Aereo - "supreme" court hearing arguments

[HOSED]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-supreme-court-is-about-to-decide-the-future-of-tv-20140420

Apparently if Aereo wins free OTA Television may end
From the article "The broadcasters have already threatened that if the Court and Congress refuse to stop Aereo, they may pull their programming off the air. "
I have never paid for TV so I guess I am pulling for a decision in favor of the industry.

But the case could have implications for more than just the one small Internet company. Some tech groups and Internet activists warn that the Supreme Court could throw cloud-computing companies into legal jeopardy

I do not use the "cloud' so bye bye Aereo

 

[JManInPhoenix]

meh, I watch less & less tv now so I don't really care anymore.

 

[DCal430]

An interesting fact, while Aereo claims to operate on a 1 to 1 model, it has never demonstrated this to be the case. It has yet to prove that 1 of its tiny antennas is capable of receiving the signal it claims.

 

[KB]

I think Aereo is in touble. The fact that they specifically created hundreds of mini-antennaes to get around the law, means they are already skirting it. If I created a bunch of mini-antennaes to collect and store music from radio stations, you bet it would be illegal for me to sell those songs on the internet without royalties to the artists. Why is TV different?

If Aereo can collect and store OTA shows for free, then cable companies will do the same and broadcasting will never be the same.

 

[JimKiler]

I think Aereo is in touble. The fact that they specifically created hundreds of mini-antennaes to get around the law, means they are already skirting it. If I created a bunch of mini-antennaes to collect and store music from radio stations, you bet it would be illegal for me to sell those songs on the internet without royalties to the artists. Why is TV different?

If Aereo can collect and store OTA shows for free, then cable companies will do the same and broadcasting will never be the same.

If you business is renting the antennas and streaming what they receive then you would in the clear. By in the clear i mean as clear and legal as Areo is (or is not.) But i personally do not see an isssue with this. I thought Areo sounded cool but you can only get the channels in your hometown anyway. Why would I want that? I would prefer to view another regions channels like LA or NY. And since i can only get channels from my own region, why are the broadcasters even up in arms over this company?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-supreme-court-is-about-to-decide-the-future-of-tv-20140420

Apparently if Aereo wins free OTA Television may end
From the article "The broadcasters have already threatened that if the Court and Congress refuse to stop Aereo, they may pull their programming off the air. "
I have never paid for TV so I guess I am pulling for a decision in favor of the industry.
I do not use the "cloud' so bye bye Aereo

You really think broadcasters will close up shop? No way they will do that. They may negotiate more deals for their cable channels, i.e. football but we will see if they are even willing to do that.

 

[SaurusX]

An interesting fact, while Aereo claims to operate on a 1 to 1 model, it has never demonstrated this to be the case. It has yet to prove that 1 of its tiny antennas is capable of receiving the signal it claims.

Agreed. I did a lot of research when I was going all OTA and in the market for an antenna, so I have great doubts about their claims. Aereo has never been clear as to how their tech works other than to go on and on about their dime sized antennas. A dime-sized antenna wouldn't pick up a signal if it was planted at the base of the broadcasting tower. There's something else there that I'm sure runs afoul copyright law.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Honestly I fail to see much of a difference between this and an old school VCR except the monthly charge which I guess that could be the problem

 

[Texashiker]

they may pull their programming off the air.

From what I understand local TV companies have to broadcast over the air.

It has something to do with civil defense and broadcasting during an emergency, such as during hurricanes and other natural disasters. Local emergency managers have to have a way to contact the people without cable or satellite. Local radio and TV over the air broadcast play an important role in emergency management.

The programming may change, but there is going to be "something" broadcast. The NFL may pull their broadcast, but the local TV company will get something to fill its spot.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^add the fact that they would lose the license to the spectrum, which is the best for penetrating buildings its worth billions someone would figure out a public broadcast use.

 

[michal1980]

I think Aereo is in touble. The fact that they specifically created hundreds of mini-antennaes to get around the law, means they are already skirting it. If I created a bunch of mini-antennaes to collect and store music from radio stations, you bet it would be illegal for me to sell those songs on the internet without royalties to the artists. Why is TV different?

If Aereo can collect and store OTA shows for free, then cable companies will do the same and broadcasting will never be the same.

the fact that cable companies have to pay for something the broadcasters are giving out for free is nuts.

 

[Texashiker]

the fact that cable companies have to pay for something the broadcasters are giving out for free is nuts.

Cable companies are required by law to rebroadcast any signal they can pick up on an antenna.

This requirement is called "Must Carry" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

Again, this goes back to emergency management and being able to reach the public during times of emergency.

 

[Greenman]

I find it hard to care either way. Broadcast tv has become almost unwatchable. Commercials have to be near a third of their content by now, add in the generally poor content and there is very little reason to watch anymore. News has been particularly hard hit as they struggle to build story's out of nothing.

 

[Jimzz]

Sounds like they want to rule against aereo but some of the younger more knowledgeable judges are worried it may cut into other areas they do not want to.

I think they are going to rule against aereo but have a very descriptive ruling to make sure its a small scalpel cut, not a wild axe swing cut.

 

[DCal430]

The only reason Aereo may win is because the judge lack a technical understanding of Aereo and how it claims to work. If they understood they would see it is bogus. That Aereo has failed to demonstration its technology isn't in fact a single giant antenna being shared, because it almost definitely is.

 

[DCal430]

The cloud analogy is false, as the cloud can be easily shown to be 1 to 1, while Aereo has failed to prove this.

 

[smackababy]

I see what Aereo is doing, or even claiming to do, as illegal. And, even if they win against the broadcasters, I see the content creators suing them afterwards.

 

[JimKiler]

the fact that cable companies have to pay for something the broadcasters are giving out for free is nuts.

Actually in the 70's due to a lack of bandwidth the channels paid the cable companies to carry their channels. as channels gained viewers the channels started demanding money from the cable companies. The local broadcasters were jealous because by law they could not charge the cable companies when cable channels were getting paid.

In 1992 the Federal Law changed so now OTA broadcasters demanded money for local channels. Of course cable companies said no and the comprimise was still getting the locals for free but contracts requiring other channels owned by the big broadcasters to be added and payments to be made for these other channels like the FX channel.

listen to this Planet Money episode

 

[JimKiler]

I see what Aereo is doing, or even claiming to do, as illegal. And, even if they win against the broadcasters, I see the content creators suing them afterwards.

Why do you think that? Lots of people cannot get the locals via OTA due to bad reception. Should they be stuck in the middle because Areo cannot rent antennas that connect to the internet?

 

[smackababy]

Why do you think that? Lots of people cannot get the locals via OTA due to bad reception. Should they be stuck in the middle because Areo cannot rent antennas that connect to the internet?

Do I think they should? No. Do I understand the laws concerning this and feel Aereo is breaking them? I certainly believe so.

And with that, receiving OTA broadcasts is not some unaliable right that Aereo is providing the people. Can't afford basic cable and can't have reception for OTA channels? I truly feel bad for you, but you probably should be spending less time worrying about missing Friends and more time worrying about how to not be so poor you can't afford things like basic cable. The reality is, those aren't the people that are using Aereo anyway. It is the "cable cutters"; not exactly a group my bleeding heart cares about.

 

[michal1980]

Cable companies are required by law to rebroadcast any signal they can pick up on an antenna.

This requirement is called "Must Carry" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

Again, this goes back to emergency management and being able to reach the public during times of emergency.

And how does that refute my point at all?

Maybe I need to make it simple:

1) Broadcast TV gives its product away for free.

2) Cable companies must pay Broadcast TV for a product it must carry

3) IMHO thats stupid.

 

[JimKiler]

Cable companies are required by law to rebroadcast any signal they can pick up on an antenna.

This requirement is called "Must Carry" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

Again, this goes back to emergency management and being able to reach the public during times of emergency.

TexasHiker, that was true until 1992, did you see the wiki exceptions for the US?

Must-carry may only be applied if the television station wants to be carried under this provision. This only applies to non-commercial educational (NCE) stations. Station operators are allowed to demand payment from cable operators, or negotiate private agreements for carriage, or threaten revocation against the cable operator (see Sinclair, Time Warner Cable). Must-carry is a privilege given to television stations, not a cable company. A cable company cannot use must-carry to demand the right to carry an over-the-air station against the station's wishes.

 

[Knowing]

<platinum broadcast>How can Aereo not win this?

If a product is broadcast then how can anyone not have a right to receive that broadcast within the technological limitations of the day?</platinum broadcast>

If you cannot see the content of this post, please contact anandtech forum administrators to purchase a platinum membership.

Platinum Broadcast®
All rights reserved. Any rebroadcast of the above post without the writer's permission is prohibited.

 

[HOSED]

I find it hard to care either way. Broadcast tv has become almost unwatchable. Commercials have to be near a third of their content by now, add in the generally poor content and there is very little reason to watch anymore.

I would mildly disagree, I get over 30 channels and am always able to find something interesting and/or informative in the 2-3 hours/day that the TV is on. (RT, France 24, PBS and a few dramas on fox.)
Also thank god for Windows Media Center and it ability to record OTA

Thanks for the assurances that OTA will be free!

Since I was OP can I end with ; I found it odd that a Spanish Language network with 2 sub channels recently added a third channel in English.

 

[DrPizza]

If I lived in a large building, would I be allowed (legally; not including what the building owner would allow) to put an antenna and DVR on the roof, set it to record OTA broadcasts of my choosing, and then stream them from the DVR to my apartment 3 stories below?

I believe the answer to this is yes.

Then, how about if instead of purchasing the antenna and DVR, I rent them from a company who sets them up for me on my roof. It's streamed ONLY to me from that DVR.

Have I stepped over some legal gray area yet?? I don't think so.


Now, how about if the owner of my building is a prick, but I put the antenna and DVR on the adjacent building (with permission) and stream from the DVR only to me (not broadcast to other people) the content that I chose to have it record?

I still don't see a problem.

Now, instead of me purchasing the equipment and installing it on another building, I lease the equipment from Aereo...

At no point to I see where I've crossed some legal gray area. And that's all that Aereo does. Though, DCal claims that their antenna are insufficient. I've yet to hear that complaint from the broadcasters, hence either all the news I've read overlooked that, else DCal is way smarter than the collective of the broadcasters (unlikely). Therefore, I think it's safe to conclude that they are being honest about their model of one antenna & one DVR per customer.

Further, you can only sign up if you're in the area of the city where you're getting the OTA broadcast. That is, in NYC, I can't have Aereo set up an antenna and DVR for me in Los Angeles; I'd have to be in the NYC metro area.

 

[DrPizza]

Oh, re: bluff that broadcasters will stop OTA. If I were an advertiser, knowing that umpteen thousands of people were watching my ad via OTA, I wouldn't be willing to pay as much if the broadcaster suddenly decided to reduce the audience for my commercials.