Aereo

wifi · 05-30-2013, 08:06 PM

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 · 05-31-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

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 · 05-31-2013, 11:31 AM

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 · 05-31-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-31-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-31-2013, 08:08 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-31-2013, 08:48 PM

Quote:

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 · 06-01-2013, 05:45 AM

Quote:

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 · 01-08-2014, 10:11 AM

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

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

Lakesrider · 01-08-2014, 10:55 AM

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

Merrymeeting · 01-08-2014, 12:19 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-08-2014, 08:59 PM

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 · 01-09-2014, 09:25 AM

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 · 01-09-2014, 09:49 AM

Quote:

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 · 01-09-2014, 10:05 AM

Quote:

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 · 01-09-2014, 10:06 AM

Quote:

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.

wifi · 01-09-2014, 10:26 AM

Interesting, on one of my Roku movie channels, I think its "Drive in movies", they lock out the skip buttons during advertising, LOL

upthesaukee · 01-09-2014, 10:31 PM

I can pee, go get a beer or glass of ice tea, put my hand in the cookie jar, give the cat his treats at 4 o'clock, put my hand back in the cookie jar again while I go get another glass of ice tea or another beer, grab a handful of cashews (fooled you), get another beer or glass of tea, ooooppppsssss, time to pee again, then get..... Ads are great and you don't miss anything on the show or the game.

Kamper · 01-12-2014, 10:01 AM

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...&siteid=yhoof2

This is a current article on Aereo's court battle. I think they should prevail because the 'antenna rental' argument is similar to Cable's argument that DVR services are the same as viewers renting VCR's and DVD machines to make home recordings.

Many stations and networks have simulcast on their home pages. I know a friend who told me he was watching a baseball game on the leagues website a few years back too.

05-30-2013, 08:06 PM	#1
wifi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 1,321 Thanks: 282 Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts	Antenna 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

01-08-2014, 08:59 PM	#12
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,172 Thanks: 205 Thanked 437 Times in 253 Posts	Puzzling to me 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?

01-09-2014, 09:25 AM	#13
Orion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Cow Island Posts: 914 Thanks: 602 Thanked 193 Times in 91 Posts	follow the money 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.

01-09-2014, 10:26 AM	#17
wifi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 1,321 Thanks: 282 Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts	Technology Interesting, on one of my Roku movie channels, I think its "Drive in movies", they lock out the skip buttons during advertising, LOL

01-09-2014, 10:31 PM	#18
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,599 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,458 Thanked 1,981 Times in 1,082 Posts	I like ads... I can pee, go get a beer or glass of ice tea, put my hand in the cookie jar, give the cat his treats at 4 o'clock, put my hand back in the cookie jar again while I go get another glass of ice tea or another beer, grab a handful of cashews (fooled you), get another beer or glass of tea, ooooppppsssss, time to pee again, then get..... Ads are great and you don't miss anything on the show or the game. __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

05-31-2013, 11:31 AM	#3
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	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?

01-08-2014, 10:11 AM	#9
webmaster Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 2,454 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 458 Thanked 3,819 Times in 839 Posts	Aereo is growing like crazy. They just got another $34 million from investors: http://www.masslive.com/entertainmen..._more_business

01-08-2014, 10:55 AM	#10
Lakesrider Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,129 Thanks: 380 Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts	I'm just waiting to see the day that Companies like Comcast, Metrocast, Time Warner etc., Block these on their internet services......

01-12-2014, 10:01 AM	#19
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,306 Thanks: 67 Thanked 171 Times in 127 Posts	http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...&siteid=yhoof2 This is a current article on Aereo's court battle. I think they should prevail because the 'antenna rental' argument is similar to Cable's argument that DVR services are the same as viewers renting VCR's and DVD machines to make home recordings. Many stations and networks have simulcast on their home pages. I know a friend who told me he was watching a baseball game on the leagues website a few years back too.