TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-23-2014, 05:07 AM   #31
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 731
Some of Aereo documents imply that once you leave the coverage area / city, something would no longer work.

Is this not true?
__________________
Premiere 2 tuner & SiliconDust
on Comcast-CableCard + OTA
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:59 AM   #32
buscuitboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.

Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.

Actually, to take it one step further; I am in the Atlanta area and we were the 3rd market to be up and running with Aereo. I actually also had a 3 month free beta trial subscription to Aereo last summer & tried it. At one point, we went on vacation down in FL to see some family (St. Augustine area). I brought our iPad and thought I would try Aereo down there with my account & see if I could watch an NFL game.

It initially said it was not available in my area (presumably because my ip address was coming from a FL location). However, it also stated that sometimes corporate firewalls can give false locations. It made me agree that I was truly in Atlanta and then allowed me to continue. Therefore, I was watching a Falcons game down in FL.

I didn't really continue or watch it too much, but was more curious if it could be done. Now, who knows if they would have cut me off if I kept doing this continuously. I was only in the area for a few days and then returned home. I also never kept the subscription past the free 3 month trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
Some of Aereo documents imply that once you leave the coverage area / city, something would no longer work.

Is this not true?
This example for me was over 9 months ago so not totally sure if its still this way and maybe it has changed or been corrected in recent months.

I think it was a worthy service if you are looking to cut the cord and don't have a TiVo (since its also a DVR service). I guess we'll see what happens with the case and go from there.
buscuitboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 08:55 AM   #33
aadam101
Future Prez of ABC
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 6,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The networks are largely full of hot air. They are already giving the content away to OTA users, so giving it away to users with Aereo doesn't fundamentally change their business model. Even if they do pull stuff from the air, they are not going to just pull the whole station, but rather pull some of the signature shows and put them on cable channels while backfilling with syndicated content. However, that would just be continuation of the move of the good content to cable anyways.

And how does it affect TiVo? It doesn't.
It would if Tivo was more popular. Tivo has been shying away from OTA technology but if they were to push their OTA boxes, you can be sure the networks would come after them.
__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!
aadam101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 09:16 AM   #34
mcf57
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: GA
Posts: 109
I always thought it would be a great idea if TiVo would somehow incorporate (or even buy) Aereo. Could be a great addition to all their other available services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Youtube, etc.) and could really give people another big boost & reason to cut the cord, but also still use one box for everything.

Of course, I am sure this could also risk their relationships with cable companies too so it could be a double edged sword in some ways. I am sure the majority of TiVo users subscribe to cable so I suppose you don't want to alienate that partnership too much. That and maybe they are waiting to see what happens with this case before they possibly move on anything related to Aereo.
mcf57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 09:28 AM   #35
BobCamp1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainwater View Post
That really is the crux of the argument though. I don't think it would have any affect on TiVo at all because the Supreme Court seemed very aware of the ramifications according to their questions. My guess is if they shoot down Aereo's argument, they will be very limited in their scope. And since the TiVo Stream is in the hands of the owners, it isn't going to be affected.
It can easily be limited in scope. Note that it doesn't matter who owns the equipment at all. It does matter if the receiving device is typically found in a residential home. So that's one thing protecting Slingbox. Aereo's setup in its entirety is not typically found in a residential home.

But the other major thing protecting Slingbox is the number of retransmissions and the number of people involved. Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people. A Slingbox only retransmits the content a few times to people who live within the same residence where the signal was originally received.

The one thing protecting Aereo so far is that some courts don't think 10,000 private performances of the same content, where one party is the same for all 10,000 performances, constitute a public performance. But the end effect is the same as a public performance. Aereo is using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law -- it's a loophole. And one that can easily be plugged with legislation if needed (of course, with this Congress, nothing is easy).
BobCamp1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 10:03 AM   #36
Grakthis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.

Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.
And heaven forbid that a federally protected monopoly funded by tax payer dollars should ever lose a nickle of revenues to the benefit of tax payers.
Grakthis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 11:59 AM   #37
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grakthis View Post
And heaven forbid that a federally protected monopoly funded by tax payer dollars should ever lose a nickle of revenues to the benefit of tax payers.
+1

It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.

