on a single tuner or on an array?!! 

Very interesting stuff this is!


----------



## trdrjeff

SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case


----------



## inkahauts

Excellent.


----------



## SayWhat?

SCOTUS has been pretty much bought and paid for by NAB/MPAA/RIAA and big business in general, so I don't expect a ruling in favor of consumers.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Aereo vs. TV networks case will be heard by the Supreme Court*

Other than Aereo's fledgling service, at stake is the ability of broadcasters to charge pay-TV companies for the right to carry their signals. If Aereo wins, there have been indications that cable/satellite services might buy it or build their own version, cutting the broadcasters out of a large sum of cash.

Full Story Here


----------



## Davenlr

I wish CBS (and the other networks) would take their content to a "cable only" distribution. That would allow the local broadcasters to innovate a little bit, and offer more locally interesting content, more local news and weather, and mix it up.


----------



## scooper

Be careful what you ask for.

Taking the network content off the local stations might be what kills local broadcasting - so instead of 4-10 independent stations (average) per market - you MIGHT be able to have 1-2 , whose programming will mainly consist of the syndicated shows (like Steve Harvey, Ellen, Maurey Povich, etc.), with SOME locally produced news.


----------



## Laxguy

I am disappointed that PBS appears to have joined the bad guys here.


----------



## ws_sw

you realize since 99 when the FCC tried to force all OTA braodcasters to turn over the spectrum and were forces to stop it, there next schemes are these audtions to buy/force spectrum holders to hand over there OTA spectrum. so they can sell it for wireless mbile junk.

The founder of AERO is a frontman / public face for the FCC who wants to end free tv in this country.


----------



## Davenlr

ws_sw said:


> The founder of AERO is a frontman / public face for the FCC who wants to end free tv in this country.


Its not free if you have to pay for it. I know of no one, personally, who doesnt have to pay for "Free TV".


----------



## ws_sw

Davenlr said:


> Its not free if you have to pay for it. I know of no one, personally, who doesnt have to pay for "Free TV".


you very well knew I was talking about the content aka OTA channels


----------



## tpm1999

It is high-time that the TV-cable-broadcast system is disrupted. This mess that has been going on for decades and must change. It took a near collapse in sales for the music industry to change (and finally accept digital)...unfortunately a collapse of cable/sattellite subscribers is the only thing that will convince them to change.


----------



## Davenlr

ws_sw said:


> you very well knew I was talking about the content aka OTA channels


Right, and even if it is free with an OTA antenna, I know of no one that doesnt have to pay for it. I get all my OTA channels "free" with my antenna, but both DirecTv and Comcast charge me for them anyway, with no option to "opt out".


----------



## ws_sw

Davenlr said:


> Right, and even if it is free with an OTA antenna, I know of no one that doesnt have to pay for it. I get all my OTA channels "free" with my antenna, but both DirecTv and Comcast charge me for them anyway, with no option to "opt out".


Thwy won't admit it besides I have locals available and I do not pay for them / even have them on my Directv system. I was able to opt-out


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

SayWhat? said:


> SCOTUS has been pretty much bought and paid for by NAB/MPAA/RIAA and big business in general, so I don't expect a ruling in favor of consumers.


BigTech is worth far more than BigHollywood right now. A decision against Aereo could have negative implications on cloud providers.

What will SCOTUS decide? Will be close. The ruling allowing consumer recordings of TV programs (Universal v Sony) was a 5-4 decision.


----------



## comizzou573

So I can basically get a virtual private network (vpn), and change my region to new york to subscribe to the New York locals. I hope this law passes then satellite companies can provide distant networks through them.


----------



## sigma1914

comizzou573 said:


> So I can basically get a virtual private network (vpn), and change my region to new york to subscribe to the New York locals. I hope this law passes then satellite companies can provide distant networks through them.


You need your credit card billing address in New York for the NY locals on Aereo. I just signed up last week because they offer our Dallas locals and that's one of their verifications.


----------



## kenglish

Davenlr said:


> I wish CBS (and the other networks) would take their content to a "cable only" distribution. That would allow the local broadcasters to innovate a little bit, and offer more locally interesting content, more local news and weather, and mix it up.


All it would "allow" the local broadcasters to do is, fill more time with useless "stories" about "apps", and run more and more goofy YouTube "Viral Videos" about kittens, puppies and babies".
Producing real news costs a lot of money. That's why stations with no major network affiliation (and the ratings that come with it) rarely produce local news programming. And, the ones that do, are usually owned or operated by a network affiliate, which already has a news department.


----------



## Herdfan

Aero Loses!

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/06/25/justices-rule-for-broadcasters-in-fight-with-aereo/?intcmp=latestnews


----------



## Athlon646464

Diller says it's over.......

Barry Diller says *"We did try, but it's over now"*, Aereo investor Barry Diller told CNBC following this morning's Supreme Court ruling that Aereo violates TV station copyrights when it streams their over-the-air signals without their permission.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Not surprised.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Just saddened that it had to go this way when the most logical solution would have been for the FCC to fix the loophole that created this mess.


----------



## Jtaylor1

That's a deathblow to free online streaming. Goodbye Youtube and Dailymotion.


----------



## maartena

Jtaylor1 said:


> That's a deathblow to free online streaming. Goodbye Youtube and Dailymotion.


Do you even know what this case is about? Youtube and the likes have little to do with that.


----------



## dpeters11

And reading the dissent, those who don't agree with the ruling aren't necessarily on Aereo's side.

"I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is 
doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted
programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we
need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it. "


----------



## Bill Broderick

Stuart Sweet said:


> Just saddened that it had to go this way when the most logical solution would have been for the FCC to fix the loophole that created this mess.


Is it a loophole created by the FCC or is it Congress?


----------



## Satelliteracer

Jtaylor1 said:


> That's a deathblow to free online streaming. Goodbye Youtube and Dailymotion.


How? The issue here was copyright infringement. If online streamers are paying for the content from the providers and then reselling, there is no issue. Aereo wasn't doing that, thus the issue. If Aereo were to provide this service and pay CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC to do so and compensate them for their content, becomes a non-issue in my opinion. Though, the whole individual antenna concept vs antenna array is still an interest to me and my primitive understanding of how all that works. Not sure based on the engineering buddies I have if I ever bought into them truly having an individual antenna for each subscriber as claimed. Others may disagree and my knowledge is limited on this.


----------



## Bill Broderick

dpeters11 said:


> And reading the dissent, those who don't agree with the ruling aren't necessarily on Aereo's side.
> 
> "I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is
> doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted
> programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we
> need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it. "


Aereo was clearly violating the intent of the law while, IMO, complying with the letter of the law. The way to fix outdated law or to close loopholes should be to pass new corrected or updated laws, not for the Supreme Court to interpret the intent of the law and act as if that were the letter of the law.


----------



## dpeters11

That's not a debate I'm going to go into, my point really was to say that even though it was 6-3, it doesn't mean the three found for Aereo. Not everyone may know it's not black and white.


----------



## nmetro

Bill Broderick said:


> Is it a loophole created by the FCC or is it Congress?


Well, it may go back to something like this. For those old enough to remember TV station sign ons and sign offs (from 1964):






WCBS, signed off at 6:00 AM (After the "Late Late Show") and signed back on at 6;15 AM. This also included the National Anthem.

The announcement does state that programs cannot be retransmitted, recorded or be charged a fee without express written permission. Back, in 1964, cable TV existed in a very minimal form. Only TV show recording was pretty much done by the TV stations themselves.

Aereo, effectively violated all three provisions of the law. The charged a fee, retransmitted programming and provided the ability to record it. And never gained permission from any TV station to do so.


