Broadcasters petition Supreme Court to hear case over iPad TV streamer Aereo

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    focher wrote: »
    Actually not. Aero has won every single court battle, including at the appellate level. The important distinction is that Aero uses a different micro-antenna for every subscriber. That's what makes it private. .

    That's what I said earlier - if they use a different antenna for every subscriber and don't mingle the channels, one could argue that it's private. I just couldn't find anything on their site that confirms that each subscriber gets their own antenna or that the signals are not mixed.
  • Reply 42 of 71
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I have serious doubts of a dime size antenna being able to pick up all the broadcast channels. All the HD antennas I've seen are many times bigger than a dime.
    Despite your lack of belief, it remains true. They use dime sized micro antennas and each subscriber has a dedicated one. It's just fact.
  • Reply 43 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    focher wrote: »
    Despite your lack of belief, it remains true. They use dime sized micro antennas and each subscriber has a dedicated one. It's just fact.

    And, yet, I've never been able to find any documentation that each subscriber gets a dedicated antenna with the signals not being mixed.

    So where's your evidence?
  • Reply 44 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    jragosta wrote: »
    And, yet, I've never been able to find any documentation that each subscriber gets a dedicated antenna with the signals not being mixed.

    So where's your evidence?

    I did find this but I still have my doubts. Anyone that lives in NYC knows how hard it is to get clear reception on all broadcast channels because of the spread out antennas used to transmit.


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/21/aereo/
  • Reply 45 of 71
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    jragosta wrote: »
    And, yet, I've never been able to find any documentation that each subscriber gets a dedicated antenna with the signals not being mixed.

    So where's your evidence?

    My understanding is that their antenna and service is patented, so it doesn't have to fit anyone's idea of what a typical antennas is sized. It also doesn't matter if you have doubts, apparently multiple judges have reviewed the evidence and determined that Aereo isn't rebroadcasting.

    Since Aereo is making that claim, I'm pretty sure the judges would review that claim before issuing a judgement.
  • Reply 46 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    allenbf wrote: »
    My understanding is that their antenna and service is patented, so it doesn't have to fit anyone's idea of what a typical antennas is sized. It also doesn't matter if you have doubts, apparently multiple judges have reviewed the evidence and determined that Aereo isn't rebroadcasting.

    Since Aereo is making that claim, I'm pretty sure the judges would review that claim before issuing a judgement.

    I'd believe it if there was a singular antenna like there was pre 9/11 and will be again once the freedom tower is done but they're scattered throughout Manhattan and some in NJ. I myself have tried various antennas only to get good reception on some channels and not others. They have to boosting the broadcast signal in some fashion in order for those tiny antennas to get clear reception. Regardless of how they're doing it I'm signing up for the service.
  • Reply 47 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    allenbf wrote: »
    My understanding is that their antenna and service is patented, so it doesn't have to fit anyone's idea of what a typical antennas is sized. It also doesn't matter if you have doubts, apparently multiple judges have reviewed the evidence and determined that Aereo isn't rebroadcasting.

    Since Aereo is making that claim, I'm pretty sure the judges would review that claim before issuing a judgement.

    I'm not arguing anything about what the antenna looks like. And I haven't been able to find anything on Aereo's web site or anywhere else that confirms your claim.

    In my mind, the critical issue is whether each subscriber gets their own dedicated antenna and whether their feed comes only from that antenna. You claim that it works that way, but haven't provided anything to back that up.

    If it does work that way, I can accept that it's a private rebroadcast. If, OTOH, they simply use lots of antennas (even one per subscriber) and consolidate all the signals then split the signals back out for the subscriber, I'd argue that it's public.

    Since they don't say how they do it, it's not clear which situation applies. So, again, if you have information on how it's done, I'd like to see it.
  • Reply 48 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    jragosta wrote: »
    I'm not arguing anything about what the antenna looks like. And I haven't been able to find anything on Aereo's web site or anywhere else that confirms your claim.

    In my mind, the critical issue is whether each subscriber gets their own dedicated antenna and whether their feed comes only from that antenna. You claim that it works that way, but haven't provided anything to back that up.

    If it does work that way, I can accept that it's a private rebroadcast. If, OTOH, they simply use lots of antennas (even one per subscriber) and consolidate all the signals then split the signals back out for the subscriber, I'd argue that it's public.

    Since they don't say how they do it, it's not clear which situation applies. So, again, if you have information on how it's done, I'd like to see it.

    I'll post this again and another one.

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/21/aereo/

    http://m.cnet.com/news/aereo-brings-over-the-air-tv-to-the-cloud/57377530
  • Reply 49 of 71
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    jragosta wrote: »
    I'm not arguing anything about what the antenna looks like. And I haven't been able to find anything on Aereo's web site or anywhere else that confirms your claim.

    In my mind, the critical issue is whether each subscriber gets their own dedicated antenna and whether their feed comes only from that antenna. You claim that it works that way, but haven't provided anything to back that up.

    If it does work that way, I can accept that it's a private rebroadcast. If, OTOH, they simply use lots of antennas (even one per subscriber) and consolidate all the signals then split the signals back out for the subscriber, I'd argue that it's public.

    Since they don't say how they do it, it's not clear which situation applies. So, again, if you have information on how it's done, I'd like to see it.

    I don't. My point is simply that this is Aereo's claim; a claim that has obviously been reviewed by multiple judges. It isn't my claim, it's Aereo's claim.
  • Reply 50 of 71
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    jragosta wrote: »
    daven wrote: »
    Aero isn't useful for me as I'm not in one of their target markets but I use a video capture system to save what I want to see on my network drive and can then watch it wherever I want to. That said, I've only recorded three movies because there really isn't much I want to watch.

    But there's a difference between you capturing something for your own use and someone capturing it for rebroadcast.

    I'm actually surprised that the broadcasters lost - there must be some loophole that Aereo uses. Ordinarily, you can not rebroadcast shows without violating the copyright. I'll have to read the details of the previous decisions to see why Aereo was able to get away with it.

    ETA:
    I reviewed the complaint and it's just what I expected. The law is quite clear that public rebroadcast of copyrighted work is not allowed. Aereo is claiming that they're not publicly rebroadcasting the copyrighted work, but are rather sending private broadcasts to tens of thousands of users. That claim appears to be patently ridiculous and it's not at all clear why the lower courts accepted it.

    I'd say there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts' decisions. The fundamental question is "is Aereo's business model a public rebroadcast or a private one?" If the court says that it's public, the broadcasters will win.

    I think you read the complaint, but nothing else. Aero's complaint is far from ridiculous. They have and rent individual antenas and tuners for each user and the users control them on their own. There is no way this is rebroadcasting any more than a slingbox is rebroadcasting (networks tried to fight that too). In fact, Aereo only works if the user is actually in the broadcast area for their service.

    The networks don't have a leg to stand on. If they don't want to be in the broadcast TV business, then give us our spectrum back. Broadcasting on public airways is not a right. They don't own it.
  • Reply 51 of 71
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    jragosta wrote: »
    allenbf wrote: »
    You may want to read it a little more closely.  I've been following Aereo for well over a year and it isn't rebroadcasting, which is why the courts have ruled in their (Aereo's) favor.  It makes perfect sense if you think about it.  Aereo is essentially renting out antennas and storage (DVR) to individuals.  Each person has their own antenna, 2 actually.  Instead of having my antenna on my TV or roof, they house it for me and just feed me the signal.  Is it a loophole? Yeah, maybe, but a legal one.  Smart people disrupt by finding those loopholes.  It's not rocket science.

    It's not that clear - for two reasons:

    1. They don't make it clear whether it's one antenna dedicated to an individual subscriber or whether the antennae are shared. If the antennae are shared, it's more problematic. If each subscriber gets their own antenna that is used only for that person - and if there's no mixing of signals, then I would agree with you.

    2. Even if it's a dedicated antenna, though, they will record the show and then send it to you later via the Internet. To me, that would be rebroadcasting - even if it's one antenna dedicated to one subscriber. It might be OK for them to get away with calling it a private rebroadcasting, though - but only if it's a dedicated antenna - which their literature doesn't say.
    allenbf wrote: »
    Besides, the broadcasters have lost in one district, even on appeal.  The case out west is still in flux because it's going through appeals.  I have serious doubts the Supreme Court will even review this case.

    Actually, the appeal was for a preliminary injunction. I don't believe the case has been heard on appeal yet.

    I believe both your points came up in court. It is dedicated storage and antennas.
  • Reply 52 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    The second link doesn't work.

    The first one, if accurate, seems to suggest that it would be OK - as long as they're doing what they say. Each subscriber gets a single antenna and can only access that antenna. There's no way for a subscriber to get content from anyone else's antenna.

    The author of the Fortune article does miss one point. When he says that direct viewing might be illegal, he neglects Aereo's claim that it's a private network - and therefore not analogous to the requirement for cable companies (i.e., public networks) to pay for the content. The law does allow for private rebroadcasts without paying a fee - and it does, indeed, appear that that's exactly what Aereo is doing.

    If their statements are accurate and there's no blending of signals, then I'd have to change my opinion and say it's probably OK. If, however, they WERE blending signals with different antennas, then I'd say that's sufficient to make it a public broadcast and therefore illegal.
  • Reply 53 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    jragosta wrote: »
    The second link doesn't work.

    The first one, if accurate, seems to suggest that it would be OK - as long as they're doing what they say. Each subscriber gets a single antenna and can only access that antenna. There's no way for a subscriber to get content from anyone else's antenna.

    The author of the Fortune article does miss one point. When he says that direct viewing might be illegal, he neglects Aereo's claim that it's a private network - and therefore not analogous to the requirement for cable companies (i.e., public networks) to pay for the content. The law does allow for private rebroadcasts without paying a fee - and it does, indeed, appear that that's exactly what Aereo is doing.

    If their statements are accurate and there's no blending of signals, then I'd have to change my opinion and say it's probably OK. If, however, they WERE blending signals with different antennas, then I'd say that's sufficient to make it a public broadcast and therefore illegal.

    What if they're blending the signal and amplifying it so these tiny antennas get good reception? And these signals do get blended once they hit the web. I doubt that each individual antenna has it's own discrete internet connection.
  • Reply 54 of 71
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,995member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    I have serious doubts of a dime size antenna being able to pick up all the broadcast channels. All the HD antennas I've seen are many times bigger than a dime.

    Where there's a will, there's a way:

    http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-thats-changing-how-we-watch-tv/

     

    Aereo has already survived court challenges, so you ought to have some modicum of belief that the one-antenna per user system works in the manner described.

  • Reply 55 of 71
    jragosta wrote: »

    And I haven't been able to find anything on Aereo's web site or anywhere else that confirms your claim.

    How does the fact that you have not been able to find something matter remotely for a decision in the US courts!?
  • Reply 56 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    cpsro wrote: »
    Where there's a will, there's a way:
    http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-thats-changing-how-we-watch-tv/

    Aereo has already survived court challenges, so you ought to have some modicum of belief that the one-antenna per user system works in the manner described.

    Thanks but had you been paying attention you would've seen that I posted 2 links about how it's done.
  • Reply 57 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post





    I think you read the complaint, but nothing else. Aero's complaint is far from ridiculous. They have and rent individual antenas and tuners for each user and the users control them on their own. There is no way this is rebroadcasting any more than a slingbox is rebroadcasting (networks tried to fight that too). In fact, Aereo only works if the user is actually in the broadcast area for their service.



    The networks don't have a leg to stand on. If they don't want to be in the broadcast TV business, then give us our spectrum back. Broadcasting on public airways is not a right. They don't own it.

    +1      Naysayers,   this a terrific service,  and it busts the Cable/Sat monopoly.   If you don't have access yet,  pray you will.

  • Reply 58 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    What if they're blending the signal and amplifying it so these tiny antennas get good reception? And these signals do get blended once they hit the web. I doubt that each individual antenna has it's own discrete internet connection.

    If they were blending the signal from a lot if different antennas so that different subscribers were all using the same signal, that would probably be a 'public rebroadcast'. They claim not to be doing that, though.
  • Reply 59 of 71
    irun262irun262 Posts: 121member
    I know it seems hard to believe that any of the network's legal people would miss it, I still wonder if they are really just mixing the signal from all of the multiple antennas and not separating them into their own tuner, decoder, buffer, internet channel, etc.

    Technically, I find it hard to believe they could do what they claim they are doing (that is a lot of hardware). It wouldn't surprise me if this really is just a scam (yet it doesn't seem possible that it could have gotten this far without being legitimate).

    If its real (and a brilliant idea/operation), I will consider subscribing if it comes to my area. .
  • Reply 60 of 71
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member

    For those who don't understand how the Aereo antennas work or who haven't bothered to visit their website and see what they have to say - yes - each account has its own unique antenna, about the size of a dime. So how do they claim you'll get HD reception? Simple. They install your receiving antenna in a location that's very close to the broadcast antennas! With the amount of radiated power at that distance, you probably could pick up a strong HD signal with a paper clip.

     

    The difference is that your viewing device is connected to that antenna you're using with what one could call the EQUIVALENT of a very loooong coax cable. Only it's not a cable. The broadcast is streaming from your antenna to your device over the Internet, whether through wifi or via a wireless data plan.

     

    Currently it's not the greatest in terms of variety. In the markets that Aereo currently operates, subscribers are able to tune in a couple dozen channels, including the local stations for the major broadcast networks, a bunch of lesser entertainment freebies, weather, home shopping, some second language stations and Bloomberg Business.

     

    Wireless can be spotty, depending on your carrier's bandwidth and local signal anomalies. Moreover, if you use wireless streaming a lot, you'll be consuming a helluva lot of data from AT&T or Verizon or whomever you have an account. You're next monthly bill could come as a big surprise. But for those who absolutely have to watch Days of Our Lives on their smartphone or tablet while gobbling down that lunchtime BMT at the local Subway, Aereo may be the answer.

Sign In or Register to comment.