I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 03:38 PM   #38
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
I disagree. The one antenna that Aereo uses is also only available to me at any given moment. If what Aereo is doing is illegal, than I'm guessing the Tivo Stream also becomes an illegal device. If Tivo were in more homes, the broadcasters would be going after them. The fact that Tivo is still a niche market has saved them from a lot of litigation (although they have had their fair share).
What Aereo is doing is clearly not (technically) unlawful. As Justice Roberts said in his questioning, Aereo's "technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's, you know, lawyers do that." But the fact remains that they HAVE stayed within the bounds of the law.

If it were just Aereo's business at stake, the networks wouldn't care. While Aereo's technology may work, it is difficult to scale, and not cost effective once you get down to smaller markets. What the networks are worried about is that EVERY satellite and cable operator could do the same thing. In fact, Dish Network did EXACTLY this several years ago when they started offering local broadcast channels. They put up antennas, connected them to their digital encoders and transmitted them to the uplink for distribution, all without paying the broadcasters. The result was that the law was changed and specifically said that any re-transmission of broadcast signals by satellite providers fell under retransmission consent rules. Today, Dish pays to retransmit the local channels.

While retransmission fees may be ONLY 10% of network revenue, it is the one that is growing while advertising revenue is falling (partly due to DVRs, partly due to growing competition from the internet). If Aereo wins, ALL of this money (close to $3 billion today and projected to reach over $6 billion within 3 years) goes away.

In the case of both Slingbox and Tivo Stream, all content fees have been paid. The content providers were paid by the cable company for the content before you got it. The fact that Tivo allows you to record it and play it back to a remote device doesn't bother the networks at all (in fact they might actually welcome it since skipping commercials over a remote connection is not as smooth as doing so at home). Also, there is not a service fee associated with the personal streaming devices, so the business model is different. You don't pay TiVo or Sling Media an subscription fee for the streaming capability, it is a pure technological solution. It is hard to argue that if Tivo Stream or Slingbox were not available, that the viewer would instead subscribe to a service that produces revenue to the content owner. In a copyright case, without a loss of revenue there can be no injury and so no basis for a lawsuit.

Last edited by Diana Collins : 04-23-2014 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Fixing Typos
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 03:41 PM   #39
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
+1

It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.

I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.
MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. The NAB lobbied for this provision and they won. Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:21 PM   #40
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. .......
You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.
Skipping commercials with DVR's can happen with OTA-received video, also. I understand the NAB's desire for revenue but that doesn't make it either right or deserving of being codified in law or regulations. If maintaining NAB revenue is in the public interest it should be funded in such a way that all parties receiving the signals pay equally, not just MSO or Aereo customers. I suspect this just is a case of "let's get the money where it's easy to get", i.e., government funding of OTA is not popular so just sock it to the MSO and Aereo customers.

I think NAB broadcasting should sink or swim based on the ad revenue they can attract.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:30 PM   #41
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.

Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.
But by that logic, it would be NFL vs. Aereo or DirecTV vs. Aereo, not broadcasters vs. Aereo. I don't think that's the use case that they are concerned about, even if some people have family "back home" register an Aereo account for them to watch football...

Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
It would if Tivo was more popular. Tivo has been shying away from OTA technology but if they were to push their OTA boxes, you can be sure the networks would come after them.
On what grounds? VCRs were deemed legal a long, long time ago...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcf57 View Post
I always thought it would be a great idea if TiVo would somehow incorporate (or even buy) Aereo. Could be a great addition to all their other available services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Youtube, etc.) and could really give people another big boost & reason to cut the cord, but also still use one box for everything.
That makes no sense. The entire point of TiVo is that it's a DVR, not an internet streaming box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
+1

It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.

I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.
Exactly. It makes no sense that I could pay the station through Comcast, or put an antenna up and get it for free...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. The NAB lobbied for this provision and they won. Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.
The government shouldn't be protecting old business models. If they don't work, let them not work on their own.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:37 PM   #42
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?
Weird wording. MVPDs pay retrans fees (Satellite, telco, and cable all have to pay retrans fees) because the law says the broadcast stations can charge those fees.

