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 04-29-2014, 02:28 PM   #151
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
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.
Correct and why I haven't bothered to try and figure out if what they are doing is legal or not. The more interesting conversations (at least in my mind ) are what it means once SCOTUS makes their decision.
__________________
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 04-29-2014, 02:58 PM   #152
lessd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Correct and why I haven't bothered to try and figure out if what they are doing is legal or not. The more interesting conversations (at least in my mind ) are what it means once SCOTUS makes their decision.
Whatever way the SC goes on this what does this have to do with TiVo, IE: the title of this Thread, TiVo is not sending signals out of the home to the general public nor asking the public to pay for any signals that do go out of your home (Sling-box is OK as it is just for your home or the people in your home, but it is IMHO used in a non legal way, as I know people that have a kid in NYC and the kid puts a sling box in their parents home to get some sport events that are blocked in the NYC area, I assume that is not legal.)
__________________
Les Daniels

_____________________________________________
3 Roamio Plus upgraded to 2Tb & 3Tb, and 2 Minis,
lessd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 04:00 PM   #153
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
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...
No, it is the demodulation, decoding, re-encoding, and remodulating the signal that makes it different. A community antenna is just a way to get the radio signals to the tuner when the tuner is inside an apartment building or other situation where an individual antenna is impossible. What is delivered is pure, full band feed of all received signals. The only processing is passing through amplifiers that just compensate for attenuation.

As I've said before, my opinion is that Aereo crossed the line and is a retransmitter. But that is just my opinion. Anyone else here is entitled to their opinion. However, your opinion, my opinion and most other people's opinions don't matter. The only opinions that count are the ones held by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
..."Manipulate" strikes me as not a neutral, non-emotional way to describe the process.
I was trying to avoid any specific language like "retransmission." In this case "manipulate" was used to cover any form of altering the received signal, whether by filtering, demodulating, or any other process. Sorry you take exception.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 04:12 PM   #154
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
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.
First, cable companies are not monopolies, they are (in most areas) exclusive franchisee holders. The reason there is usually only one cable operator in an area is because state and municipal governments chose to grant exclusive franchises to cable operators. The deal was that in return for stringing the wire and building the head-ends, the cable companies got an exclusive right to sell bundled services. It took months for Verizon, for example, to get the permission to string fiber optic cable in New Jersey. They had to, at first, negotiate with each municipality for permission (ultimately, they got a statewide franchise from the state legislature). So if you want more options, the people to talk to are your state and local and local representatives.

Second, offering HBO to viewers without a subscription via a cable company is not even on HBO's radar screen. That would require a massive investment in billing, marketing and customer service, far in excess of what they have in place today. They have already spent large sums of setting up streaming access - the last thing they want to do is follow that up with more spending on retail operations, when neither have any prospect of increasing net revenue.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 04:18 PM   #155
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
Whatever way the SC goes on this what does this have to do with TiVo, IE: the title of this Thread, TiVo is not sending signals out of the home to the general public nor asking the public to pay for any signals that do go out of your home (Sling-box is OK as it is just for your home or the people in your home, but it is IMHO used in a non legal way, as I know people that have a kid in NYC and the kid puts a sling box in their parents home to get some sport events that are blocked in the NYC area, I assume that is not legal.)
Yes, a Slingbox used in that way is a violation of the terms of most cable and satellite subscription agreements, and ultimately a violation of copyright law.

The SCOTUS decision in this case COULD impact "out of home" streaming via devices live Slingbox or Tivo Stream, depending on how widely it is written. If they are not careful, it could have very far reaching consequences.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 04:47 PM   #156
eboydog
Just TiVo'ing.....
 
eboydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
Whatever way the SC goes on this what does this have to do with TiVo, IE: the title of this Thread, TiVo is not sending signals out of the home to the general public nor asking the public to pay for any signals that do go out of your home (Sling-box is OK as it is just for your home or the people in your home, but it is IMHO used in a non legal way, as I know people that have a kid in NYC and the kid puts a sling box in their parents home to get some sport events that are blocked in the NYC area, I assume that is not legal.)
I never imagined this topic would draw so much enthusiasts however I started this without really understanding what the technical aspect that Aereo is doing and misunderstanding the legality issue that is being argued, the only aspects that caught my eye was the recording of local OTA content to DVR device and streaming that content back to subscriber to their mobile device which with all things considered IS the same as what Tivo accomplishes with the Stream when a Tivo subscriber doesn't have a cable service subscription.

