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 04-28-2014, 07:33 AM   #121
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
If what you are saying is that cable, Satellite, Aereo, whoever, should be able to rebroadcast OTA channels without paying a rebroadcasting fee because of the nature of OTA broadcasting (free & add supported) then I am in agreement with you.

However that is not what the current laws allow. From a cable company business point of view carrying local OTA stations is not much different than carrying any other cable only channel. The cable company pays the lowest fee possible with the one difference being the law mandates the network channels be in the basic cable package, so the cost of OTA channels has to be built into that package.
I understand this. I'm actually not necessarily advocating for allowing the cable companies to carry local channels for free (although I would not oppose such a change in policy).

My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.
__________________
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 04-28-2014, 08:37 AM   #122
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
...

My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.
Back when I had Dishnetwork that is how it worked. Once locals became available if you wanted them it was $5/mo more and was optional. They have since discontinued that option, I am guessing that the locals have made "mandatory carry" part of their retransmission contract.

I am also guessing that in many areas locals now cost allot more the $5/mo and I agree with you because of the nature of OTA there should be an optional package for OTA stations (like HBO). Unfortunately it would require the law be changed to require the breakout package and the chances of that happening are near zero.
__________________
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 04-28-2014, 10:08 AM   #123
aadam101
Future Prez of ABC
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Precisely.

Or that the SCOTUS doesn't understand this technological aspect.

Cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge this, because they themselves have fewer personal choices because of their own personal biases and preferences, but the law is clear and consistently applied in this regard.
Of course they do! I live in an area where Comcast is my ONLY choice for subscription TV service. If I want a channel like AMC or HBO, I MUST fork over my money to Comcast. There is nothing else. Dish is not an option in my building.
__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!
aadam101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 10:45 AM   #124
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
...If you're going to argue that de-modulation and re-modulation define re-transmission, then why, a few years ago, would a (hypothetical) cable company, that received an analog NTSC TV broadcast and just fed it into a booster amp ahead of splitters ahead of more boosters ahead of more splitters until it eventually reached the antenna input of a cable subscribers television, owe the station anything, as I'm sure the station would have argued?

The problem is the ridiculous notion that broadcasters using the public airwaves to send out their signal get to tell the public, in the geographic area the broadcaster is licensed to serve, how they may and may not receive that signal.
If anyone had done that, without also bundling in cable only channels, then that would have been a community antenna and so would never have been subject to retransmission fees. But that is not what cable companies did, even back in the old analog days.

Yes, broadcasters use the public airwaves, and as a member of that public, you are free to erect an antenna and receive their broadcasts. But when a company takes those broadcasts, manipulates them, and tries to make a business out of delivering them to viewers, then they are required by law to pay a licensing fee. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is the law. To avoid Aereo paying a fee, the law would have to be changed.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 10:51 AM   #125
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
I understand this. I'm actually not necessarily advocating for allowing the cable companies to carry local channels for free (although I would not oppose such a change in policy).

My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.
It has been the policy of the federal government since the earliest days of television that local channels be given preferential treatment and their existence and viability protected. This was to provide immediate news coverage in the event of an emergency (hurricanes, floods, tornados, terrorist attacks). Again, you would need to lobby to change that policy to change the way broadcasting laws are written.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 02:31 PM   #126
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
Of course they do!
Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.

Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.

If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 02:49 PM   #127
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.

Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.

If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.
There is a traditional monopoly as your discussing and there is a co-operative monopoly. Comcast has been telling companies like HBO to not offer their products directly to the consumer market. They can offer through it the big guys. HBO and friends know where they get the lions share of their income and they don't want to upset that cart.

Can you think of any other reason they would not offer that service directly in addition through the Cable/Sat/Phone channels. They are are afraid of retaliation.
__________________
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 04-28-2014, 03:15 PM   #128
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
There is a traditional monopoly as your discussing and there is a co-operative monopoly.
You can split the hairs as much as you want, but all that matters is how the government splits the hairs. If you think your definition should prevail, prove it by having the government break or regulate the monopoly you object to. I've been reading such posturing for decades, first with regard to MSOs and now with regard to ISPs. It's all fine-and-good as an intellectual exercise but if you want it acknowledged as a legitimate perspective then make your definition have merit through prevailing in the courts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 03:15 PM   #129
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.

Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.

If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.
If there is an absolute monopoly or not is not necessarily the correct question. Our laws prohibit more than just absolute monopolies. Just ask AT&T and T-Mobile; if they had combined there would have been 3 solid nationwide mobile providers, the government decided that wasn't sufficient.

The question when it comes to pay TV and high speed internet should be is there sufficient competition to allow market forces to work correctly. I would say no and would go further and say we would be better off with highly regulated monopolies for both pay TV and high speed internet access while treating them like a utility.

Instead we went with some pipe dream that it would be feasible for multiple companies to provide these services competitively.

Well it is pretty clear that for the vast majority of the country that isn't economically possible. Heck for large areas of Rural America it is just like electricity and telephone, if the government doesn't force coverage it isn't going to happen.
__________________
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 04-28-2014, 03:21 PM   #130
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
If there is an absolute monopoly or not is not necessarily the correct question. Our laws prohibit more than just absolute monopolies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
You can split the hairs as much as you want, but all that matters is how the government splits the hairs. If you think your definition should prevail, prove it by having the government break or regulate the monopoly you object to. I've been reading such posturing for decades, first with regard to MSOs and now with regard to ISPs. It's all fine-and-good as an intellectual exercise but if you want it acknowledged as a legitimate perspective then make your definition have merit through prevailing in the courts.
Like I said, I've seen folks express the uber-consumerist perspective repeatedly for decades. I know the difference between what the regulators block and what they do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Well it is pretty clear that for the vast majority of the country that isn't economically possible. Heck for large areas of Rural America it is just like electricity and telephone, if the government doesn't force coverage it isn't going to happen.
The reality is that the last thirty five years have seen less and less acceptance of government taking that sort of thing on. The fact that you wish it to, in this case, because you are a consumer in this scenario, isn't going to make the difference in the halls of government. What's necessary is a radical reversal of the trend, toward more government regulation. I don't see that happening soon.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 03:49 PM   #131
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
[indent]...
The reality is that the last thirty five years have seen less and less acceptance of government taking that sort of thing on. The fact that you wish it to, in this case, because you are a consumer in this scenario, isn't going to make the difference in the halls of government. What's necessary is a radical reversal of the trend, toward more government regulation. I don't see that happening soon.
I tend to agree with you and for pay TV I am not sure I even believe there is a reasonable way for the government to increase regulations.

I do think high speed internet is different and the government is spending money to increase access. But I also think they are banking on advancements in wireless tech to save the day.

I have brother in deeply rural MN (his closest neighbor is more than a mile away and he has to go 10 miles before he gets to a corner with a few houses together) and he has access to reliable 12Mbps (he could pay for up to 25Mbps) wireless (WiMax I think) high speed internet via a directional antenna thats cost less than my DSL (which is my only option) that cannot maintain anything more than 1Mbps most evenings and I live 1.5 miles outside of a village in a fairly well populated area of Rural Western NY (there are 4 villages & about 20,000 people within 8 miles of my home).
__________________
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 04-28-2014, 04:25 PM   #132
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
I do think high speed internet is different and the government is spending money to increase access. But I also think they are banking on advancements in wireless tech to save the day.
Perhaps, but I think that's given them too much credit. I think they're banking on advancements to make the complains go away, not necessarily caring that they get resolved in the consumer's favor. There are simply a great number of people in government today intent on allowing business to have the upper hand, over consumers, over employees, over neighbors, whether we like it or not.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 07:42 PM   #133
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
I don't understand your statement above, (Aereo isn't re-transmitting) that is your opinion, not any fact or it would not be in the highest Court.

Why is Aereo any less re-transmitting then that of a cable co ??, You can't even put up an antenna in a sports bar without paying to show the programing to your customers. OTA is for personal use only, unless you pay for commercial use of the OTA signal. Some grey area in the Aereo case, that is why it is in the Court, IMHO they will not win, but that only my opinion, and I am not on the Court.
We're right back into the arguments of the case. Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is also extremely biased against Aereo, and against the law, they have come out and said that they support the broadcasters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Wow. Total lack of understanding of the technology and the law.