There's a few rules in the law related to broadcast stations with regard to cable/satellite/telco TV:
  • If a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor wishes to carry a station, that station has the right to demand payment from the MVPD
  • Local stations are obviously within their rights to offer their programming to MVPDs for free
  • If a MVPD carries ANY stations in a given local market, then they must carry, for free, any full power station that requests it (IE: a local independent or religious channel can demand carriage, given that they don't charge for it, and the MVPD will have no choice but to carry the channel)

__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:46 PM   #43
aadam101
Future Prez of ABC
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 6,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
In the case of both Slingbox and Tivo Stream, all content fees have been paid.
Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.

I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.
__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!
aadam101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:49 PM   #44
aadam101
Future Prez of ABC
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 6,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post

That makes no sense. The entire point of TiVo is that it's a DVR, not an internet streaming box.
I'm not sure that Tivo would want to buy them but it certainly makes sense to add an Aereo app to Tivo. Many cord cutters would like to buy a Roamio Plus or Pro but can't because there is no OTA on those boxes. Even cable users could benefit since the OTA signal is often MUCH better than the cable signal.
__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!
aadam101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 05:45 PM   #45
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
But by that logic, it would be NFL vs. Aereo or DirecTV vs. Aereo, not broadcasters vs. Aereo. I don't think that's the use case that they are concerned about, even if some people have family "back home" register an Aereo account for them to watch football...
But the leagues are threatening to pull the games from OTA networks and move them to cable instead. Those games are VERY lucrative to the networks so they have a ton of incentive to want to fight to keep them.

But that's just a secondary reason. The main reason they're fighting is to protect their retransmission fees.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 05:54 PM   #46
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
.........
The 9th circuit which has California, has sided with the big broadcasters against an Aero competitor called PlayOn. http://www.playon.tv/supported-devices
Can you supply details about this or a link? The link you provided doesn't talk about the court decision and Googling or searching the PlayOn forum didn't yield anything either.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:29 PM   #47
dianebrat
Uncontrolled Force
 
dianebrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: boston'ish
Posts: 7,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.

I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.
Except it isn't! and I can't understand why people keep thinking it is.
The Tivo model is all based around what you do with the signal AFTER it has come in to your home in a legal manner, either OTA or cable. The Aereo model never has you getting the signal. when you tie in the fact that the hundreds of little antennas are a total kludge JUST to get around the existing laws, yeah, I vote they're breaking it.

It's very easy IMO to see where Aereo is skirting laws by design to make a profit.
__________________
"There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out."
dianebrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 06:53 AM   #48
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCamp1 View Post
It can easily be limited in scope. Note that it doesn't matter who owns the equipment at all. It does matter if the receiving device is typically found in a residential home. So that's one thing protecting Slingbox. Aereo's setup in its entirety is not typically found in a residential home.

But the other major thing protecting Slingbox is the number of retransmissions and the number of people involved. Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people. A Slingbox only retransmits the content a few times to people who live within the same residence where the signal was originally received.

The one thing protecting Aereo so far is that some courts don't think 10,000 private performances of the same content, where one party is the same for all 10,000 performances, constitute a public performance. But the end effect is the same as a public performance. Aereo is using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law -- it's a loophole. And one that can easily be plugged with legislation if needed (of course, with this Congress, nothing is easy).

"Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."

But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world.

If you and I live side by side in a city served by Aereo, the cable company can pull in the local CBS affiliate on a single antenna and send that to splitters and distribution amps and send it both our houses (and a whole lot of others), and that's considered "re-transmission".

If each of us puts up an antenna to bring that CBS affiliate's signal into our respective houses, that's not considered re-transmission, it's just reception.

If we both subscribe to Aereo, Aereo has to dedicate an antenna to each of us, so that's two antennas where the cable company only uses one.

You don't see the signal that comes in via my Aereo antenna, and vice versa, any more than either of us sees the signal from the other's house mounted antenna.