----------



## PK6301

Just for giggles I went to their website
1. it still is active
2. They are charging you $12 a month for access to the "Free" tv programs, oh they give you 60 hours of cloud dvr service ( I guess that's the charge)
3. in NY city you have access to 35 channels of which I would only use about 15
4. by the time you factor in the cost of service, your internet access, your cell phone access, "is it all worth the price for 15 channels of entertainment ?"


----------



## PCampbell

Aereo was selling what you can get for free but in the processe they sold you NFL and MLB games and that is a copyright problem. I can't see how the outcome could heve been any deferent. As for cloud storage there should be no change as you payed for the content,


----------



## Diana C

Statement from Aereo CEO: http://blog.aereo.com/2014/06/statement-aereo-ceo-founder-chet-kanojia-united-states-supreme-court-decision/


----------



## Bill Broderick

nmetro said:


> Aereo, effectively violated all three provisions of the law. The charged a fee, retransmitted programming and provided the ability to record it. And never gained permission from any TV station to do so.


Let's start with the "recorded" part. That was struck down in the Sony VCR case 30+ years ago. We're all allowed to record programming.

Aereo's argument was that what they were actually doing was renting an individual antenna to a customer, which allowed the customers who live within the broadcast radius of a given channel to receive the OTA broadcast of that channel which could then be viewed on the device of their choice.

If Aereo's business model was to install an antenna on your roof, that they would rent to you on a monthly basis, which would allow you to watch OTA programming and possibly record it on another device that Aereo would rent to you, there would be absolutely no reason why Aereo would need to pay royalties to the broadcasters who transmit the over the air signals. They would be charging for the rental of equipment that allows you to receive programming that is broadcast freely over public airwaves. They would not be charging for the programming.

What Aereo did was to take advantage of new technology which allowed for extremely small antennas, which would be assigned to individual customers (which replaces the roof antenna) and used the Internet as the mechanism to carry the signal from that antenna to the viewing device (which replaces the coax from the roof antenna to the TV).

The individual antenna per customer is the "loophole" that Aereo was exploiting. When the law was written, they didn't anticipate the ability for a company to setup an antenna array that could be used in the manner in which Aereo did, nor did they consider the creating of the World Wide Web as a content delivery methodology.

As I wrote earlier, Aereo was violating the spirit of the Copyright laws. They were not violating the letter of the Copyright laws. That's what the justices who dissented were talking about in the quote that dpeters posted.


----------



## Bill Broderick

PCampbell said:


> Aereo was selling what you can get for free but in the processe they sold you NFL and MLB games and that is a copyright problem.


They weren't selling any programming. They were renting equipment that allowed people to receive programming that was already being broadcast for free. The broadcasters of that programming are the ones who are selling NFL and MLB games via commercials in the programming. The rights fees that broadcasters have recently begun getting from cable and satellite companies are just the broadcasters double dipping in getting paid for "free" programming.

If Aereo existed before broadcasters began collecting retransmission fees from cable companies, the broadcasters would have been huge fans of Aereo because it would have increased the number of people who could view their programming which would have increased ad revenue.


----------



## otisorungus

PK6301 said:


> Just for giggles I went to their website
> 1. it still is active
> 2. They are charging you $12 a month for access to the "Free" tv programs, oh they give you 60 hours of cloud dvr service ( I guess that's the charge)
> 3. in NY city you have access to 35 channels of which I would only use about 15
> 4. by the time you factor in the cost of service, your internet access, your cell phone access, "is it all worth the price for 15 channels of entertainment ?"


I was, until today, a customer of Aereo. I do not have any cable or satellite service. I have an attic antenna and a combination of DVR'S, Roku's, and an Apple TV to provide content for the family. Being on the edge of the broadcast area, I would occasionally lose signal on some channels due to various reasons. Aereo allowed me to continue watching while having signal problems. Additionally, it gave me access to live TV from the two Roku boxes in the house. I know there has been criticism of the concept of Aereo, but for me, it made access to live TV more reliable and made the content available on more devices. I am aware I was paying them for "free" TV programs, but it did make watching broadcast television more convenient. Not to mention, it's only $8 per year for the basic service. The other costs you listed are all costs I pay with or without Aereo.


----------



## nmetro

The key: You can record programming for your PERSONAL use and you can receive TV signals for your own PERSONAL use. You cannot record TV programs and sell them (DVD, VHS, DVR), you cannot receive and then transmit TV signals nor sell them. You cannot operate a public establishment and then charge people to view a TV broadcast.. This is what Aereo is effectively doing. They violated the copyright laws and violated an FCC regulations.

The spiel that broadcasters made at sign on and sign off sometimes included that one could not charge for the public exhibition of TV broadcasts.

Aereo would have been fine is they received retransmission consent from the broadcasters. Of course, instead of charging $8 or $12 per subscriber; they would probably have to charge twice that. Effectively, for something where about 97% of the country can get for free; OTA tV.



Bill Broderick said:


> Let's start with the "recorded" part. That was struck down in the Sony VCR case 30+ years ago. We're all allowed to record programming.
> 
> Aereo's argument was that what they were actually doing was renting an individual antenna to a customer, which allowed the customers who live within the broadcast radius of a given channel to receive the OTA broadcast of that channel which could then be viewed on the device of their choice.
> 
> If Aereo's business model was to install an antenna on your roof, that they would rent to you on a monthly basis, which would allow you to watch OTA programming and possibly record it on another device that Aereo would rent to you, there would be absolutely no reason why Aereo would need to pay royalties to the broadcasters who transmit the over the air signals. They would be charging for the rental of equipment that allows you to receive programming that is broadcast freely over public airwaves. They would not be charging for the programming.
> 
> What Aereo did was to take advantage of new technology which allowed for extremely small antennas, which would be assigned to individual customers (which replaces the roof antenna) and used the Internet as the mechanism to carry the signal from that antenna to the viewing device (which replaces the coax from the roof antenna to the TV).
> 
> The individual antenna per customer is the "loophole" that Aereo was exploiting. When the law was written, they didn't anticipate the ability for a company to setup an antenna array that could be used in the manner in which Aereo did, nor did they consider the creating of the World Wide Web as a content delivery methodology.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, Aereo was violating the spirit of the Copyright laws. They were not violating the letter of the Copyright laws. That's what the justices who dissented were talking about in the quote that dpeters posted.


----------



## Bill Broderick

nmetro said:


> The key: You can record programming for your PERSONAL use and you can receive TV signals for your own PERSONAL use. You cannot record TV programs and sell them (DVD, VHS, DVR), you cannot receive and then transmit TV signals nor sell them. You cannot operate a public establishment and then charge people to view a TV broadcast.. This is what Aereo is effectively doing. They violated the copyright laws and violated an FCC regulations.


The thing is, that the way that the copyright law is written, by renting an *individual antenna *to each customer, they were creating a PERSONAL use situation. Had they received the OTA signal with a single antenna of via satellite or land line or any methodology other than one antenna per customer, and then transmitted to multiple customers, that would have been public retransmission. Aereo was specifically created this way to take advantage of that loophole in the law.

I may not be allowed to charge someone to view a TV broadcast (I don't know if that's true or not). But, I can definitely charge somebody a rental fee for the personal use of my antenna and my DVR. That's what Aereo was doing.

It's absolutely clear that Aereo was built with the specific intention of circumventing copyright laws. As such, I don't believe that they should exist. However, the correct way to do this would have been to close that loophole. I can't say that I agree with Scalia very often. But, this time was one of those very few occasions (I also agreed with him on today's cell phone decision. But, at 9-0, that one was a no-brainer).


----------



## PCampbell

Bill Broderick said:


> They weren't selling any programming. They were renting equipment that allowed people to receive programming that was already being broadcast for free. The broadcasters of that programming are the ones who are selling NFL and MLB games via commercials in the programming. The rights fees that broadcasters have recently begun getting from cable and satellite companies are just the broadcasters double dipping in getting paid for "free" programming.
> 
> If Aereo existed before broadcasters began collecting retransmission fees from cable companies, the broadcasters would have been huge fans of Aereo because it would have increased the number of people who could view their programming which would have increased ad revenue.


If I pay them to watch a game then they are selling it. Looks like the supreme court thinks so also. To say they are renting you an antenna is just a BS way to try to get around the law.


----------



## Bill Broderick

PCampbell said:


> To say they are renting you an antenna is just a BS way to try to get around the law.


Yes it was. My point is that the correct way to prevent them from getting around the law is to actually change the law.


----------



## James Long

Bill Broderick said:


> Yes it was. My point is that the correct way to prevent them from getting around the law is to actually change the law.


Changing the law may have been more harmful than deciding the case based on the intent.

A long time ago SCOTUS decided that retransmission did not violate copyright, regardless of the distances involved. Congress stepped in and passed a law amending the copyright act in 1976 defining retransmission as public performance. Aereo operates as a service that allows subscribers to watch television programming - not simply a equipment provider. Regardless of the technology used, Aereo is retransmitting. Which would have been perfectly fine with SCOTUS before 1976 ... but Congress passed a law.

Write a law that closes the alleged loophole without damaging any other service offering. That is the challenge. Or do what SCOTUS did and read the law that Congress passed specifically to block retransmission without permission.

*The Aereo Decision*
Aereo's system is made up of servers, transcoders, and thousands of dime-sized antennas housed in a central warehouse. It works roughly as follows: First, when a subscriber wants to watch a show that is currently being broadcast, he visits Aereo's website and selects, from a list of the local programming, the show he wishes to see.
Second, one of Aereo's servers selects an antenna, which it dedicates to the use of that subscriber (and that subscriber alone) for the duration of the selected show. A server then tunes the antenna to the over-the-air broadcast carrying the show. The antenna begins to receive the broadcast, and an Aereo transcoder translates the signals received into data that can be transmitted over the Internet.
Third, rather than directly send the data to the subscriber, a server saves the data in a subscriber-specific folder on Aereo's hard drive. In other words, Aereo's system creates a subscriber-specific copy-that is, a "personal" copy-of the subscriber's program of choice.
Fourth, once several seconds of programming have been saved, Aereo's server begins to stream the saved copy ofthe show to the subscriber over the Internet. (The subscriber may instead direct Aereo to stream the program ata later time, but that aspect of Aereo's service is not before us.) The subscriber can watch the streamed program on the screen of his personal computer, tablet, smart phone, Internet-connected television, or other Internet-connected device. The streaming continues, a mere few seconds behind the over-the-air broadcast, until the subscriber has received the entire show.
Aereo made a copy and delivered a copy, without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright law does not discriminate and say it is legal to make ONE copy for distribution but illegal to make two or more. Any copy is a copy. Aereo is not making copies for personal use ... they are making copies for distribution. And it is Aereo that is making the copy - not their customers. While Aereo claims it is the customer's "personal" copy, Aereo made the copy - without the owners permission.

*Cloud Services and Personal Streaming*
We cannot now answer more precisely how the Transmit Clause or other provisions of the Copyright Act will apply to technologies not before us. We agree with the Solicitor General that "[q]uestions involving cloud computing, [remote storage] DVRs, and other novel issues not before the Court, as to which 'Congress has not plainly marked [the] course,' should await a case in which they are squarely presented." . . . And we note that, to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.
While the court did not decide on the legality of cloud storage it should not be a difficult question to answer. The question I ask is "how did the copy get made".

If I make a personal copy of copyrighted material for my own personal use and I place it on a server for my own use (perhaps on another device) then I have not violated copyright law. (I made the copy, I used the copy.) If I give someone else access to that copy without the permission of the copyright owner then I have violated copyright law.

If the copy of the material is provided by a service, for example by a video or music service where I can fill my cloud from their library, as long as that copy is provided under agreement with the copyright owner the copy is legitimate and no law has been broken.

Using that logic (with no twists or loopholes required) cloud services should be fine.

If I buy a Slingbox, Hopper or Genie (or other device) and I instruct it to make a copy of a program then it is my personal copy that I have made. I cannot distribute it to others without risking violating copyright law but I can use that copy in any way permitted under personal use. The companies involved are selling or leasing me a device I control - not the content that I may view through connections I have made to those devices. Any content provided by DISH or DirecTV is provided under license from the copyright owners.

Aereo's trip up is their real product was the content not the equipment and they worked without the owner's permission. Personal streaming should easily survive this ruling.

It seems that SCOTUS found a way to rule against Aereo's blatent disregard for the law without harming other potential services.


----------



## phrelin

Ah, well, it pretty much settles the question. Within the DMA covered by the broadcast license, the members of the public can continue to get the broadcasts for free but only if they can receive the broadcast off the air with their own equipment.

Thus in about 65% of the Bay Area DMA, members of the public must pay the broadcasters via a fund transfer through a delivery service like Dish for what those who live in 35% of the DMA can get for free under the terms of a government license. Basically Congress has set up entertainment zones owned by large corporations. They've taken away from those of us in the zone what was regarded by many as a right to see OTA broadcasts for free within the DMA under an exclusive government license.

Remember, I'm not talking about paying Dish for the delivery service, I'm talking about having to pay the likes of New Corp, owner of Fox, and Comcast, owner of NBC, for something that they were supposed to offer free in return for an exclusive license.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Ah, well, it pretty much settles the question. Within the DMA covered by the broadcast license, the members of the public can continue to get the broadcasts for free but only if they can receive the broadcast off the air with their own equipment.


There is no DMA limit on direct OTA reception. Get an antenna good enough to receive the OTA channel and you're good.



phrelin said:


> I'm talking about having to pay the likes of New Corp, owner of Fox, and Comcast, owner of NBC, for something that they were supposed to offer free in return for an exclusive license.


I agree ... and so did SCOTUS before Congress wrote specific laws that struck down their opinion.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> There is no DMA limit on direct OTA reception. Get an antenna good enough to receive the OTA channel and you're good.


I had forgotten about that. Many folks within the Sacramento DMA watch Bay Area stations OTA for free. It's just those of us who live in the 65% of the Bay Area DMA that the OTA signals don't reach who must pay the Bay Area OTA stations to get the free signal.

And of course Congress wouldn't fix that because the members of Congress could not afford to alienate the local TV station corporations which are, according to SCOTUS, "people" who have the same rights as you and me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't know why some are surprised at this sort of thing. Thing of "free" OTA TV like promotional items.

We have all received a free promotional item that was stamped with a "not for resale" label on it... you get it for free, by attending an event or being a member of a club or whatever. You can give that away if you want... maybe even on an individual basis you could sell your one free promotional item to someone else... but what you can't do is back a truck up to the event and load up your truck with boxes of that free promotional material and then take it somewhere to sell yourself elsewhere.

That's what we are talking about here. The OTA broadcast transmission is "free", which is to say it isn't free... it comes with the caveat that it is free to anyone who can put up an antenna and receive the signal. It isn't free to take that signal and retransmit it to someone else or to sell it or charge admission for a public viewing... and there are logical reasons why this can and should be a law to protect those broadcast channels' interests.

Aereo was doing the electronic equivalent of backing a truck up to the transmission, loading up, and selling that transmission to others and delivering it through their own mechanism... which is why it was a doomed proposition from the start.


----------



## jsk

Aereo still works. I just signed up for a one month free trial. I'm surprised they haven't stopped the service yet.


----------



## cypherx

If broadcasters don't want their signal re-transmitted (via aereo or cable / sat companies) without some sort of financial kickback... then why don't they encrypt their broadcasts, or deliver them over private lines to distributors that pay?

Heck if they deliver the content via private lines, that frees up lots of broadcast spectrum for things like Internet access. Thats where the young generation (Late Gen Y and upcoming Gen Z) is gravitating towards anyway... more Internet and on demand vs linear TV subscription. I know a lot of people 30 and younger who just sub to Internet and Netflix.

So less eyes on these broadcasters, less eyes on the adverts, and less money from that revenue stream. I just think they are shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know why some are surprised at this sort of thing. Think of "free" OTA TV like promotional items.


I'd rather think of OTA TV as companies making money off of the public owned airwaves. OTA TV is *NOT* a free sample. Charging for retransmission is a money grab. The stations are not losing viewers (read: money) by having their signals retransmitted by cable and satellite. They are gaining viewers - and adding a penalty for using cable or satellite.

Perhaps it is out of revenge since cable and satellite companies deliver competing channels (cable channels) where an OTA only viewer only sees other OTAs. But what started with "hey, cable companies are charging money for delivering our signals - we want a piece of the action!" has progressed to higher fees that cable and satellite pass on to their customers. Not compensation for a cost to the station but "non-traditional revenue".


----------



## James Long

jsk said:


> Aereo still works. I just signed up for a one month free trial. I'm surprised they haven't stopped the service yet.


SCOTUS remanded the decision back to the lower courts with instructions to come up with a new ruling that fits with SCOTUS' ruling. Until the appeals courts act Aereo is still able to operate. The question of penalties (will the courts place a penalty on Aereo for their copyright violations?) will be answered by courts lower than SCOTUS.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I mention this every single time it comes up...

Years ago, the local channels in my DMA made a public statement that they would happily allow cable (this was before DBS became a big thing) to retransmit their OTA signal as long as they passed it along free to the consumers. IF cable wanted to charge its customers to receive the OTA retransmission, then they had to pay for the right to do that.

Cable had a choice... free retransmission, or pay to resell it... Cable chose to pay to resell it.

OTA doesn't have a problem with gaining extra viewers... they have a problem with cable and satellite wanting to sell that as a benefit to their business without paying the OTA for the right to have that resell-able product.

IF cable and satellite and Aereo wanted to give the product to the consumers, then there would be no problem... but they want to construct a profitable business model around it... which is why they should and do have to pay. It doesn't seem that complicated to me.


----------



## cypherx

Well someone has to pay to maintain the network. Cable (or Aereo) are not charities. Ok basic cable is about $20 a month. Well they have amplifiers and nodes that suck up power, maintenance and headend techs to keep the system clean and interference free, an heavy infrastructure investment in outside plant and headend gear.

Same for Aereo. Think those servers or the power to run them are free? Or the Internet connections and network infrastructure free? Of course Aereo (like cable) is going to charge for the service.

If OTA doesn't want their signals taken, encrypt it and control access like any other satellite network; or just stop broadcasting it and supply it to paying providers via private lines.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Cable had a choice... free retransmission, or pay to resell it... Cable chose to pay to resell it.


It was an impossible offer, especially back in the early 1970's when Congress granted the stations copyright protection. CATV (community antenna) needed to charge to pay for the infrastructure. The demand that distribution had to be free is a demand that CATV couldn't cover their own costs. That they would have to operate as some kind of charity to help local broadcasters. Making an impossible offer is easy.

In any case, the stations cried to Congress - Congress heard their cry and wrote laws that "protect" the broadcasters (despite the lack of harm) and harm consumers (leading to higher charges that funnel money back to the stations). Like it or not (and do not put me on the list of "like it") the law is there and needs to be followed by every company that acts like a cable company ... including Aereo.

Here's another impossible offer: If you don't like the situation, change the law.


----------



## James Long

cypherx said:


> If OTA doesn't want their signals taken, encrypt it and control access like any other satellite network; or just stop broadcasting it and supply it to paying providers via private lines.


OTA cannot encrypt their primary feed. Theoretically they could transmit junk as their primary feed and have their good programming on separate encrypted channels but they must have one unencrypted feed.


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> I mention this every single time it comes up...
> 
> Years ago, the local channels in my DMA made a public statement that they would happily allow cable (this was before DBS became a big thing) to retransmit their OTA signal as long as they passed it along free to the consumers. IF cable wanted to charge its customers to receive the OTA retransmission, then they had to pay for the right to do that.
> 
> Cable had a choice... free retransmission, or pay to resell it... Cable chose to pay to resell it.
> 
> OTA doesn't have a problem with gaining extra viewers... they have a problem with cable and satellite wanting to sell that as a benefit to their business without paying the OTA for the right to have that resell-able product.


There is where I think the Cable and DBS companies need to put a line item on their bill of how much they are paying per sub for local channels. Just like HBO. Let the local customers start calling up the stations wanting to know why they are paying $6/mo for something they can get OTA for free.


----------



## Laxguy

But wouldn't the stations' response be to push the complainants to go OTA?


----------



## Satelliteracer

Now the back pay comes into play

http://projects.registerguard.com/apf/tech/aereo-tv-supreme-court-internet/


----------



## Athlon646464

Satelliteracer said:


> Now the back pay comes into play
> 
> http://projects.registerguard.com/apf/tech/aereo-tv-supreme-court-internet/


Wow - That's huge......


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **Broadcasters may seek damages payout from Aereo after Supreme Court ruling*

(The Register-Guard) - Now comes the expensive part for Aereo: finding out how much it will have to pay broadcasters after the US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday the television streaming service was illegally retransmitting their TV shows.

At a minimum, broadcasters will most likely look to recover retransmission fees -- the fee cable companies pay to use broadcast content -- from Aereo, Ewing said.

The networks could also try to collect fees for purported lost business, attorneys costs, and up to $150,000 for each television episode the service retransmitted....

Full Story in *Satelliteracer's* post two posts above this one.


----------



## Herdfan

Laxguy said:


> But wouldn't the stations' response be to push the complainants to go OTA?


Depends on if the cable/DBS companies were paying for all subs in a market or only those who subscribed to locals.


----------



## nmetro

Aereo is probably going to go out of business, due to the Supreme Court decision. This is where is should end. But, the broadcasters want to make an example, of Aereo, by suing them, for fees they would have received; if Aereo signed a retransmission consent; similar to satellite and cable companies. While some thing this is a good idea, this just vengeance on the broadcast industry's part.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Again it doesn't matter IF it costs Aereo whomever in "infrastructure" to supply OTA to their customers because they are selling a product that they don't have the legal right to sell!

I could start a business that relied upon me stealing stuff from people's porches. I'm not breaking in, and I argue "if it wasn't meant to be taken why wasn't it locked up inside?" and then I charge delivery fees to my customers and "give" them the product... but I'm still stealing and reselling stuff that I don't have a right to sell... and that's what Aereo was doing.

OTA is "free" with the caveat I have posted earlier. You can't do whatever you want with it. You are entitled to have TVs, VCRs, whatever in your home or car or portable devices and receive their free transmission for your own use. That's it.

People who think the Aereo loophole is valid... How about this... What if I record something from an OTA and burn it to DVD... then I make and sell copies of those DVDs to people. Is that legal? All I'm doing is giving the same "free" content to others and I am only charging for the DVD and my duplication "infrastructure"... right? But it would be illegal to do it... same as it is illegal for Aereo to do what they did.


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> People who think the Aereo loophole is valid... How about this... What if I record something from an OTA and burn it to DVD... then I make and sell copies of those DVDs to people. Is that legal? All I'm doing is giving the same "free" content to others and I am only charging for the DVD and my duplication "infrastructure"... right? But it would be illegal to do it... same as it is illegal for Aereo to do what they did.


This idea reminds of an idea a college classmate had. He worked for some IT company in Cincinnati and he and some of his fellow IT guys came up with a plan. They were going to buy used CD's and then sell copies of the songs online. Their theory was as long as they only sold songs they had purchased used CD's of, then they weren't breaking the law. It was a novel idea, but they soon figured out that many CD's only had 1 good song and the economics of it didn't work.


----------



## James Long

nmetro said:


> Aereo is probably going to go out of business, due to the Supreme Court decision. This is where is should end. But, the broadcasters want to make an example, of Aereo, by suing them, for fees they would have received; if Aereo signed a retransmission consent; similar to satellite and cable companies. While some thing this is a good idea, this just vengeance on the broadcast industry's part.


They were warned and they decided to remain in business and expand their service offerings.

A few years ago DISH was accused of stealing Tivo's DVR technology and lost ... and they were presented with a bill for their past transgressions. DISH also stole the HD feeds of four ESPN/ABC channels (carried without permission) ... when they lost that lawsuit they were presented with a bill for their transgressions. It is typical in these cases for the company who had their rights violated to be able to collect back payment.


----------



## tonyd79

James Long said:


> They were warned and they decided to remain in business and expand their service offerings.A few years ago DISH was accused of stealing Tivo's DVR technology and loss ... and they were presented with a bill for their past transgressions. DISH also stole the HD feeds of four ESPN/ABC channels (carried without permission) ... when they lost that lawsuit they were presented with a bill for their transgressions. It is typical in these cases for the company who had their rights violated to be able to collect back payment.


Yup. You steal my bike, I want it back. Not just a promise to not steal my car.


----------



## yosoyellobo

tonyd79 said:


> Yup. You steal my bike, I want it back. Not just a promise to not steal my car.


How did that work out for OJ?


----------



## SayWhat?

I still don't understand why the broadcasters object to tens of thousands of additional viewers seeing their advertising with no effort on their part. They should be ecstatic at the opportunity top raise ad rates which would more than offset some measily retrans fees.

Encrypt OTA? That would essentially kill the broadcasters. I can't imagine any significant number of people buying set-top boxes and paying subscription fees for OTA channels received via antenna.


----------



## James Long

yosoyellobo said:


> How did that work out for OJ?


Not too well. While he was found "not guilty" of murder he was found financially responsible for the deaths. Which is different than what is happening in this case. First of all, Aereo is not accused of murdering anyone. Second, they have been found guilty of copyright infringement - perhaps reluctantly but SCOTUS says they broke the 1976 law. The next step is to find out just how financially responsible Aereo is for violating copyright.



SayWhat? said:


> I still don't understand why the broadcasters object to tens of thousands of additional viewers seeing their advertising with no effort on their part. They should be ecstatic at the opportunity top raise ad rates which would more than offset some measily retrans fees.


They want both. They (as an industry) have been part of CATV, cable and satellite for long enough that they know they are "must have" programming. They have their "x company is refusing to carry us" marketing pitch finely honed enough that all they need to do is insert the station, city and targeted company into a boilerplate complaint. Unless they are a total loser of a TV station they can leverage carriage and demand a ransom sized payment.

It is the same problem as with ESPN (on a smaller scale). ESPN knows that their channels are popular enough that they are "must have" and despite threats no carrier wants to be the first to permanently operate without ESPN's channels. Carriers can drop locals and survive ... fighting the bad press until the station lowers the price or gains more leverage (such as merging with a station in a market that the carrier does not want to lose).

Congress has interfered with cable companies and required TV channels be offered carriage on a lower tier ... to the point of requiring lower priced "lifeline" services so people who do not want other cable channels can subscribe just to locals and a few channels. The interference with satellite companies is different - satellite can put all locals in an a la carte package, but they must put all locals for the market in that package. Satellite cannot sell customers their local ABC without selling them their local FOX unless the local FOX refuses carriage completely.

Thanks to Congress broadcasters can demand both ... carriage and money. And considering that it all stems out of a law passed in 1976 I do not expect Congress to reverse that decision any time soon.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> Thanks to Congress broadcasters can demand both ... carriage and money. And considering that it all stems out of a law passed in 1976 I do not expect Congress to reverse that decision any time soon.


Despite their 93% disapproval rating.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I still don't understand why the broadcasters object to tens of thousands of additional viewers seeing their advertising with no effort on their part. They should be ecstatic at the opportunity top raise ad rates which would more than offset some measily retrans fees.


They don't object to having more eyeballs. They object to someone else illegally profiting over their product.

While there are some people who truly do have issues receiving OTA... it is also true that many people who get their locals via cable or satellite can actually get them via OTA if they put up an antenna... they just don't do it because they can get it via cable/satellite as a convenience. People are willing to pay for that convenience... and if cable/satellite is going to charge, the OTA broadcasters want their fair share.

Imagine the alternative... The broadcasters could have decided NO to all forms of retransmission... forbidding cable/satellite from including the OTA channels. That would mean you had no other choice but to put up an antenna for OTA or go without. What would you do? Most would put up an antenna to get their local stations... so the option of having them via cable/satellite is a bonus to you.

IF it was only about expanding eyeballs, there would be no issues... but cable/satellite charge for the OTA channels... that's why the broadcasters want their share. Cable/satellite say "we have your locals" as a means to get you to sign up... and when they lose a local? People complain "I want my locals"... so cable/satellite do know this is something they need to keep customers and they know they can sell it... but they don't want to pay for it. Just like many customers try and not pay for their cable/satellite.

You can't sell someone else's product without their permission even if they give it away free. It's really a simple thing. IF you are standing on a street corner handing out free $20 bills to everyone who walks by.... that doesn't give me the right to rob you and take all your money. You decide how to distribute your stuff.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> They don't object to having more eyeballs. They object to someone else illegally profiting over their product.


It was not illegal until the stations convinced Congress to make it illegal. And the way the law got written, no profit is needed to violate the law.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> Imagine the alternative...


Imagine the other alternative. Congress responds to the will of the people, does not KowTow to big business megabucks and does the right thing for once, telling broadcasters that once it leaves their tower, they have no say in what happens to it.

And that includes the various jocks playing with their balls.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> Imagine the other alternative. Congress responds to the will of the people, does not KowTow to big business megabucks and does the right thing for once, telling broadcasters that once it leaves their tower, they have no say in what happens to it.


Yeah. Good luck with that. I have other windmills to tilt at.


----------



## James Long

*Aero Suspends Service*

A little over three years ago, our team embarked on a journey to improve the consumer television experience, using technology to create a smart, cloud-based television antenna consumers could use to access live over the air broadcast television.

On Wednesday, June 25, the United States Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision in favor of Aereo, dealing a massive setback to consumers.

As a result of that decision, our case has been returned to the lower Court. We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps. All of our users will be refunded their last paid month. If you have questions about your account, please email [email protected] or tweet us @AereoSupport.

The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud.

On behalf of the entire team at Aereo, thank you for the outpouring of support. It has been staggering and we are so grateful for your emails, Tweets and Facebook posts. Keep your voices loud and sign up for updates at ProtectMyAntenna.org - our journey is far from done.

Yours truly,
Chet Kanojia

https://www.aereo.com/


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> Imagine the other alternative. Congress responds to the will of the people, does not KowTow to big business megabucks and does the right thing for once, telling broadcasters that once it leaves their tower, they have no say in what happens to it.
> 
> And that includes the various jocks playing with their balls.


That will never happen. You are suggesting a scenario under which it would become legal to record and sell anything that is broadcast over the air.

I know people hate "big business" and I agree they do sometimes get some benefits that us regular Joes don't... but that doesn't mean I want to see a business lose ownership of its product either.


----------



## Satelliteracer

SayWhat? said:


> Imagine the other alternative. Congress responds to the will of the people, does not KowTow to big business megabucks and does the right thing for once, telling broadcasters that once it leaves their tower, they have no say in what happens to it.
> 
> And that includes the various jocks playing with their balls.


More of a curiosity question, what was the "right thing to do" in this case? Sounds like an awful slippery slope to say once it leaves a tower they have no say in what happens to it, at least that's what SCOTUS ultimately determined.

As for the 93% disapproval rating they have, this may be true (I've seen it more around 85%), but they get reelected at greater than 50%...much greater. One of those deals where everyone hates their Congress critter, but they continue to be elected time after time.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> More of a curiosity question, what was the "right thing to do" in this case? Sounds like an awful slippery slope to say once it leaves a tower they have no say in what happens to it, at least that's what SCOTUS ultimately determined.


The initial decision of SCOTUS was along those lines ... but Congress stepped in and wrote a law that changed copyright. "No say in what happens next" would have been an easier decision when there was not much else one could do to the received signal but watch it (or retransmit it live as the CATV companies did). VCR, DVRs, recording for file sharing with others, streaming ... all concepts that were not common practice in 1976. Live (or as close as technically possible) retransmission without modification would be a good step back to being consumer friendly. And if some copyright payment needs to be paid it should be at a statutory rate ... just like Distant Networks ... not at a locally set ransom rate.

At least that is the way I'd tilt at the windmill.

[My long winded reply to the political comment deleted.]


----------



## cypherx

I say if you want liability of your signal when it leaves the tower, encrypt it. That's what the local law enforcement in our area did. They went from analog two way radio communication you could listen to with a police scanner, to digital apco p25 encrypted. You don't want people to intercept it, you encrypt it. They don't even make those old 40 MHz 25 channel analog cordless phones anymore. I think even the few 900 MHz cordless phones out there are encrypted or digital.

Sure leaving your house unlocked, its still not lawful for someone to come in and steal your stuff. But leaving the doors unlocked sure does make it easy.


----------



## bflora

I understand the need for copyright protection, but the irony of OTA broadcasters spending huge amounts to build taller and more powerful transmitters to increase the number of viewers and then suing companies for increasing their number of viewers for free is ridiculous. I think a law to allow retransmission of OTA signals in an unaltered form would make sense as long as it does not infringe upon the service area of another broadcaster of the same copyrighted material.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

cypherx said:


> I say if you want liability of your signal when it leaves the tower, encrypt it. That's what the local law enforcement in our area did. They went from analog two way radio communication you could listen to with a police scanner, to digital apco p25 encrypted. You don't want people to intercept it, you encrypt it. They don't even make those old 40 MHz 25 channel analog cordless phones anymore. I think even the few 900 MHz cordless phones out there are encrypted or digital.
> 
> Sure leaving your house unlocked, its still not lawful for someone to come in and steal your stuff. But leaving the doors unlocked sure does make it easy.


I believe this may be illegal in that broadcasters have a mandate to serve the public trust with their signals. Encrypting them would make this pretty hard.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

cypherx said:


> I say if you want liability of your signal when it leaves the tower, encrypt it.


As has already been posted, they can't. They *might* be able to encrypt their sub-channels... but at least one channel must be unencrypted by law. That doesn't even get into the fact that encryption schemes have been foiled time and again and are no better protection than the locks are on your house if someone really wants to get inside... so lack of encryption does not constitute relinquishing rights to protect your interests.



bflora said:


> I understand the need for copyright protection, but the irony of OTA broadcasters spending huge amounts to build taller and more powerful transmitters to increase the number of viewers and then suing companies for increasing their number of viewers for free is ridiculous. I think a law to allow retransmission of OTA signals in an unaltered form would make sense as long as it does not infringe upon the service area of another broadcaster of the same copyrighted material.


What irony? They are protecting themselves from people stealing and profiting from their signals. There is already law to allow retransmission of OTA signals in unaltered form... there doesn't need to be a new one. Cable and satellite companies could be retransmitting the OTA signal for free if they wanted to... but they instead want to profit from it by charging their customers... and that's why the OTA stations want to be paid for their signal.

The rights to retransmit for free could have been negotiated if that was how they wanted to do it... but they didn't. They know the public wants their locals, and they know people in fringe areas OR just for convenience will pay for them... so they charge for the service... and as such, OTA is entitled to a fee for that.


----------



## Satelliteracer

cypherx said:


> I say if you want liability of your signal when it leaves the tower, encrypt it. That's what the local law enforcement in our area did. They went from analog two way radio communication you could listen to with a police scanner, to digital apco p25 encrypted. You don't want people to intercept it, you encrypt it. They don't even make those old 40 MHz 25 channel analog cordless phones anymore. I think even the few 900 MHz cordless phones out there are encrypted or digital.
> 
> Sure leaving your house unlocked, its still not lawful for someone to come in and steal your stuff. But leaving the doors unlocked sure does make it easy.


Can't do that, the signal has to be in the open for the public. At least that is my understanding. Because they are held to that standard, the broadcaster can't protect its signal accordingly.


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Cable and satellite companies could be retransmitting the OTA signal for free if they wanted to... but they instead want to profit from it by charging their customers... and that's why the OTA stations want to be paid for their signal.


How do they determine that a customer is being charged for it? If they were to line item it on the bill and put a $0.00 beside it, are they still charging for it? If they were to open up their system to let everyone with an old box have free access to the locals via satellite would this pass the non-charging test?

Think about it. DirecTV and DISH could sell old boxes that they have no use for as locals only boxes that receive locals and not charge anyone for them. I doubt they would lose enough customers that it would matter and they would not have to pay the local stations. Win-win.


----------



## bflora

Stewart Vernon said:


> As has already been posted, they can't. They *might* be able to encrypt their sub-channels... but at least one channel must be unencrypted by law. That doesn't even get into the fact that encryption schemes have been foiled time and again and are no better protection than the locks are on your house if someone really wants to get inside... so lack of encryption does not constitute relinquishing rights to protect your interests.
> 
> What irony? They are protecting themselves from people stealing and profiting from their signals. There is already law to allow retransmission of OTA signals in unaltered form... there doesn't need to be a new one. Cable and satellite companies could be retransmitting the OTA signal for free if they wanted to... but they instead want to profit from it by charging their customers... and that's why the OTA stations want to be paid for their signal.
> 
> The rights to retransmit for free could have been negotiated if that was how they wanted to do it... but they didn't. They know the public wants their locals, and they know people in fringe areas OR just for convenience will pay for them... so they charge for the service... and as such, OTA is entitled to a fee for that.


The "irony" is that the broadcasters are also profiting from "people stealing and profiting from their signals" by increasing the number of viewers which increases the value of the broadcasters' product.


----------



## tonyd79

Herdfan said:


> Think about it. DirecTV and DISH could sell old boxes that they have no use for as locals only boxes that receive locals and not charge anyone for them. I doubt they would lose enough customers that it would matter and they would not have to pay the local stations. Win-win.


That would not fly at all. First, how is it a win-win? No one wins but the guy who gets the box. DirecTV and Dish would be in violation of their agreements with the OTA channels or they would have to pay for the people they are providing the service to.

Second, what is the incentive for DirecTV or Dish? Selling off old boxes that are probably not working anyway? That is minimal money. No incentive.


----------



## tonyd79

bflora said:


> The "irony" is that the broadcasters are also profiting from people stealing and profiting from their signals by increasing the number of viewers which increases the value of the broadcasters product.


Stealing? You mean the people who put up an antenna? That is not stealing. That is legally free.


----------



## bflora

I wonder how long it will be before content creators go after public libraries. If a library buys a DVD and a thousand people view it, that surely reduces the sale of that DVD.


----------



## Jtaylor1

maartena said:


> Do you even know what this case is about? Youtube and the likes have little to do with that.


This case affects on how we watch TV. Should Viacom use this decision against Google's Youtube, it would be the end of free online streaming as we know it because SCOTUS has created a "Looks-Like-Cable" standard for online streaming services.


----------



## KyL416

Jtaylor1 said:


> This case affects on how we watch TV. Should Viacom use this decision against Google's Youtube, it would be the end of free online streaming as we know it because SCOTUS has created a "Looks-Like-Cable" standard for online streaming services.


That has NOTHING to do with this. YouTube doesn't upload their own content, any TV shows or movies you find is either official content from the networks or studios, some of it premium that you can buy, or unofficial uploads that can and will be taken down as soon as the rights holder finds it and sends a DMCA takedown request which leads to the uploader getting banned. A process that has been going on long before Aereo was even a thing.


----------



## Herdfan

tonyd79 said:


> That would not fly at all. First, how is it a win-win? No one wins but the guy who gets the box. DirecTV and Dish would be in violation of their agreements with the OTA channels or they would have to pay for the people they are providing the service to.
> 
> Second, what is the incentive for DirecTV or Dish? Selling off old boxes that are probably not working anyway? That is minimal money. No incentive.


First, there would be no more agreements. DirecTV and DISH would simply be retransmitting the signal for free. Read Stewart's post. So the local affiliates are out of the deal.

Second, yes there would be minimal money in selling off old boxes, but since they would be transmitting the signal for free, they no longer are paying the local affiliates and their ever rising demands.

Keep in mind, they do not need to do this in every market. Just pick one where there is a contentious renegotiation or fleecing and do it there. Word will spread.

Win-win for the satcos and the consumers. Technically a lose for the affiliates, but who really cares but them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Herdfan said:


> How do they determine that a customer is being charged for it? If they were to line item it on the bill and put a $0.00 beside it, are they still charging for it? If they were to open up their system to let everyone with an old box have free access to the locals via satellite would this pass the non-charging test?
> 
> Think about it. DirecTV and DISH could sell old boxes that they have no use for as locals only boxes that receive locals and not charge anyone for them. I doubt they would lose enough customers that it would matter and they would not have to pay the local stations. Win-win.


There is merit in your idea... I don't know if there is too much bad blood by now between the carries and the broadcasters to allow such a thing, though. But it would be a good compromise. Those old boxes if they were rigged as LiL-only boxes would become essentially no different than the digital converter boxes that many people have to use for their older TVs now anyway.

As for the cost... it has become murky. In the early days they did have (at least Dish did) a $5 line-item on their bills for locals... so it was easy to see you were being charged $5 for locals. Then, at some point, they decided to essentially make everyone take locals so they started saying "locals included" and rolled that $5 into the base package price... so while there is no doubt we are being charged for the locals, there is no longer a clear line item that indicates it.



bflora said:


> The "irony" is that the broadcasters are also profiting from "people stealing and profiting from their signals" by increasing the number of viewers which increases the value of the broadcasters' product.


Yeah... but if I steal cars from the local dealer and sell them to people who like them and it gives those cars and that dealer good word-of-mouth reputation... it doesn't negate that I made money on selling something that was not mine legally to sell in the first place.

Having any accidental positive benefit to the injured party doesn't negate the original theft. I rob your house, your neighbors have sympathy and give you money to help you replace things... I still get arrested for theft even if you come out ahead after the donations.



bflora said:


> I wonder how long it will be before content creators go after public libraries. If a library buys a DVD and a thousand people view it, that surely reduces the sale of that DVD.


I don't know how this is handled... but it is already handled. Libraries do the same thing with books... you could argue that libraries eat into book sales too... but libraries operate in a specific way, and they are specifically permitted to loan out the DVDs and books and whatnot that they purchase. It probably also helps that libraries do not charge you to check out a book or DVD unless it is in the form of a late-return or no-return fine.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> It probably also helps that libraries do not charge you to check out a book or DVD unless it is in the form of a late-return or no-return fine.


I believe all my local libraries have gone "free", but I seem to recall there being a fee for borrowing media.

"[T]he law also includes exceptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of the rights holder that allow libraries to lend, preserve and replace videos and allow non-profit educational institutions the right to publicly perform videos in the face-to-face classroom, and under certain conditions, in the distance educational classroom via digital networks. When libraries want to use a videotape/DVD/video file in such a way that would infringe upon the copyright, permission must be sought from rights holder in the form of a license agreement."
More information: American Library Association

Libraries are allowed to charge for borrowing but the borrowing must be for permitted uses ... primarily private in home viewing.


----------



## bflora

Stewart Vernon said:


> "Yeah... but if I steal cars from the local dealer and sell them to people who like them and it gives those cars and that dealer good word-of-mouth reputation... it doesn't negate that I made money on selling something that was not mine legally to sell in the first place.
> 
> Having any accidental positive benefit to the injured party doesn't negate the original theft. I rob your house, your neighbors have sympathy and give you money to help you replace things... I still get arrested for theft even if you come out ahead after the donations."
> 
> I am not arguing the legality of the issue. That has been established by the courts. The illegality does not negate the "irony" of the situation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It's not really irony though. It's only your opinion that they are protesting benefits from the situation. In their opinion they are not protesting the side-benefit. They are protesting the theft and illegal profiting... IF they get any side-promotional benefit, that's irrelevant to the complaint.

There are lots of real-world situations where a bad thing results in some good coming to the person/company who was wronged... but we typically don't say it is ironic for them to still complain about the wrong thing just because it may have inadvertently benefited them in some way.


----------



## tonyd79

Herdfan said:


> First, there would be no more agreements. DirecTV and DISH would simply be retransmitting the signal for free. Read Stewart's post. So the local affiliates are out of the deal.
> 
> Second, yes there would be minimal money in selling off old boxes, but since they would be transmitting the signal for free, they no longer are paying the local affiliates and their ever rising demands.
> 
> Keep in mind, they do not need to do this in every market. Just pick one where there is a contentious renegotiation or fleecing and do it there. Word will spread.
> 
> Win-win for the satcos and the consumers. Technically a lose for the affiliates, but who really cares but them.


How do they do this at all? They cannot retransmit the signal even if they don't get paid. They need the rights to do so and they won't get them without money. That is why it won't work. I think you missed the basis of the Aereo case. They were claiming they were renting antennae and they still did not get away with it.

And good luck with the PAYING customers getting the locals since the locals would deny service to the satellite companies for them.


----------



## tonyd79

Stewart Vernon said:


> There is merit in your idea... I don't know if there is too much bad blood by now between the carries and the broadcasters to allow such a thing, though. But it would be a good compromise. Those old boxes if they were rigged as LiL-only boxes would become essentially no different than the digital converter boxes that many people have to use for their older TVs now anyway.


No, no. no. They are nothing like the digital converter boxes that just tuned to FREE OTA broadcasts. You talking about re-transmission from satellite, not an OTA tuner box.


----------



## bflora

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's not really irony though. It's only your opinion that they are protesting benefits from the situation. In their opinion they are not protesting the side-benefit. They are protesting the theft and illegal profiting... IF they get any side-promotional benefit, that's irrelevant to the complaint.
> 
> There are lots of real-world situations where a bad thing results in some good coming to the person/company who was wronged... but we typically don't say it is ironic for them to still complain about the wrong thing just because it may have inadvertently benefited them in some way.


The irony is that they pay big bucks to expand their coverage area with taller more powerful transmitters and sue a company that does it for them for free. I am not commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. Just the IRONY of it.


----------



## KyL416

Aereo had no relationship with the stations and they never released hard subscriber data, any extended coverage area gained by Aereo was useless as they can't use that data for ratings which is used to set advertising rates. With the way Nielsen does their math, the entire DMA is already part of your coverage area, even if the only way to get the OTA signal is a deep fringe directional antenna on a mast to overcome an obstruction.

Oddly enough if an Aereo user was in the Nielsen survey it could have hurt the station ratings wise if they were watching a program via Aereo instead of something that could be used by the Nielsen box or if in the process of transcoding the OTA signal the embedded signal used by the Nielsen box was lost.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

tonyd79 said:


> No, no. no. They are nothing like the digital converter boxes that just tuned to FREE OTA broadcasts. You talking about re-transmission from satellite, not an OTA tuner box.


If I was reading Herdfan correctly, though, he was talking about a special scenario... wherein Dish (for example) would repurpose old receivers as usable only for the LiLs... and would allow users of those receivers access to the LiLs completely for free (outside of the cost of purchasing the receiver of course)... which in that scenario would be the same as if a customer bought a digital converter box and had no further costs. As long as Dish gave access to those retransmissions for free, then I could see the broadcasters allowing them to retransmit their signal. Dish would still need to get permission, but as long as Dish had no hidden charges, broadcasters would be foolish not to agree in Herdfan's proposed scenario. He can correct me if I misread his post.



bflora said:


> The irony is that they pay big bucks to expand their coverage area with taller more powerful transmitters and sue a company that does it for them for free. I am not commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. Just the IRONY of it.


But they wouldn't be suing them for "doing it for free"... IF the cable/satellite companies actually did it for free and didn't charge their customers and profit from it... then the broadcasters likely would not sue them for it. That's why it is a disingenuous example. saying "they are suing them for helping them" is obscuring the truth of the situation. That would be like if someone robs me, neighbors donate money to help me in excess of what I lost from the robbery, but I press charges against the thief when he is caught and someone accuses me of pressing charges against a person who helped me make money and said it was "ironic"... when it isn't.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF the cable/satellite companies actually did it for free and didn't charge their customers and profit from it... then the broadcasters likely would not sue them for it.


Wouldn't that be nice? I disagree with your opinion. While there would be stations that are happy to get their content distributed (they elect Must Carry and do not charge satellite or cable for carriage) the bigger stations, read: any station with network programming, will want payment even if retransmitted for free.

It doesn't matter how much or how little the rebroadcaster is making or even if they are losing money ... the broadcasters want control of their signal and the big broadcasters want payment for retransmission.

I'd love to see a rebroadcaster call the bluff of your local stations - because that is exactly what their offer was, a bluff. I have no expectation that any station who can charge under the current scheme would cease charging just because a rebroadcaster ceased charging.


----------



## bflora

Stewart Vernon said:


> If I was reading Herdfan correctly, though, he was talking about a special scenario... wherein Dish (for example) would repurpose old receivers as usable only for the LiLs... and would allow users of those receivers access to the LiLs completely for free (outside of the cost of purchasing the receiver of course)... which in that scenario would be the same as if a customer bought a digital converter box and had no further costs. As long as Dish gave access to those retransmissions for free, then I could see the broadcasters allowing them to retransmit their signal. Dish would still need to get permission, but as long as Dish had no hidden charges, broadcasters would be foolish not to agree in Herdfan's proposed scenario. He can correct me if I misread his post.
> 
> But they wouldn't be suing them for "doing it for free"... IF the cable/satellite companies actually did it for free and didn't charge their customers and profit from it... then the broadcasters likely would not sue them for it. That's why it is a disingenuous example. saying "they are suing them for helping them" is obscuring the truth of the situation. That would be like if someone robs me, neighbors donate money to help me in excess of what I lost from the robbery, but I press charges against the thief when he is caught and someone accuses me of pressing charges against a person who helped me make money and said it was "ironic"... when it isn't.


To say it isn't ironic is like saying something isn't funny. To me it is "ironic". To you, obviously not.


----------



## cypherx

But TV manufacturers and Digital Converter manufacturers all profit from selling equipment that has the ability to tune OTA. So couldn't broadcasters sue these companies because they are making profit on something that can tune their signals?

Or are these companies paying royalties to some broadcast alliance for each country they sell in?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

cypherx said:


> But TV manufacturers and Digital Converter manufacturers all profit from selling equipment that has the ability to tune OTA. So couldn't broadcasters sue these companies because they are making profit on something that can tune their signals?
> 
> Or are these companies paying royalties to some broadcast alliance for each country they sell in?


I don't pretend to know the logistics of it... but without TVs and digital converters, nobody would be able to watch OTA broadcast... so they obviously have to "allow" such products to be sold. Now in the UK there is a TV tax where you pay for each TV you have, and that goes to fund the programming. Here in the US we don't have such a system, but I can't say for 100% that there isn't somehow a tie-in for TV/converter manufacturers that in some way funds the FCC.


----------



## James Long

cypherx said:


> But TV manufacturers and Digital Converter manufacturers all profit from selling equipment that has the ability to tune OTA. So couldn't broadcasters sue these companies because they are making profit on something that can tune their signals?


Don't give broadcasters any ideas! The ability to tune OTA is not a violation of law. While some broadcasters may WANT to charge a fee at every opportunity, the TV/tuner industry is not one of those opportunities.



cypherx said:


> Or are these companies paying royalties to some broadcast alliance for each country they sell in?


No payment is required. TVs do not copy, tuners do not copy. The devices do not require any royalty to be bought, owned or used.

(Stewart's comment about UK Television licenses refers to a tax that funds public broadcasting ... not privately owned broadcast stations or networks.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... I probably should have clarified that since the UK also has some non-public-funded channels as well. It was the closest thing I could think of, though, where in some country there was a fee related to the TV itself.


----------



## cypherx

James Long said:


> No payment is required. TVs do not copy, tuners do not copy. The devices do not require any royalty to be bought, owned or used.


Ok so tuners do not copy (unless you buy a DVR, but they are pretty good at "marrying" the recordings to the DVR it was made on).

My mind can remember a show I watched OTA and I can sort of "play it back" in my head. When are they going to start taxing my brain? Heck, our society already sells canned air and bottled water!


----------



## James Long

cypherx said:


> My mind can remember a show I watched OTA and I can sort of "play it back" in my head. When are they going to start taxing my brain?


Hopefully playing it back in your head is "personal use". Unless there are other people living inside your head ...

It wouldn't be a tax but a rights fee (although all of our brains may be physically taxed by some of the discussion in this thread). If you were to publicly perform the copyrighted work you may be liable for copyright violation.

So remember - when you stand around the watercooler giving your synopsis of your favorite show please keep quoted material to a responsible "fair use" level. Do not quote the entire show word for word (giving a public performance of copyrighted material).


----------



## Laxguy

Word for word!?  The only show in modern times that I could do that with would be the The Dancer (A mute dancer teaches movement to adoring kids and wins the dance contest every Saturday night at a cavernous Brooklyn disco, makes the final cut for a Broadway show but is dismissed when.....) or that other one with the French guy, the name of which has left the building-I think there's one word of dialog....


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **Judge formally bans Aereo from streaming live TV to devices*

(engadget.com) - Aereo can no longer relay TV shows to its customers using its teeny-tiny antennas (for now, that is), according to US District Judge Alison Nathan. It's been a while since the Supreme Court decided that the service violates the law by "transmitting performances of copyrighted work to the public," but it's only now that a judge has issued a temporary ban order.

Wondering what's next for Aereo? Well, the jury's still out on whether it can record and store programs to be aired at a later time. The judge didn't grant TV networks their request to stop the company from doing so, since they didn't include it as part of their demands when they first filed a lawsuit. She's currently investigating whether she should grant that request, though...

Full Story Here


----------



## SeaBeagle

Good Aereo would not let me even sign up.


Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## KyL416

SeaBeagle said:


> Good Aereo would not let me even sign up.


Again, Aereo's purpose was NOT to let people get any market they want, at no point did they claim otherwise. Unless their antennas were setup in your market you could NOT get service.

Their purpose was to cater to cord cutters who couldn't get reliable OTA reception as well as those who wanted to watch local TV on the go since all those pocket TVs became obsolete with the digital transition.


----------