If you bought a 4 tuner Roamio, set it up to receive OTA only, then used a TiVo Stream to play that OTA content to your Apple iPad, will that remain legal if the court rules against Aereo?

I suspect the corporations will "buy" justice and Aereo content will be considered a retransmitted content requiring them to enter into a contract and pay the broadcasters their blood money but it doesn't make it right. Then what's next, the government requiring me to register my OTA Tivo because I too can redistribute the received content off the air and to my iPad?

How is this different if I pay Tivo to stream Ota or if I pay Aero to?
__________________
TiVo Roamio Pro
TiVo Roamio Plus (3tb)
TiVo Mini (three)
TiVo Premiere

eboydog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 06:13 PM   #157
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
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.
No. The law is very clear that it's legal. The letter of the law is extremely clear, and Aereo designed their system to comply with the letter of the law. The SCOTUS will either decide to continue following the law, as it is written, or they will show extreme bias. The Obama administration has already shown extreme bias by siding with the broadcasters instead of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
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.
The networks have extremely powerful lobbyists and lawyers. That's the only reason that there is any question about this. And unfortunately, I think the law will lose, and the broadcasters will win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
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.
If they each have their own antenna, that's legitimate. That's how the law is written. And TiVo has monthly service fees (in theory anyways, even though Lifetime makes way more sense), so the only differentiation left is the physical location that the de-modulation is taking place, which is an absurd deciding factor.

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.
The whole concept of "retransmission" makes absolutely no sense in the first place. So the idea that the law making a differentiation between multiple antennas and splitting the signal via RF or an IP multicast network shouldn't be shocking.

The differentiation between a community antenna and a cable company is also extremely arbitrary, and hence the problem with the whole concept of "retransmission".

Quote:
Originally Posted by eboydog View Post
If you bought a 4 tuner Roamio, set it up to receive OTA only, then used a TiVo Stream to play that OTA content to your Apple iPad, will that remain legal if the court rules against Aereo?
This is the problem, they are basing the distinction solely on location.
__________________
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, 06:17 PM   #158
lessd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by eboydog View Post
I never imagined this topic would draw so much enthusiasts however I started this without really understanding what the technical aspect that Aereo is doing and misunderstanding the legality issue that is being argued, the only aspects that caught my eye was the recording of local OTA content to DVR device and streaming that content back to subscriber to their mobile device which with all things considered IS the same as what Tivo accomplishes with the Stream when a Tivo subscriber doesn't have a cable service subscription.

If you bought a 4 tuner Roamio, set it up to receive OTA only, then used a TiVo Stream to play that OTA content to your Apple iPad, will that remain legal if the court rules against Aereo?

I suspect the corporations will "buy" justice and Aereo content will be considered a retransmitted content requiring them to enter into a contract and pay the broadcasters their blood money but it doesn't make it right. Then what's next, the government requiring me to register my OTA Tivo because I too can redistribute the received content off the air and to my iPad?

How is this different if I pay Tivo to stream Ota or if I pay Aero to?
I assume that TiVo streaming will not in itself be a paid service to 3rd ptys. If you have the right to watch something in your home than the Sling box/TiVo streaming outside your home I guess is OK or Sling Box itself will be out of business, If TiVo had to stop streaming out of the home I don't think it would put TiVo out of business as that not the main reason most people purchase a TiVo. I don't care about TiVo streaming but I don't know what % would give up or not purchase a TiVo if TiVo had to turn off their out of home streaming. Without, out of the home streaming, the Sling Box has no purpose at all.
__________________
Les Daniels

_____________________________________________
3 Roamio Plus upgraded to 2Tb & 3Tb, and 2 Minis,
lessd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 06:40 PM   #159
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
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.
But you're convinced that what Aereo is doing qualifies as something which is not yet legally defined?
__________________
(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, 06:45 PM   #160
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
That's like saying that McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.

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".


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".

Comcast is a BK Whopper, TWC is a Big Mac, and Charter is whatever Hardee's is pushing these days, but of my alternatives to cable, satellite is a hot dog and DSL is a fish sandwich. If I want a hamburger, I'm stuck with the Big Mac.
__________________
(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, 07:09 PM   #161
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by eboydog View Post
..........
I suspect the corporations will "buy" justice and Aereo content will be considered a retransmitted content requiring them to enter into a contract and pay the broadcasters their blood money but it doesn't make it right. Then what's next, the government requiring me to register my OTA Tivo because I too can redistribute the received content off the air and to my iPad?

How is this different if I pay Tivo to stream Ota or if I pay Aero to?
Not sure I'm comfortable with "buy" justice -- it's not quite that overt. But otherwise you are correct. There is only one practical difference between Tivo streaming and Aereo, which is that Aereo is a single entity that can be forced to pay fees while it would be impractical to identify all the instances of TiVo streaming and force those people to pay fees. Well I guess they could collect a fee from TiVo for every OTA box sold.

Anyway it's all ridiculous and congress should fix the law so SCOTUS doesn't even get involved. A key issue to avoid retransmission fees is that the video content is unaltered, e.g., commercials are passed through as is. Some tricky provisions to prevent Aereo-like approaches from being used to circumvent local blackouts would also be needed.
__________________

"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, 07:27 PM   #162
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
Comcast is a BK Whopper, TWC is a Big Mac, and Charter is whatever Hardee's is pushing these days, but of my alternatives to cable, satellite is a hot dog and DSL is a fish sandwich. If I want a hamburger, I'm stuck with the Big Mac.
He He Ah the power of a good analogy! BTW I prefer the Whopper over the Big Mac. And in spite of your creative analogy, you are wrong about TWC being a monopoly, or even a local monopoly -- although I'm in the same boat and sympathize with you. Quick quiz: which is the most hated company in the USA, TWC or ComCast?
__________________

"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, 07:42 PM   #163
eboydog
Just TiVo'ing.....
 
eboydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
I assume that TiVo streaming will not in itself be a paid service to 3rd ptys. If you have the right to watch something in your home than the Sling box/TiVo streaming outside your home I guess is OK or Sling Box itself will be out of business, If TiVo had to stop streaming out of the home I don't think it would put TiVo out of business as that not the main reason most people purchase a TiVo. I don't care about TiVo streaming but I don't know what % would give up or not purchase a TiVo if TiVo had to turn off their out of home streaming. Without, out of the home streaming, the Sling Box has no purpose at all.
Perhaps that is why Tivo doesn't sell a monthly or lifetime fee for the Stream because if they did it provides the same and better service that Aereo sells and that may have been a legal choice not a marketing choice for fear of potential legal issues.

But with that said, the Stream box doesn't do anything without the subscription on the host Tivo dvr so in affect TiVo's does in a latent manner "sells" the same service that Aereo provides. If you use it or not, is your choice and why there hasn't been more legal questions brought up is because the majority of Tivo users subscribe to cable so the cable companies and the major roadblocks put in TiVo's path comes from Cable Labs who is controlled by the major media movie distributors.

I will bet you anything that legal eagles at Tivo and Slingbox are nervious right now.
__________________
TiVo Roamio Pro
TiVo Roamio Plus (3tb)
TiVo Mini (three)
TiVo Premiere

eboydog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 08:37 PM   #164
lessd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,005
[quote=eboydog;
I will bet you anything that legal eagles at Tivo and Slingbox are nervious right now.[/QUOTE]

Slingbox could have their total business gone with some type of SC decision, TiVo could only have loss of streaming, the TiVo itself would be OK. It would not be the end of the world for TiVo as it would be for Slingbox.
__________________
Les Daniels

_____________________________________________
3 Roamio Plus upgraded to 2Tb & 3Tb, and 2 Minis,
lessd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 08:58 PM   #165
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
Slingbox could have their total business gone with some type of SC decision, TiVo could only have loss of streaming, the TiVo itself would be OK. It would not be the end of the world for TiVo as it would be for Slingbox.
The difference between Slingbox and Aereo is that with a Slingbox, YOU are the one doing the retransmitting. In Aereo's case, THEY are doing the retransmitting.