So what we get from Aereo is not, legally, a re-transmission, so re-transmission fees don't have to be paid to that local broadcaster.


The reason the networks are involved is that Aereo is currently mostly if not exclusively in big cities, where the network affiliated broadcast stations tend to be owned and operated by the networks with which they are affiliated.

The broadcasters don't really care if we use cable or Aereo, as long as they get paid whichever one it is, and they'd probably prefer it was Aereo, because that means you're not on cable so you're not watching cable only channels instead of them.

If you had the CBS franchise in your area, would you prefer to compete for eyeballs with only ABC, NBC, PBS, and FOX, or would you like HBO, TNT, TBS, USA, FX, AMC, TCM, A&E, SyFy, and a dozen or two more added in as well?

But they've gotten used to getting money from the cable companies whether the cable customers watch them or not.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 07:04 AM   #49
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
Weird wording. MVPDs pay retrans fees (Satellite, telco, and cable all have to pay retrans fees) because the law says the broadcast stations can charge those fees.

There's a few rules in the law related to broadcast stations with regard to cable/satellite/telco TV:
  • If a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor wishes to carry a station, that station has the right to demand payment from the MVPD
  • Local stations are obviously within their rights to offer their programming to MVPDs for free
  • If a MVPD carries ANY stations in a given local market, then they must carry, for free, any full power station that requests it (IE: a local independent or religious channel can demand carriage, given that they don't charge for it, and the MVPD will have no choice but to carry the channel)

The original law the NAB was trying to get passed back in the analog days of the early 80's was called "Must Carry-Must Pay" where even a crappy local TV station that nobody watched could force their NTSC signal onto the local cable system (which would rather have used the bandwith for pay channels) AND get paid by the cable system.

So that tells you where the broadcasters are coming from, unless you think they've become less about the bottom line and more about serving "in the public interest" since then.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 08:31 AM   #50
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
...
So that tells you where the broadcasters are coming from, unless you think they've become less about the bottom line and more about serving "in the public interest" since then.
Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.
__________________
atmuscarella
R.I.P. - 04/04 - Dish 510
09/05 - Humax T-800
R.I.P. - 08/06 - TiVo
05/08 - TiVo HD
06/08 - Panasonic 50PZ800U 50" Plazma!!
03/10 - Series 3
11/10 - Premiere
09/13 - Roamio
atmuscarella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:02 AM   #51
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.

I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.
If you started to charge your neighbors to use that antenna, then setup many other antennas and started charging more people for the right to use them, and connected the antennas to your customers by tuning their selected channel, encoding the received data into IP packets and transmitting it over the internet, then you would likely get notification from the broadcasters challenging your business model, just like Aereo.

The key issues that MAY cause Aereo to fall on the wrong side of the law are:

1) Unlike a community antenna, Aereo is receiving (i.e. tuning) the channel and then sending it to the viewer as a data stream.

2) They are charging a subscription fee.

Ultimately, if you read through the verbal questioning and arguments from both sides, I think point 2 will be the issue. If Aereo can convince the court that they have created an innovative use of technology that in and of itself warrants the subscription fee, then they will prevail. If not, then they are just making money by distributing someone else's property without a license. It would be no different than someone taking a DVD, making hundreds of copies and then streaming each one to viewers for a fee. They may have obtained the DVD legally, just as Aereo is receiving the OTA broadcasts legally, but the distribution to multiple viewers is not legal.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:11 AM   #52
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
"Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."

But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world...
Yes it does, IF the court is convinced that this is a unique and innovative use of technology and not just a gimmick to try and justify the copyright infringement.

This is an interesting question. It seems that the decision any given person makes in this regard is driven by the perspective they bring to the question. As the copyright owners, the broadcasters see a gimmick. As consumers, potential customers of Aereo see it is a clever innovation.

Personally, I am of two minds. As a person that makes her living selling intellectual property (enterprise computer software) any legal decision that erodes copyright protection makes me nervous. But as a television viewer and user of DVRs and many different video streaming technologies, I'd love to see Aereo succeed.