They receive an 8VSB signal, decode it into the original MPEG 2 data, and then retransmit this data via IP packets (which are encoded using one of several possible streaming protocols). They only way this could NOT be a retransmission would be to deliver the 8VSB signal to the viewers TV or DVR tuners.

Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.
If you include the conversion of an MPEG-2 stream that is 8VSB modulated to IP packets, then a Roamio with TiVo Minis is illegal. Then Windows is illegal, as it can convert 8VSB modulated MPEG-2 to an MPEG-2 IP stream.

The differentiation that the broadcasters are trying to make, even though it's bold-faced bullsh*t is that because Aereo's antenna is not at the users' home, it is re-transmission. The problem is, their argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since Aereo is really no different in technology than some of the new OTA DVRs that offer remote streaming (or a TiVo Roamio with TiVo Stream), it just does it in a centralized location. TiVo Roamio and the other OTA DVRs are legal under Sony, thus Aereo must be legal.

The only differentiation that you are making is the location of the demodulation of the MPEG-2 8VSB encoded stream. I'm guessing that they also re-compress it to MPEG-4, but this is also irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
I would save more money dropping all the ESPN channels than dropping the local channels. The ESPN channels cost alot more. I don't even know why there are so many ESPN channels. I only watch the main one. Yet I'm forced to pay for all the other ones that I will never watch. The local programming cost is minor compared to the cost of the ESPN channels.
The main one is the bulk of the cost. I think it's up to $6/mo. There are packages now that don't include sports programming, but they aren't very popular, as most people, like myself, need their fix of some sport that is partially broadcast on ESPN. Mine is NCAA basketball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
If what you are saying is that cable, Satellite, Aereo, whoever, should be able to rebroadcast OTA channels without paying a rebroadcasting fee because of the nature of OTA broadcasting (free & add supported) then I am in agreement with you.

However that is not what the current laws allow. From a cable company business point of view carrying local OTA stations is not much different than carrying any other cable only channel. The cable company pays the lowest fee possible with the one difference being the law mandates the network channels be in the basic cable package, so the cost of OTA channels has to be built into that package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
They have since discontinued that option, I am guessing that the locals have made "mandatory carry" part of their retransmission contract.
NO! You are getting two different things completely confused. The law does NOT force any cable company to pay anything for any channel. What the law says is that either:

a) MUST-CARRY: Any local broadcast channel may force carriage of it's channel by the local cable providers by providing the channel to them at no cost (this may happen with PBS or other independent channels)
-OR-
b) RETRANSMISSION CONSENT: The broadcast channel may negotiate with the local cable companies for carriage, but once the broadcast channel asks for any money, they can no longer force carriage, and if the cable company does't want to pay, their channel won't be carried.

Now I know under retransmission consent, part of the deal can be ad injection by the cable company, I think under must carry the cable company cannot manipulate the channel. I don't know how significantly viewed channels affect these, as I don't think that Comcast could, say, get in a carriage spat with the local CBS and just carry an SV CBS from another market, as that would create competition between affiliates and O&O channels, especially in markets that are oddly assigned (like Fairfield county, CT, which is part of the NYC DMA, but could just as easily carry Hartford-New Haven channels as the primary (HD) locals), but I'm not sure on this.

That being said, as part of a private deal for carriage of cable content, I don't see why a network with numerous cable channels like NBC or ABC/ESPN couldn't force-bundle the local with the cable content...
__________________
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 04-29-2014, 04:53 AM   #134
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal.
That's self-serving claptrap: The law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal. Reasonable people disagree about this, so the SCOTUS decision very well may clarify the law, not indicate bias akin to the bias exhibited in your comment. There is no question that the SCOTUS is politically biased, but not that they're biased toward some companies and against others.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 05:28 AM   #135
aaronwt
HD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
We're right back into the arguments of the case. Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal....................
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
That's self-serving claptrap: The law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal.......................
If the law was very clear either way, they would not be in the supreme court. The lower court has already ruled in favor of Aereo.
__________________
Roamio Pro
TiVo Mini x4
Roamio Basic OTA
40TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 06:33 AM   #136
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
And that points out why there is a SCOTUS, and why this case is going to be decided there. It is a matter of reasonable disagreement.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 08:19 AM   #137
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...If you include the conversion of an MPEG-2 stream that is 8VSB modulated to IP packets, then a Roamio with TiVo Minis is illegal. Then Windows is illegal, as it can convert 8VSB modulated MPEG-2 to an MPEG-2 IP stream...
You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well IF it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).

Suppose I set up a bunch of Slingboxes, wired up to some ATSC tuners, each tuned to a given channel in my area, and for $8 per month gave people access to those Slingboxes, and put up a web page so that they could select which Slingbox/channel they wanted? I guarantee that as soon as someone noticed, I'd get a cease and desist letter from the broadcasters. This is exactly what Aereo is doing, just with their own hardware instead of Slingboxes.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 08:47 AM   #138
CrispyCritter
Purple Ribbon Wearer
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well IF it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).

Suppose I set up a bunch of Slingboxes, wired up to some ATSC tuners, each tuned to a given channel in my area, and for $8 per month gave people access to those Slingboxes, and put up a web page so that they could select which Slingbox/channel they wanted? I guarantee that as soon as someone noticed, I'd get a cease and desist letter from the broadcasters. This is exactly what Aereo is doing, just with their own hardware instead of Slingboxes.
No, that is very far away from what Aereo is doing. (I agree that your scenario is illegal).

Aereo is capturing the signal with a particular antenna that the user is renting. It is the user's signal from the moment it is captured. Any change of form and retransmission after that is a particular user changing the form, and users are allowed to do that.

The legal question is whether you are allowed to rent a remote antenna and store the signal remotely.
__________________
CrispyCritter
TiVo Roamio:Felix TiVo Premiere:Bob TiVo XL4:Fred TiVo HDXL:Sharon TiVoHD:Susan
CrispyCritter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 08:57 AM   #139
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.

Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.

If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.
Where I live Time Warner has a monopoly, de facto if not de jure, on cable TV and cable internet. All the alternatives to them are something that's not cable.
__________________
(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 04-29-2014, 09:01 AM   #140
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
If anyone had done that, without also bundling in cable only channels, then that would have been a community antenna and so would never have been subject to retransmission fees. But that is not what cable companies did, even back in the old analog days.

You make it sound as though putting it on the same wire as CNN and other non-broadcast channels, instead of keeping it strictly local OTAs somehow magically makes it all different regarding to what, if any, compensation broadcasters are entitled because someone in their market enlists technical assistance in receiving what they otherwise could get for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Yes, broadcasters use the public airwaves, and as a member of that public, you are free to erect an antenna and receive their broadcasts. But when a company takes those broadcasts, manipulates them, and tries to make a business out of delivering them to viewers, then they are required by law to pay a licensing fee. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is the law. To avoid Aereo paying a fee, the law would have to be changed.
"Manipulate" strikes me as not a neutral, non-emotional way to describe the process.
__________________
(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 04-29-2014, 09:02 AM   #141
steve614
what ru lookin at?
 
steve614's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,722
There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.
__________________
The Man Prayer: I'm a man ...... I can change ...... If I have to ...... I guess.



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


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

F*CK CANCER!
steve614 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 10:06 AM   #142
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well IF it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).
This is the entire crux of the argument. That the "entity that received the OTA broadcast" is the customer, not Aereo. That effectively they are leasing you a facility and YOU are the one doing the receiving, recording, and "retransmitting".

I mean, how would this be any different from renting space in a colocation facility and putting my own Aereo or Slingbox in? Someone else is still making money off it, and I still have exclusive access to the signal.

Also, there's a lot of folks in this thread stating very definitively what the law is or isn't, or what is or isn't retransmission, but if any of you were actually right this case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court. You may ultimately be proven right, but right now whether or not this is legal or not is not settled.
__________________
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 04-29-2014, 11:11 AM   #143
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 6,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve614 View Post
There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.
LOL. But since the argument is public it still matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
......... There are simply a great number of people in government today intent on allowing business to have the upper hand, over consumers, over employees, over neighbors, whether we like it or not.
Hmmm..... not the way it looks to me. My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.
__________________

"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 04-29-2014, 11:35 AM   #144
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
LOL. But since the argument is public it still matters.