I don't think there is a big worry for Sling or TiVo.
__________________
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, 09:41 PM   #166
astrohip
Stuart F
 
astrohip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
No. The law is very clear that it's legal. The letter of the law is extremely clear, and Aereo designed their system to comply with the letter of the law. The SCOTUS will either decide to continue following the law, as it is written, or they will show extreme bias. The Obama administration has already shown extreme bias by siding with the broadcasters instead of the law.
You can say this a million times and it STILL doesn't make it fact. It doesn't mean diddly-squat. It's not clear, courts have ruled both ways, and the SCOTUS will make the final ruling. And unless Congress decides to pass new laws relating to this, the SCOTUS decision will stand for a significant period of time.

You see, in this country, we let the courts interpret the law. We don't let people like Bigg decide, in their emphatic and declamatory manner, that their interpretation of the law IS the law. We reserve that right for the courts.

I need to unsubscribe. I enjoy a spirited debate, with give & take. I can't stomach despots.
astrohip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:39 AM   #167
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
The more interesting conversations (at least in my mind ) are what it means once SCOTUS makes their decision.
Which should naturally lead to a bifurcated discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
The SCOTUS decision in this case COULD impact "out of home" streaming via devices live Slingbox or Tivo Stream, depending on how widely it is written. If they are not careful, it could have very far reaching consequences.
It seems unlikely that the SCOTUS would do that. They are often very meticulous about not carelessly bleeding over the edge of the issue brought before them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eboydog View Post
How is this different if I pay Tivo to stream Ota or if I pay Aero to?
Your question's answer is implicit in the error in your premise, as another posted mentioned with regard to Slingbox vs. Aereo:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
The difference between Slingbox and Aereo is that with a Slingbox, YOU are the one doing the retransmitting. In Aereo's case, THEY are doing the retransmitting.
You don't pay TiVo to stream OTA. You pay TiVo for an electronic device, software updates for that device, and program guide data for that device. You do not pay them for streaming OTA. That is precisely what Aereo's subscribers pay Aereo for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
No. The law is very clear that it's legal.
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The SCOTUS will either decide to continue following the law, as it is written, or they will show extreme bias.
Self-serving claptrap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The Obama administration has already shown extreme bias by siding with the broadcasters instead of the law.
Political bloviation (especially inane given most of the SCOTUS was appointed by Republican POTUSs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The whole concept of "retransmission" makes absolutely no sense in the first place.
More evasion of reality: You don't like the law as it pertains to retransmission, so you refuse to allow yourself to understand what the law is. Ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
Comcast is a BK Whopper, TWC is a Big Mac, and Charter is whatever Hardee's is pushing these days, but of my alternatives to cable, satellite is a hot dog and DSL is a fish sandwich. If I want a hamburger, I'm stuck with the Big Mac.
False analogy. The precedents make clear that (in your scenario) satellite is a yet another burger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohip View Post
You see, in this country, we let the courts interpret the law. We don't let people like Bigg decide, in their emphatic and declamatory manner, that their interpretation of the law IS the law. We reserve that right for the courts.
Precisely.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 06:30 AM   #168
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
But you're convinced that what Aereo is doing qualifies as something which is not yet legally defined?
I personally believe that what Aereo is doing is a "retransmission" based upon how that term has been adjudicated in the past (Dish Network setting up antennas to capture local channels is retransmission, Slingbox is not retransmission).

"Retransmission" will never be legally defined, any more than "pornography" or "fair" or "anti-competitive" can be defined. These are terms that require interpretation and that is why we have a federal court system: to interpret the law.

In this particular case, I believe the Court has no choice but to rule against Aereo. To allow Aereo's model to survive would totally up end broadcasting in this country. If the law was compellingly in support of Aereo it would be different, but Aereo has gone right up to the line, and I think everyone would agree on that, no matter which side of the line you believe they stand upon. So the court is going to be forced to decide the issue on technicalities. If they rule against Aereo, they may destroy the business of a relatively small startup. If they rule for Aereo they may destroy broadcast television as we know it. If you were on the court, presented with that choice, which would you choose?
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 06:48 AM   #169
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I personally believe that what Aereo is doing is a "retransmission" based upon how that term has been adjudicated in the past (Dish Network setting up antennas to capture local channels is retransmission, Slingbox is not retransmission).

"Retransmission" will never be legally defined, any more than "pornography" or "fair" or "anti-competitive" can be defined. These are terms that require interpretation and that is why we have a federal court system: to interpret the law.

In this particular case, I believe the Court has no choice but to rule against Aereo. To allow Aereo's model to survive would totally up end broadcasting in this country. If the law was compellingly in support of Aereo it would be different, but Aereo has gone right up to the line, and I think everyone would agree on that, no matter which side of the line you believe they stand upon. So the court is going to be forced to decide the issue on technicalities. If they rule against Aereo, they may destroy the business of a relatively small startup. If they rule for Aereo they may destroy broadcast television as we know it. If you were on the court, presented with that choice, which would you choose?
I really hope our courts don't operate based on what it does to established business models and instead rule based on what the law says.
__________________
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 04-30-2014, 07:01 AM   #170
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
First, cable companies are not monopolies, they are (in most areas) exclusive franchisee holders. The reason there is usually only one cable operator in an area is because state and municipal governments chose to grant exclusive franchises to cable operators.
Federal law prevents the granting of exclusive franchises for cable (specifically in the '92 Cable Act). Of course the local munis can make life hard for a new player, but they can't prohibit a new franchise. U-Verse and Google Fiber are prime examples of how the game *could* change given enough investment, but they usually just cherry-pick certain areas.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:56 AM   #171
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post
(specifically in the '92 Cable Act)
Thanks for reminding me. It was the Cable Act of 1992 that did such a good job of establishing the parameters of monopoly versus competition, people were having trouble understanding earlier in the thread:

First, the Act makes clear that competition is measured per "franchise area", not per individual home. So many people are unable to understand how whether a company is or is not a monopoly has nothing to do with whether they personally have other choices that they personally deem acceptable, but rather has to do with what actual options there are within a municipality (or within the entire state, in some cases).

Second, the Act makes clear that not only does competition have to do with what alternative services are available within the municipality, but it goes further, specifying that the availability of an alternative to 50% of the homes there is sufficient for the alternative to be considered competition.

Third, the Act makes clear that competitors aren't only other cable companies, but rather any "unaffiliated multi-channel video programming distributor". The minute that the satellite services started providing local channels, they satisfied this requirement. And all that is required is that 15% of homes in the municipality patronize one or another of the available alternatives.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 08:53 AM   #172
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
........
In this particular case, I believe the Court has no choice but to rule against Aereo. To allow Aereo's model to survive would totally up end broadcasting in this country. If the law was compellingly in support of Aereo it would be different, but Aereo has gone right up to the line, and I think everyone would agree on that, no matter which side of the line you believe they stand upon. So the court is going to be forced to decide the issue on technicalities. If they rule against Aereo, they may destroy the business of a relatively small startup. If they rule for Aereo they may destroy broadcast television as we know it. If you were on the court, presented with that choice, which would you choose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
I really hope our courts don't operate based on what it does to established business models and instead rule based on what the law says.
Yes! I think I just saw a veiled argument for government picking winners. Note that Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Tesla and SpaceX were once "relatively small startups" ! I for one am thankful they weren't squashed to protect a huge important existing business. If broadcast television really depends on retransmission fees for its survival (which I doubt), that is unfortunate. But treating them like a sacred cow is not justified.
__________________

"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 04-30-2014, 10:04 AM   #173
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
Yes! I think I just saw a veiled argument for government picking winners. Note that Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Tesla and SpaceX were once "relatively small startups" ! I for one am thankful they weren't squashed to protect a huge important existing business. If broadcast television really depends on retransmission fees for its survival (which I doubt), that is unfortunate. But treating them like a sacred cow is not justified.
Unfortunately, the Court must also be guided by the intent of Congress. It is quite clear that Congress does extend a "favored industry" status to broadcast television. This is to a large degree based upon the view of broadcast television as a unifying and informative service that serves the public interest simply by its existence (many may argue this point of view is outmoded, but it still exists).

As recently as 2010 they passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (currently in the House for reauthorization) which imposed the "carry one, carry all" requirement on satellite operators (in order to carry ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX they must also carry EVERY channel that asks and can deliver a signal to the POP - and pay for the privledge).

Local OTA broadcasting is a "sacred cow" and there is no indication that it will change anytime soon.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 10:28 AM   #174
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Franchises USED to be exclusive, but of course are not any more. The reason that cable companies are effectively monopolies is that the capital costs to overbuild are immense.

There's a lot of talk about "competition" that happens, but the only real way that competition will ever happen is government subsidizing new entrants or the government forcing incumbents to allow competitive ISPs on their lines like they did with the Bells back in the late 90s early 00s with CO-based DSL. I'm actually kind of surprised that isn't being mentioned at all by anyone with regards to the Comcast/TWC transaction actually.
__________________
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 04-30-2014, 10:41 AM   #175
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Unfortunately, the Court must also be guided by the intent of Congress. It is quite clear that Congress does extend a "favored industry" status to broadcast television. This is to a large degree based upon the view of broadcast television as a unifying and informative service that serves the public interest simply by its existence (many may argue this point of view is outmoded, but it still exists).

As recently as 2010 they passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (currently in the House for reauthorization) which imposed the "carry one, carry all" requirement on satellite operators (in order to carry ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX they must also carry EVERY channel that asks and can deliver a signal to the POP - and pay for the privledge).

Local OTA broadcasting is a "sacred cow" and there is no indication that it will change anytime soon.
I don't like the message but kudos for your generally factual and objective posts. Please try to keep that to a minimum -- you're spoiling our fun!
__________________

"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 04-30-2014, 10:45 AM   #176
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
Franchises USED to be exclusive, but of course are not any more. The reason that cable companies are effectively monopolies is that the capital costs to overbuild are immense.

There's a lot of talk about "competition" that happens, but the only real way that competition will ever happen is government subsidizing new entrants or the government forcing incumbents to allow competitive ISPs on their lines like they did with the Bells back in the late 90s early 00s with CO-based DSL. I'm actually kind of surprised that isn't being mentioned at all by anyone with regards to the Comcast/TWC transaction actually.
In my TWC region, Earthlink is an ISP using TWC lines. Does that qualify as allowing competitive ISP's on their lines?
__________________

"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 04-30-2014, 10:56 AM   #177
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
In my TWC region, Earthlink is an ISP using TWC lines. Does that qualify as allowing competitive ISP's on their lines?
Yeah, that's along the lines of what I'm talking about. I suppose it's probably the same in TWC areas, but Earthlink in Bright House areas don't have the same package availability as Bright House. For such a model to work, the ISPs should have equal access to the lines as the incumbent MSO that owns the coax. Basically, the ISPs should be separate from the physical infrastructure side of the company (which was also the model applied to the Bells on CO-based DSL)
__________________
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 04-30-2014, 12:13 PM   #178
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
Basically, the ISPs should be separate from the physical infrastructure side of the company (which was also the model applied to the Bells on CO-based DSL)
A structure that is generally being abandoned wherever it exists, as fast as the incumbents can make it happen, because it is incompatible with the requirements investors place on for-profit businesses. If that kind of structure is important to the public, then the public will have to pay to build and maintain it itself. This environment won't allow for such substantial unfunded mandates to be imposed on businesses that have to answer to shareholders.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:53 PM   #179
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
A structure that is generally being abandoned wherever it exists, as fast as the incumbents can make it happen, because it is incompatible with the requirements investors place on for-profit businesses. If that kind of structure is important to the public, then the public will have to pay to build and maintain it itself. This environment won't allow for such substantial unfunded mandates to be imposed on businesses that have to answer to shareholders.
But that hasn't happened in the case of POTS, correct? I mean, the public doesn't pay for the POTS lines that are shared by 2 or more companies, do they? Why would it have to happen for Internet service?
__________________

"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 04-30-2014, 01:05 PM   #180
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Quote:
as fast as the incumbents can make it happen
But that hasn't happened in the case of POTS, correct?
It is indeed happening, as I said, as fast as the incumbents can make it happen: The incumbent here is presenting it's IP phone services as a loss leader, crafting practically all its package deals around it, and using conversion to IP phone service as a reason to rip the copper out entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
I mean, the public doesn't pay for the POTS lines that are shared by 2 or more companies, do they? Why would it have to happen for Internet service?
The difference, of course, is that POTS started out as a regulated monopoly (I know - I was there at a the time ), and so what we see is the slow effect of deregulation still in motion a generation after. It may take another generation before the regulated service effectively goes away. The final chapter is just starting:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/at-d...areas-1.735979

By comparison, ISPs never allowed themselves to become encumbered by the expectations that were placed on ILECs.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
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 10:53 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |