Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[Phoenix86]

So if I rent the computer and TV tuner, park it in an apartment I also rent across the country, then remote in to that computer to watch the local channels, is that still illegal?

Does the company you rent the computer and antenna off a service available to the public? Are they a company who re-broadcasts a signal to customers?

You keep trying to focus on the tech, shifting how it's used to bypass the law, which doesn't matter much. If the company providing the service rises to the level of a public service that charges for a re-broadcasted signal, like a cable company, the SC won't allow that. I'm totally OK with that.

This is not the model to fight for. Just step away from the problem and look at the scenario from a tech point of view, not a legal point of view.

Is setting up an array hundreds or thousands (millions if the service takes off) of antenna's to rebroadcast an OTA signal? That's the high tech solution to digital delivery in the US?

Please god no. Just no.

 

[smackababy]

By Aereo's own admission it isn't 1 to 1 in a true sense. It is a collection of antenna that each is available to a single person at a time.

 

[Phoenix86]

By Aereo's own admission it isn't 1 to 1 in a true sense. It is a collection of antenna that each is available to a single person at a time.

Now that I have thought about it more, it doesn't matter.

Slingbox product? OK.
Slingbox service? Not OK.

The difference is when you become a service provider vs. providing equipment to allow an individual to service themselves.

All these technical details of 1:1 antenna really shouldn't matter. The law needs to be changed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Supreme Court made a bad precedence because they decided to close the loop hole on their own self interest beholdened to the companies rather than strictly uphold the law as it was written.

If the Supreme Court ruled the other way then consumers wouldn't have won either. The winner would have been those big evil cable companies who would try to rip off Aereo's technology to get around retransmission fees. Then networks would have stopped OTA transmissions to close the loophole technologically and those consumers who now enjoy OTA broadcasts for free would be screwed.

If anything this ruling was a win for consumers. The answer isn't running through loopholes in the law. The answer is changing the laws and changing consumer consumption patterns. To get there we need mass public unhappiness, which won't happen if Aereos of the world are meeting their needs with bandaids.

I don't see why everyone is acting like this is a big loss for nerds or something.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Whatever.

 

[Printer Bandit]

kill over the air already.

 

[poofyhairguy]

kill over the air already.

Heck no, that will be sad. Often OTA channels are the best quality you can get this side of Blu, as it lacks all the compression that satellite and cable providers use.

 

[Squeetard]

And free! I live in a small town in Canada. I pay $90 a month for cable. If I could get the major networks in HD OTA I would drop my cable in a second.

 

[Fritzo]

Is this one of those "I don't like the outcome therefore everyone is corrupt" situations?

 

[smackababy]

Is this one of those "I don't like the outcome therefore everyone is corrupt" situations?

For most people, yes.

 

[vi edit]

kill over the air already.

And then basically force you to have to subscribe to a cable network?

No thanks. If you want to go ahead and piss $15-$20 down your leg each month then more power to you. Cable companies are already killing unencrypted QAM access and forcing you to get their equipment (or a flakey cable card after a fight) just to get basic local channels.

OTA is the only thing left for people who want basic local programming without a subscription fee.

 

[Markbnj]

OTA is the only thing left for people who want basic local programming without a subscription fee.

I sympathize with your attitude, but how is broadcast local programming not a complete anachronism? The whole idea of broadcast anything is going away I think (aside from push notifications, which will retain something like the same ability), in favor of on-demand streaming. And local content can find any number of places to live online.

 

[KeithP]

forget it

 

[vi edit]

I sympathize with your attitude, but how is broadcast local programming not a complete anachronism? The whole idea of broadcast anything is going away I think (aside from push notifications, which will retain something like the same ability), in favor of on-demand streaming. And local content can find any number of places to live online.

I don't want to have to be tied to online access. Between datacaps, flakey internet hiccups, needing some specialized box hooked up to each set, ect. OTA is a free, functional, and reliable means of content delivery.

 

[poofyhairguy]

KeithP just because they got by on advertising in the past doesn't mean they can or will today. The days of people working their entire schedule around primetime TV is long gone. Thanks to the rise of alternative forms of entertainment and technology like DVRs suddenly advertising isn't solely driving the TV industry anymore.

You are correct that if they don't use this spectrum it in theory can taken back and be auctioned off for better use, but what does that really mean?

That same thought process is why we forced a switch to digital TV and the end result is that it is harder for consumer to get content than before because it requires better equipment (like a digital tuner and a nice antenna) to get digital OTA signals that are watchable.

Meanwhile all that bandwidth was repurposed to a "better cause"- being another piece in Verizon's portfolio. I don't remember getting a check in the mail for my cut of the billions Verizon paid for that, and I don't recall any free service they are giving to Americans in trade either. The idea of repurposing spectrum is basically another form of corporate welfare.

If OTA died due to the court ruling then that spectrum block will simply trade hands from the networks to the ISPs, which further limits the points of distribution for content (even if OTA is archaic) and emboldens ISPs to put a clamp on net neutrality.

Simply put, there was no way consumers win outright.

Consumers only win when they watch Youtube videos instead of NCIS, or House of Cards instead of Game of Thrones. Consumers only win when they embrace alternative media. The Supreme Court can't do that for us.

 

[Phoenix86]

Poofy is pretty much spot on, but I'd argue HBO GO is far closer to a good solution (even if you don't agree with the price). I'd like to see them offer it as a stand-alone service, one can hope...

At least it's a digital solution from the provider, which is exactly what House of Cards is.

 

[Kneedragger]

Well cable companies will eventually do something. As kids get older they reach for streaming services before live TV so they are losing customers. When my promotion ends with Uverse I will probably go internet only. I don't really need cable anymore. Streaming options keep getting better..


I do wish there was a way to just stream local news. I guess I'll have to look and see what my options are..

 

[Ichinisan]

If the Supreme Court ruled the other way then consumers wouldn't have won either. The winner would have been those big evil cable companies who would try to rip off Aereo's technology to get around retransmission fees. Then networks would have stopped OTA transmissions to close the loophole technologically and those consumers who now enjoy OTA broadcasts for free would be screwed.

If anything this ruling was a win for consumers. The answer isn't running through loopholes in the law. The answer is changing the laws and changing consumer consumption patterns. To get there we need mass public unhappiness, which won't happen if Aereos of the world are meeting their needs with bandaids.

I don't see why everyone is acting like this is a big loss for nerds or something.

Retransmission fees are a relatively new thing. It's causing TV service bills to increase steadily.

On top of that, producing TV shows has never been cheaper thanks to the proliferation of "reality" programming. They also show more ads than ever. Retransmission consent is all about extorting money from consumers and it needs to end. SCOTUS got this wrong.

The proper course would be to eliminate retransmission consent altogether for over-the-air broadcasts on public airwaves. When the TV networks lobbied lawmakers to establish RTC, they said it wouldn't lead to blackouts and higher fees for consumers. They LIED.

 

[Ichinisan]

Heck no, that will be sad. Often OTA channels are the best quality you can get this side of Blu, as it lacks all the compression that satellite and cable providers use.

Horrible MPEG2 codec for OTA. I think most cable providers just rebroadcast the same signal without transcoding anything. Satellite would be highly compressed though.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Poofy is pretty much spot on, but I'd argue HBO GO is far closer to a good solution (even if you don't agree with the price). I'd like to see them offer it as a stand-alone service, one can hope...

At least it's a digital solution from the provider, which is exactly what House of Cards is.

Honestly I personally think HBO Go is the worst.

No offense to you directly, but you and every other cord cutter having hope it can be sold as a separate service apart from cable is part of why I dislike it. It is not a bridge to the modern future, it is a chain to the past. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I mean, at least the other networks can argue at some level they lack the technical expertise to do multi-device streaming properly They can argue they need traditional forms of distribution because technology is not their core business.

Meanwhile HBO rolls out a modern online distribution platform that is a cord cutter's dream but they purposefully lock it to archaic cable in order to protect their traditional revenue streams.

Without something like an HBO Go there could be some hope that eventually the content providers would go to Amazon or Netflix or Google and wave the white flag in order to stay modern ala the music industry and iTunes. Then the technology companies would force them to agree to more reasonable distribution terms, again ala iTunes.

Thanks to the existence of HBO Go it has emboldened other networks to stick their content behind sign in walls that require proof of cable, and have shown them a path to hold back the tide of cord cutting for as long as possible. Except other networks do it crappier than HBO does because they lack the expertise, and we all suffer.

House of Cards and what Amazon is doing is the right way. Modern distribution with a monthly subscription. It is the closest thing we have to a Spotify, and if that is the model people what (which it is) then we need to support Amazon and Netflix for creating their own AAA content.

GOT (and many HBO shows) will stay behind their wall for as long as possible. Given the stifling regulation in the industry it might take 20+ years for cord cutting to get mainstream and put the pressure on them to detach from cable.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Retransmission fees are a relatively new thing. It's causing TV service bills to increase steadily.

That and the rise of dedicated sports networks, sure.

On top of that, producing TV shows has never been cheaper thanks to the proliferation of "reality" programming. They also show more ads than ever. Retransmission consent is all about extorting money from consumers and it needs to end. SCOTUS got this wrong.

Scotus got it right, we don't need a loophole we need a new system of regulation. It is sad that in modern America everyone looks to the Executive and Judicial branches to make laws because our Legislative branch is so dysfunctional.

The proper course would be to eliminate retransmission consent altogether for over-the-air broadcasts on public airwaves. When the TV networks lobbied lawmakers to establish RTC, they said it wouldn't lead to blackouts and higher fees for consumers. They LIED.

Exactly, the proper course is better regulation. Aereo was a pressure value for a screwed up situation. We don't need that we need fixes.

 

[Accord99]

On top of that, producing TV shows has never been cheaper thanks to the proliferation of "reality" programming. They also show more ads than ever.

But original scripted content have never been more expensive. And there's never been as much new scripted content throughout the year with less repeats on the broadcast networks (since very few shows repeat well). Reality shows are the cheap but relatively profitable fillers that allow networks to take risks on high quality dramas that often fail. Without all the alien and pawn shop shows, History probably couldn't afford to do something like Vikings.

And then there's massive increase in sports programming costs.

Retransmission consent is all about extorting money from consumers and it needs to end. SCOTUS got this wrong.

While it wasn't the reason why retransmission was created, at the moment retransmission essentially now pays the broadcast networks for the reduce value of its advertising caused by DVRs.

 

[smackababy]

People who want HBO Go from behind the paywall need to look up the parent company of HBO.

 

[Phoenix86]

Retransmission fees are a relatively new thing. It's causing TV service bills to increase steadily.

On top of that, producing TV shows has never been cheaper thanks to the proliferation of "reality" programming. They also show more ads than ever. Retransmission consent is all about extorting money from consumers and it needs to end. SCOTUS got this wrong.

The proper course would be to eliminate retransmission consent altogether for over-the-air broadcasts on public airwaves. When the TV networks lobbied lawmakers to establish RTC, they said it wouldn't lead to blackouts and higher fees for consumers. They LIED.

How, in this case, could the SCOTUS touch retransmission fees? They couldn't because that's not what the case was there for. They weren't saying "retransmission fees are illegal" they were saying "we aren't retransmitting".

What can be done is the cable companies sue over them, or ya know... The laws could be changed.

 

[Phoenix86]

Honestly I personally think HBO Go is the worst.

No offense to you directly, but you and every other cord cutter having hope it can be sold as a separate service apart from cable is part of why I dislike it. It is not a bridge to the modern future, it is a chain to the past. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I mean, at least the other networks can argue at some level they lack the technical expertise to do multi-device streaming properly They can argue they need traditional forms of distribution because technology is not their core business.

Meanwhile HBO rolls out a modern online distribution platform that is a cord cutter's dream but they purposefully lock it to archaic cable in order to protect their traditional revenue streams.

Without something like an HBO Go there could be some hope that eventually the content providers would go to Amazon or Netflix or Google and wave the white flag in order to stay modern ala the music industry and iTunes. Then the technology companies would force them to agree to more reasonable distribution terms, again ala iTunes.

Thanks to the existence of HBO Go it has emboldened other networks to stick their content behind sign in walls that require proof of cable, and have shown them a path to hold back the tide of cord cutting for as long as possible. Except other networks do it crappier than HBO does because they lack the expertise, and we all suffer.

House of Cards and what Amazon is doing is the right way. Modern distribution with a monthly subscription. It is the closest thing we have to a Spotify, and if that is the model people what (which it is) then we need to support Amazon and Netflix for creating their own AAA content.

GOT (and many HBO shows) will stay behind their wall for as long as possible. Given the stifling regulation in the industry it might take 20+ years for cord cutting to get mainstream and put the pressure on them to detach from cable.

What you are advocating is basically every existing provider scrap their entire model and start new. This isn't reasonable, nor feasible for older providers. New providers like Netflix can start a completely new model and if it's successful, great.

Content providers like HBO will have to transition, possibly taking several steps. Like I said, HBO Go isn't the right model, but it's closer. Digital content from the provider can eventually be ported elsewhere. Like Netflix/Amazon, which is already happening to a degree.