Hmmm..... not the way it looks to me. My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.
Seriously! Government is at its lowest head count in decades. Most of the remaining unemployment right now is from government workers who have been let go. At the same time consolidation is rampant in the corporate America. We used to have lots of babybells and cable companies.
Now there is Comcast/Verizon/DTV/ATT with a small smattering of others who control media distribution. They are getting as big as government.

The FCC pretty much lets everything through these days(Net neutrality going down the drain is a good example). The Supreme Court pretty much lets Corporate America do what it wants.

There aren't many cases these days where the nanny state as you puts it tries to even enforce a level competitive playing field in Corporate America. Compare today to the 1980s and today is much much more free market in the way business works.
__________________
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.

Last edited by zalusky : 04-29-2014 at 11:54 AM.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 12:09 PM   #145
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
This is the entire crux of the argument. That the "entity that received the OTA broadcast" is the customer, not Aereo. That effectively they are leasing you a facility and YOU are the one doing the receiving, recording, and "retransmitting".

I mean, how would this be any different from renting space in a colocation facility and putting my own Aereo or Slingbox in? Someone else is still making money off it, and I still have exclusive access to the signal.

Also, there's a lot of folks in this thread stating very definitively what the law is or isn't, or what is or isn't retransmission, but if any of you were actually right this case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court. You may ultimately be proven right, but right now whether or not this is legal or not is not settled.
Yes, this is exactly what I said a couple of pages back...there is no definition of what does or does not constitute "retransmission." Therefore it falls to the court to rule on each case.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 12:12 PM   #146
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrispyCritter View Post
No, that is very far away from what Aereo is doing. (I agree that your scenario is illegal).

Aereo is capturing the signal with a particular antenna that the user is renting. It is the user's signal from the moment it is captured. Any change of form and retransmission after that is a particular user changing the form, and users are allowed to do that.

The legal question is whether you are allowed to rent a remote antenna and store the signal remotely.
So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 12:14 PM   #147
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.

I think they are banking mostly on the courts focusing on whether or not the signal is "copied", not "retransmitted", since that is a much easier concept for them to wrap their heads around. And, by giving everyone their own distinct antenna instead of "splitting" the signal from a master antenna, they are hoping that is distinct enough from cable TV (especially the origins of cable TV, MATV) and will seem like it's not "copying"
__________________
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 04-29-2014, 01:33 PM   #148
CuriousMark
Forum Denizen
 
CuriousMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.
Isn't one of the features of a community antenna that the broadcasts are not modified in any way, such as no insertion of advertisements?

It seems to me that Aereo is trying to be something of a community antenna in some ways, it is just that they are not restricting their viewers to being those for whom the OTA signal is blocked by geographical features. They also do not add any other content like cable companies do.

A shared community antenna does have a one to many relationshop though. Each individual subscriber has no control over what comes down the wire to him. He gets it all, whether he uses it or not. With Aereo the subscriber only gets what he specifically sets up himself/herself. That is probably a significant difference.
CuriousMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 03:14 PM   #149
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.
Just stop please with the stupid political stuff, it has no place here and has no good ending.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 03:15 PM   #150
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
Where I live Time Warner has a monopoly, de facto if not de jure, on cable TV and cable internet.
That's like saying that McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
All the alternatives to them are something that's not cable.
All the alternative burgers are something that's not a Big Mac.

Monopolies are based on the commodity. The commodity - long-established by government action - is "subscription television service".

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve614 View Post
There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.
There's no point in arguing because bicker is right. Folks are trying to argue that they themselves are a "market" and that the law applies to whatever commodity they specifically want it to apply to, no matter how specific they choose to make the definition of the commodity. It is ridiculous the depths some people in this thread are diving to try to rationalize misusing a loaded word like "monopoly".

Last edited by bicker : 04-29-2014 at 03:20 PM.
bicker 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.
TiVoŽ 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 01:55 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |