Aereo

[webmaster]

It will be interesting to follow the legal sparring. They have apparently won some and lost some. They were blocked in LA but not in NYC. This is from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals April 2013 decision which affirmed a lower court decision denying the major networks' motion for a preliminary injunction barring Aereo from transmitting recorded broadcast television programs to its subscribers:

"We conclude that Aereo’s transmissions of unique copies of broadcast television programs created at its users’ requests and transmitted while the programs are still airing on broadcast television are not 'public performances' of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works under Cablevision. As such, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to prevail on the merits on this claim in their copyright infringement action. Nor have they demonstrated serious questions as to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips decidedly in their favor. We therefore affirm the order of the district court denying the Plaintiffs’ motion."

I wonder what "hardships" would be created by Aereo providing an internet antenna? The court of appeals didn't seem to be convinced that there was one.

[patman]

Originally Posted by webmaster

I wonder what "hardships" would be created by Aereo providing an internet antenna? The court of appeals didn't seem to be convinced that there was one.

I think this one will hinge on ad revenue. Aereo is in between the signal and the end user, and can therefore inject/overlay/delete ads in the stream. Time Warner does (did?) that too though, so it'll be amusing to see the double-standard arguments. (I remember seeing many commercials that didn't quite sync properly with the ones they were overlaying, so you'd see a brief bit of the other ad at the beginning or end.)

This is one of those 'if they were smart' situations. If they embraced the change, they could influence it and benefit from it. Instead, they'll go kicking and screaming to bankruptcy court.

[diz]

Originally Posted by patman

I think this one will hinge on ad revenue. Aereo is in between the signal and the end user, and can therefore inject/overlay/delete ads in the stream. Time Warner does (did?) that too though, so it'll be amusing to see the double-standard arguments. (I remember seeing many commercials that didn't quite sync properly with the ones they were overlaying, so you'd see a brief bit of the other ad at the beginning or end.)

This is one of those 'if they were smart' situations. If they embraced the change, they could influence it and benefit from it. Instead, they'll go kicking and screaming to bankruptcy court.

I always thought those clipping issues were related to local advertisers' deals with the cable companies. Like when you see an ad for your downtown bank on Comcast - they play an ad targeted to the city or town. I don't think Aereo is like that. They don't have license agreements with any of the content providers. They're just saying they are renting an antenna to you for your personal use.

[wifi]

I'm really confused, I suppose I should use Google (I prefer personal knowledge than someone surfing for answers), but maybe there is someone here with personal knowledge. Is the the stated "antenna" something physically you mount on your house, or is it a "virtual" antenna fed by the internet ?

TIA

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by wifi

I'm really confused, I suppose I should use Google (I prefer personal knowledge than someone surfing for answers), but maybe there is someone here with personal knowledge. Is the the stated "antenna" something physically you mount on your house, or is it a "virtual" antenna fed by the internet ?

TIA

Neither.

There is a real antenna but it is not at your house. Picture hundreds of thumbnail size antenna on a circuit board. Then picture hundreds or thousands of these circuit boards in a room that is in a good location to pick up a strong signal. They could have a million of the tiny antenna in that room. You pay them to connect you to just one of those antenna and you pick up the signal over the internet.

The FCC will not allow them to connect you to the TV stations signal without the permission of the station. However they are not connecting you to the TV station they are connecting you to a tiny antenna perfectly placed to pick up the TV stations signal off air.

Essentially they are only renting your own personal remote antenna. At least that is their legal theory.

[Pineedles]

How does that disclaimer you often hear during a Red Sox game, i.e. "Any use, rebroadcast of the game can not be done without the express permission, etc. etc.", figure into "rebroadcasting from the antennae?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

How does that disclaimer you often hear during a Red Sox game, i.e. "Any use, rebroadcast of the game can not be done without the express permission, etc. etc.", figure into "rebroadcasting from the antennae?

There is no rebroadcasting in this scenario. The little TV antenna receives, it does not broadcast or rebroadcast. Or at least that is what Aereo will claim. We are kind of splitting very fine hairs here.

As example, say my house is close to a TV transmitter tower. I put an antenna on my roof and run a long cable to your house. Now say instead of the long cable I video stream it between our houses over the internet. As far as I am aware there is no FCC violation in doing this. The FCC may have a different opinion however.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is no rebroadcasting in this scenario. The little TV antenna receives, it does not broadcast or rebroadcast. Or at least that is what Aereo will claim. We are kind of splitting very fine hairs here.

As example, say my house is close to a TV transmitter tower. I put an antenna on my roof and run a long cable to your house. Now say instead of the long cable I video stream it between our houses over the internet. As far as I am aware there is no FCC violation in doing this. The FCC may have a different opinion however.

This made me think about my Slingbox. I can view all the cable tv channels that come into my house anywhere on the internet. That would seem to be private "rebroadcasting" and I'm pretty sure it's completely legal. With individual antennas and accounts it would seem that Aereo is doing something very similar.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by webmaster

This made me think about my Slingbox. I can view all the cable tv channels that come into my house anywhere on the internet. That would seem to be private "rebroadcasting" and I'm pretty sure it's completely legal. With individual antennas and accounts it would seem that Aereo is doing something very similar.

In the case of the Slingbox, it's all private, you're essentially providing a service to yourself, and you're already a subscriber of something at at least one location.

With Aereo, the "source" is an antenna, in a location that is not your "home" in any way. Additionally, there are significant technical issues over whether or not those little antennas are *actually* picking up a signal, or just there as a theoretical item to base their claims and business model off of.

Alongside this, we're seeing more talk again about ala carte CATV programming options. I think the next 10 years are going to be fairly disruptive to the entrenched broadcast media businesses.

[diz]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

In the case of the Slingbox, it's all private, you're essentially providing a service to yourself, and you're already a subscriber of something at at least one location.

With Aereo, the "source" is an antenna, in a location that is not your "home" in any way. Additionally, there are significant technical issues over whether or not those little antennas are *actually* picking up a signal, or just there as a theoretical item to base their claims and business model off of.

Alongside this, we're seeing more talk again about ala carte CATV programming options. I think the next 10 years are going to be fairly disruptive to the entrenched broadcast media businesses.

I'm not sure I follow. Aren't Slingbox and OTA digital (Aereo) both providing content to which you're legally entitled? Isn't "home" your TV market? Aero checks your IP for location before it lets you watch programs for your area. If your client isn't in your TV market then you can't view the programs.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by diz

I'm not sure I follow. Aren't Slingbox and OTA digital (Aereo) both providing content to which you're legally entitled? Isn't "home" your TV market? Aero checks your IP for location before it lets you watch programs for your area. If your client isn't in your TV market then you can't view the programs.

A Slingbox basically hooks up to the output of a cable TV box (etc.) that you already own and have in your residence. It then takes that signal, converts it to an IP video stream and allows you to connect to that stream wherever you have your Slingbox receiver or client.

Aereo is taking an array of antennas and placing them in a datacenter location where nobody lives (or subscribes) to pickup an OTA digital broadcast. They then encode that signal and allow you to receive the exclusive signal from one of those antennas at a location of your choosing. Currently there are some restrictions on your receiving location.

Slingbox sends a signal from a location you own/control. Aereo sends a signal from a location THEY own/control.

[webmaster]

Aereo is growing like crazy. They just got another $34 million from investors:

http://www.masslive.com/entertainmen..._more_business

[Lakesrider]

I'm just waiting to see the day that Companies like Comcast, Metrocast, Time Warner etc., Block these on their internet services......

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

I'm just waiting to see the day that Companies like Comcast, Metrocast, Time Warner etc., Block these on their internet services......

This has been and will continue to be battled in the courts as we speak/write

[jeffk]

This type of issue is puzzling to me. Broadcast TV makes money by selling ads. The amount they can charge for those ads is determined by the size of their audience. The audience is determined by the size of their viewing market and by the share of the market they reach through the popularity of their programming.

In theory, the more possible people they can reach the more they can charge for ads. Let's say (total speculation) that they can reach 10,000 broadcast viewers, 30,000 cable or satellite viewers, and another 5,000 internet viewers. ALL viewers get to see the ads, right? Shouldn't that allow them to increase their revenue stream by charging more for ads (to businesses) that reach more people? Why should they care how the ad is delivered to the viewer?

Is this just a problem because broadcast TV is greedily trying to pry extra bucks out of cable & internet providers?

[Orion]

JeffK I think you hit the nail on the head, especially your last line.

The cable-co's and sat providers have done a good job selling all these "packages" which contain 99% junk. The astounding thing to me is the percentage of people within 40 miles of major metro areas who have no clue they can get all major networks for FREE with a $30 antenna. For some reason everyone thought when we went digital we had to go "cable". If you have a less than 10 yr old TV, you have a digital receiver built-in. If everyone would wake up to that fact some of this could get turned around.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jeffk

This type of issue is puzzling to me. Broadcast TV makes money by selling ads. The amount they can charge for those ads is determined by the size of their audience. The audience is determined by the size of their viewing market and by the share of the market they reach through the popularity of their programming.

In theory, the more possible people they can reach the more they can charge for ads. Let's say (total speculation) that they can reach 10,000 broadcast viewers, 30,000 cable or satellite viewers, and another 5,000 internet viewers. ALL viewers get to see the ads, right? Shouldn't that allow them to increase their revenue stream by charging more for ads (to businesses) that reach more people? Why should they care how the ad is delivered to the viewer?

Is this just a problem because broadcast TV is greedily trying to pry extra bucks out of cable & internet providers?

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

This is true, but doesn't need to be. There are some video streaming websites that provide ads before they stream your requested video. They stream the add for 10 seconds and allow you to skip it after that. But some of these 10 second clips are so compelling that you don't want to skip. Either it's entertaining, relevant, or both and you end up watching a great targeted ad. That's what "they" need to do. And, with the use of web-streaming, they can more easily target ads of interest to you as opposed to how they are just randomly broadcast today on all media sources.

And, yes, I fast forward through all ads on my DirecTV DVR and my Channel Master OTA DVR.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

The problem with your "in theory" statement is that people don't watch the ads when the media can be delivered digitally. My wife and I never watch programs when they are broadcast anymore. Whether by DVR, NetFlix, etc, we hit fast forward as soon as the ads start. Many, many people are doing this now and the advertisers know it. So the theoretical ad revenue is not there, despite appearances.

I understand what you are saying but skipping ads is nothing new. I usually mute live ads and do something else while they are on. If recorded, I skip over them. I don't think that the method of delivery, cable or internet makes that much difference. If the ads are included with the program, that is all the advertiser can expect. He can't force you to listen. I used to tape shows with a VCR that put up a blue screen and auto fast forwarded through ads. That content was delivered through broadcast TV and I still skipped it.

What you are describing is the ability of new technology to quickly skip over ads. Heck, with the right software you could completely edit them out. The delivery method, which is what this is about, doesn't really matter.

[patman]

Originally Posted by diz

I don't think Aereo is like that. They don't have license agreements with any of the content providers.

They're not like that now, but you can bet the signal originators are worried about that in the future, and want to nip this in the bud. Tivo let you skip commercials...originally there was no modification, but now it puts up ones of its own as you FF past them.