It will be interesting to see the decision and read the opinions of the Justices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
If you and I live side by side in a city served by Aereo, the cable company can pull in the local CBS affiliate on a single antenna and send that to splitters and distribution amps and send it both our houses (and a whole lot of others), and that's considered "re-transmission".

If each of us puts up an antenna to bring that CBS affiliate's signal into our respective houses, that's not considered re-transmission, it's just reception.

If we both subscribe to Aereo, Aereo has to dedicate an antenna to each of us, so that's two antennas where the cable company only uses one.

You don't see the signal that comes in via my Aereo antenna, and vice versa, any more than either of us sees the signal from the other's house mounted antenna.

So what we get from Aereo is not, legally, a re-transmission, so re-transmission fees don't have to be paid to that local broadcaster...
I'm not aware of any "legal" defintion of what constitutes retransmission. The broadcasters are arguing that the use of a "private" antenna is meaningless. Since Aereo is using an ATSC tuner to receive the broadcast, decoding the 8VSB signal and extracting the raw MPEG, then re-encoding that for transmission (I don't know which streaming protocol Aereo uses) on the Internet in IP packets, the broadcasters are arguing that this IS retransmission.

Last edited by Diana Collins : 04-24-2014 at 10:35 AM. Reason: Additional thought
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:23 AM   #53
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?
Yes, sorry...badly phrased. It should have been "MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the broadcasters can demand payment."

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Skipping commercials with DVR's can happen with OTA-received video, also. I understand the NAB's desire for revenue but that doesn't make it either right or deserving of being codified in law or regulations. If maintaining NAB revenue is in the public interest it should be funded in such a way that all parties receiving the signals pay equally, not just MSO or Aereo customers. I suspect this just is a case of "let's get the money where it's easy to get", i.e., government funding of OTA is not popular so just sock it to the MSO and Aereo customers.

I think NAB broadcasting should sink or swim based on the ad revenue they can attract.
Sure, you can skip commercials even if you record OTA content. But in that case there was no commercial enterprise involved in getting that OTA signal from the transmitter to your house. If there were (i.e. a cable or satellite company) then THEY would have to pay a retransmission fee.

I'm not going to defend the broadcasters' desire to maximize revenue. But Congress made retransmissuion consent, and the associated fees, part of the law. The court is required to rule on the case in front of them, not on the fairness of the law. Nowhere has anyone in this case argued that retransmissions fees are unconstitutional, only that the law, as written, does not apply to Aereo. That is the only question the Justices must answer. The issues of subscription fees, individual antennas, and all the other technology that Aereo makes use of, are simply the details that will determine whether or not what Aereo is doing is a retransmission. If it is, they must pay. If not, they don't. It is as "simple" as that.

Last edited by Diana Collins : 04-24-2014 at 10:24 AM. Reason: typos
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:27 AM   #54
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
More than anything else, I think something that is telling about the Aereo situation that might bite them (if it was even brought up in the arguments, I haven't listened to the proceedings) is that you can only "rent" an Aereo antenna/tuner in the market in which you live, and you can only use it while you are geographically in that DMA. Seems a weird restriction since they are essentially arguing that they're renting you a Slingbox, and I can watch my Slingbox anywhere in the world.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:55 AM   #55
BobCamp1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
"Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."

But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world.

If we both subscribe to Aereo, Aereo has to dedicate an antenna to each of us, so that's two antennas where the cable company only uses one.

You don't see the signal that comes in via my Aereo antenna, and vice versa, any more than either of us sees the signal from the other's house mounted antenna.
First of all, as an RF engineer, I can guarantee you that Aereo uses two or three giant antennas. The tiny objects are elements to the antenna. We're all receiving the same signal. Justices don't have an advanced degree in engineering, and you can find an engineer who'll say anything if you give him enough money to be an expert, but that's one giant antenna.

Second, copyright law says that the equipment that receives the signal must be typically found in a home. That giant antenna array is NOT found in a home, and neither is the tiny element that Aereo is trying to pass off as an antenna.

Third, copyright law is focused on the performance, not the signal. Some of the exceptions do depend on how the signal is received, where it is received, how it is used, etc. And they're written in such a way that some of the exceptions can have an unintended meaning as applied to Aereo.

Here's a link to an article on that, along with my favorite quote:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...ZDN/story.html

Quote:
Furthermore, Frederick made a distinction between video-on-demand services and what Aereo provides, saying that no recording made by a customer is ever accessible to anyone else because it’s a distinct copy — and thus, a private performance.

“If I’m making a copy using Aereo’s system, no one else can look at it,” Frederick said. “Even if you happen to have watched the same program, you can’t watch my copy, I can’t download it . . . ”

Roberts interjected, “That’s just saying your copy is different from my copy.”

“Correct,” Frederick said.

“But that’s the reason we call them copies, because they’re the same,” Roberts said, as the packed courtroom erupted in laughter.

BobCamp1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 11:20 AM   #56
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCamp1 View Post
And they're written in such a way that some of the exceptions can have an unintended meaning as applied to Aereo.
Just because a loophole is unintended doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it's illegal for someone to take advantage of it.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 12:51 PM   #57
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.
Sure sounds like Comcast to me.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 02:04 PM   #58
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.
Hmm... Let's see --- what entities will come after me with a gun (i.e., use violence) to enforce a mob's will? Well there is the mafia (criminals to be more general) and there's the government. Capitalists are not on that list. Paraphrasing someone famous (Mark Twain? Will Rogers?) there are only two criminal classes in the USA: Organized crime and the Congress.

I agree that some minimal amount of government regulation is necessary, and certainly effective law enforcement is a valid government function. But if we keep layering on regulations and the associated government bureaucracy we are going to kill overall productivity in this country. We'll have a small fraction of our workers actually producing goods and services, while the rest are either working in the government or working in law firms, lobbying firms, or political action committees trying to rig the laws and regs to benefit the special interests they represent. Sad to say, we are already well down that path.

We can't afford enough government to ensure that a stupid apathetic careless person can bumble through life with complete protection from bad deals. What works, and is efficient, is caveat emptor, and informed consumers who take the consequences if they make a stupid choice.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 02:23 PM   #59
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,788
Seriously you are trolling hard here. The government is at a smaller size than its been in decades. We have cut like crazy lately and pretty much prevented anything from passing in the current administration. You should be happy.
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 04:19 PM   #60
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.
And by extension, if you rent an apartment and have a shared antenna with everyone else in the building...

Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
I'm not sure that Tivo would want to buy them but it certainly makes sense to add an Aereo app to Tivo. Many cord cutters would like to buy a Roamio Plus or Pro but can't because there is no OTA on those boxes. Even cable users could benefit since the OTA signal is often MUCH better than the cable signal.
The entire point of TiVo is that it receives an RF signal (either OTA ATSC-8VSB or cable ATSC-QAM) and can play that RF signal back live, time shift/trick play it, or record it for later use. Without that RF signal, TiVo is completely pointless. You may as well buy a $99 Roku at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
But that's just a secondary reason. The main reason they're fighting is to protect their retransmission fees.
They don't have any reason to care about Aereo per se, even if people can watch something in one DMA, and not in another. What they are worried about is cable companies somehow replicating this functionality (U-Verse would the the only one capable of doing it technically for now) and not paying retrans. However, what I don't understand is why they can't just force-bundle their affiliate with the parent company's cable programming like they do now with little-watched cable channels, in which case, it's a non-issue entirely.

What really will get weird is if they decided to broadcast all of the Detroit channels, some of which are in Canada, and had to deal with Canadian law in addition to US law. They have sidestepped that for now by doing a partial (US-only) offering for Detroit. If they did a complete offering, I might considering signing up with a friend or family member's address to get CBC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCamp1 View Post
First of all, as an RF engineer, I can guarantee you that Aereo uses two or three giant antennas. The tiny objects are elements to the antenna. We're all receiving the same signal. Justices don't have an advanced degree in engineering, and you can find an engineer who'll say anything if you give him enough money to be an expert, but that's one giant antenna.
We know there are thousands of separate antennas. Are you arguing that somehow those antennas only work if they are in a specific formation, and that a single antenna alone wouldn't work?
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |