# Supreme Court decsion may effect Tivo?



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Tomorrow (Tuesday April the 22nd) the United States Supreme court will begin hearing arguments which may pull the plug on Aereo and have lasting effects over streaming live TV to mobile devices.

If so, will Tivo Stream be effected by such?? I never heard of Aereo until now but what they do is very similier to how Tivo streams content to Apple and hopefully soon to Android devices?



> _For its New York customers, for instance, Aereo maintains a warehouse in Brooklyn filled with vertically-oriented blade servers equipped with thousands of tiny, thumbnail-sized antennae. When a subscriber wants to watch a TV show, Aereo temporarily assigns her one of those antennae, which captures the free, over-the-air signals available at the warehouse and then begins recording them on a tiny virtual DVR, which is also temporarily assigned to that individual subscriber. If the subscriber indicates that she wants to "watch" rather than save the recording for later viewing, Aereo's equipment will begin transmitting her the program from her own personalized DVR recording after a 6- or 7-second buffering delay._


http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/21/why-the-supreme-court-might-pull-the-plug-on-aereo/


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

All the briefs are filed and on the SCOTUS blog.

The Aero case contains rather narrow questions, like when do multiple private performances constitute a public performance.

Tivo's not likely to be negatively affected as they developed their products to conform with the history of legal precedents, by a safe distance.

While the SCOTUS in theory has the power to upheave a lot of this, they tend not to, and only change the minimum.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I hate to say it but a decision in Aereo's favor could negatively impact Tivo for many years. It could spell the end of broadcast tv as we now know it. If Aereo is allowed to proceed with its business model, all the cable tv and satellite providers will do nearly the same. Thus ending the payment system to broadcasters for content. If this happens, the content will cease and most all of it will move to paytv. OTA would become nearly as unused as AM radio.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

jcthorne said:


> If this happens, the content will cease and most all of it will move to paytv.


That seems a bit hysterical. They're already giving away their content "free" to people with (regular) antennas. It's paid for by ads. I know they like the double revenue stream, but there was a time when they did without it, and they did fine. Some stations do without it now (invoking must-carry rather than negotiating for fees).

Also, the Aereo system has trouble scaling, and it's not clear to me that it could be applied to the cable/satellite model anyway, in a technical/legal sense.

Edit: It's only 10% of revenue, apparently --










http://www.businessweek.com/article...reme-court-showdown-wont-end-tv-as-we-know-it


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> I hate to say it but a decision in Aereo's favor could negatively impact Tivo for many years. It could spell the end of broadcast tv as we now know it. If Aereo is allowed to proceed with its business model, all the cable tv and satellite providers will do nearly the same. Thus ending the payment system to broadcasters for content. If this happens, the content will cease and most all of it will move to paytv. OTA would become nearly as unused as AM radio.


Local broadcasters are not going to give up broadcasting, even if the networks dump them. There's still too much money to be made wrapping ads around the local news and especially the weather.

I wonder if you understand exactly what it is that Aereo does.

If they succeed in court, it'll only mean that the court agrees with the position which they have taken, which is that leasing antennas to individuals does not constitute a "re-transmission" the way it has been ruled that cable and satellite services do.

This will mean that Aereo doesn't have to pay the broadcasters any more than the guy with the rabbit ears hooked to his TV or DVR in his own living room, and that cable and satellite will have to keep paying, just like they do now.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

I have also heard that several of the broadcast networks (I think CBS and Fox specifically) have basically said that if Aereo is allowed to continue with the way they do things (aka....they win the case), they will pull all their local networks from the free airwaves (only in those markets served by Aereo) and put them on cable only. Whether that is an empty threat or not is remained to be seen. 

I am in the Atlanta market and we are served by Aereo. I think for now there is only about 11 markets that Aereo serve and they are all on the east coast and the midwest. Therefore, maybe they can risk this possible move, but I know there will not be a lot of happy people here in ATL if this happens. Plus, I can't imagine local affiliates like this possible plan either. 

I am also not sure why they aren't on the west coast yet or if they have plans. Not even listed as "coming soon" for cities like Denver, LA or Seattle. Maybe its simply a business plan and they don't want to expand too much before they get things stabilized.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

If Aero wins this fight will not be over, the next move will be for the networks/broadcasters to try and get the laws changed to make what Aero is doing illegal. 

It is a fairly new event that local channels have been able to force cable to pay for their feeds and is only possible because of the competition between cable & satellite. 

In my opinion if local channels can force cable & satellite to pay for their feeds then cable & satellite should be able to provide any ABC, CBS, CW, NBC, Fox, or PBS channel they want to form anyplace in the country.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

The word is 'affect', not 'effect', OP. Serious misuse that happens all the time unfortunately.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> I hate to say it but a decision in Aereo's favor could negatively impact Tivo for many years. It could spell the end of broadcast tv as we now know it. If Aereo is allowed to proceed with its business model, all the cable tv and satellite providers will do nearly the same. Thus ending the payment system to broadcasters for content. If this happens, the content will cease and most all of it will move to paytv. OTA would become nearly as unused as AM radio.


Wait, what? In what world would broadcasters stop broadcasting because now someone else can carry their content without paying them? You know that for decades the broadcasters received no carry fees, and were DELIGHTED when cable companies wanted to carry their channels, right?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> The word is 'affect', not 'effect', OP. Serious misuse that happens all the time unfortunately.


Here yu go:


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Tivo seems to be shying away from OTA users anyway. This has minimal impact on Tivo. Now it might have Stream implications depending on how laws will get changed.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Television broadcast licenses are valuable.

In the case where the local broadcast affiliate is actually owned by the network with which it is affiliated (those are called O&Os, for owned and operated), I don't see them giving up those licenses.

In the case of markets where someone else owns the station that's affiliated with a particular network, expect lots of lawsuiting if the network tries to take away that affiliation and remain in the market via cable.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Sorry, the effect of the affect isn't a issue of desert in the desert as long as you ate all you can ate which ate bad for $1.99.....  

I be remaining a major killer of the English language. 



Back on topic, the issue comes down to greed, the broadcasters are seeing the transition of more mobile device multimedia streaming content and they want part of the pie without doing anything different. I believe Aereo will lose this fight as they aren't paying the local broadcasters to carry their content. 

If they win, this invalidates the aspect that a cable or satellite provider must pay a local broadcaster to carry their local broadcast which such I really doubt will happen due to past precedent including the end of local OTA broadcasting. Can the government really dictate what one can receive using OTA content, unfortunately yes, despite being free the broadcasters interest is making money and providing a public service is no longer important. 

The major broadcasters oppose this because despite the small amount of revenue they receive to allow their content to be retransmitted, revenue is revenue and no one wants to lose revenue. 

As far as affecting Tivo Stream, if Aereo loses my concern is that may place the precedent of placing a fee on the retransmission of content to mobile devices when the content is recorded or transmitted on a dvr. Does Tivo pay a fee that allows them to transport the recorded content of a major broadcaster such a NBC, CBS or Fox? Were does it stop if streaming from a private dvr to another device is deemed a violation of copyright content?

As long as such streamed content is reserved for private single consumption and not a public performance, there shouldn't be any regulatory issues or copyright infringement. All this is the big boys missing out on something they can't control or make money off of.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

This wouldn't affect TiVo, since the issue at hand is the ownership of the retransmission device (the antennas) and whether renting out remotely hosted ones is the same thing as cable tv. The fact that a Roamio or Stream is hosted by you, and only available to you, has been generally accepted as fair use (hence the reason Slingbox hasn't been sued out of existence). Also, even though you are "retransmitting" your cable or antenna content with Roamio/Stream or Slingbox, the channels are still getting paid because you're paying for cable in most cases. In Aereo's case, it presents a real threat to actual revenue streams.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

unitron said:


> Television broadcast licenses are valuable.
> 
> In the case where the local broadcast affiliate is actually owned by the network with which it is affiliated (those are called O&Os, for owned and operated), I don't see them giving up those licenses.
> 
> In the case of markets where someone else owns the station that's affiliated with a particular network, expect lots of lawsuiting if the network tries to take away that affiliation and remain in the market via cable.


Seems to me that they are less valuable these days. In San Francisco the ABC owned station is mandating salary cuts and people are leaving.

I think OTA and the broadcast model is fading. With all the alternative delivery vehicles there is no growth in the local stations.
Kids today do not get their media through local stations just us old fogies.

If anything I expect pressure someday to get those licenses back for more IP Wifi.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

eboydog said:


> The major broadcasters oppose this because despite the small amount of revenue they receive to allow their content to be retransmitted, revenue is revenue and no one wants to lose revenue.


It's also the content providers. The NFL and NHL have threatened to make their games cable-only. It's trivial to set up Aereo to replace NFL Sunday Ticket or NHL Center Ice, since most of those subscribers just watch one team anyway.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

zalusky said:


> Seems to me that they are less valuable these days. In San Francisco the ABC owned station is mandating salary cuts and people are leaving.
> 
> I think OTA and the broadcast model is fading. With all the alternative delivery vehicles there is no growth in the local stations.
> Kids today do not get their media through local stations just us old fogies.
> ...


The local model is both growing and shrinking. Previously news organizations didn't have to show a profit. Now they do. Now they don't get to just ride on the rest of the money the station earns. Plus, networks are extracting most of the retrans fees from cable companies, so that money doesn't stay local.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Here yu go:


Yeah, funny you are with your broken link. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. If you don't get that, search for it on YouTube and this time link it correctly.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

JosephB said:


> This wouldn't affect TiVo, since the issue at hand is the ownership of the retransmission device (the antennas) and whether renting out remotely hosted ones is the same thing as cable tv. The fact that a Roamio or Stream is hosted by you, and only available to you, has been generally accepted as fair use (hence the reason Slingbox hasn't been sued out of existence). Also, even though you are "retransmitting" your cable or antenna content with Roamio/Stream or Slingbox, the channels are still getting paid because you're paying for cable in most cases. In Aereo's case, it presents a real threat to actual revenue streams.


A receiving antenna is not a "retransmission device".

At least not from a technology standpoint, and so far not from a legal standpoint.

Once some court is stupid enough to say that it is, the broadcasters will try to get the government to implement (and collect on their behalf, but turn over to them) some kind of antenna tax on any household with a TV set.

Or else they won't do so and Aereo can argue discrimination when it goes back to court.

So it'll be a mess either way.

Whether a Slingbox, or a "streaming capable" DVR or other set top box is a re-transmission device is a different issue, both legally and from a technological standpoint.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah, funny you are with your broken link. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. If you don't get that, search for it on YouTube and this time link it correctly.


Ya messed up the link it should be fixed now. Or you can amuse yourself via this direct link:


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

JosephB said:


> This wouldn't affect TiVo, since the issue at hand is the ownership of the retransmission device (the antennas) and whether renting out remotely hosted ones is the same thing as cable tv. The fact that a Roamio or Stream is hosted by you, and only available to you, has been generally accepted as fair use (hence the reason Slingbox hasn't been sued out of existence). Also, even though you are "retransmitting" your cable or antenna content with Roamio/Stream or Slingbox, the channels are still getting paid because you're paying for cable in most cases. In Aereo's case, it presents a real threat to actual revenue streams.


I disagree. The one antenna that Aereo uses is also only available to me at any given moment. If what Aereo is doing is illegal, than I'm guessing the Tivo Stream also becomes an illegal device. If Tivo were in more homes, the broadcasters would be going after them. The fact that Tivo is still a niche market has saved them from a lot of litigation (although they have had their fair share).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

unitron said:


> Once some court is stupid enough to say that it is, the broadcasters will try to get the government to implement (and collect on their behalf, but turn over to them) some kind of antenna tax on any household with a TV set.


LOL. That's how it is in Britain, but they get the BBC in return. Tell you what broadcasters, you drop all commercials and give us BBC quality, and you can have your fee.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I seriously doubt this will have any effect on TiVo or Sling. Those are individual devices intended for personal use. The broadcasters don't like Aereo because they are doing it on a large scale which could potentially threaten their rebroadcasting deals with MSOs and their blackout deals with the major sports leagues.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> I seriously doubt this will have any effect on TiVo or Sling. Those are individual devices intended for personal use. The broadcasters don't like Aereo because they are doing it on a large scale which could potentially threaten their rebroadcasting deals with MSOs and their blackout deals with the major sports leagues.


Yeah, the fact that TiVo/Sling requires you to acquire your content through "legitimate" (quoted because IMO Aereo is legitimate) and doesn't really threaten any revenue streams. Plus, DVR and even Sling I think has been litigated to some extent.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The networks are largely full of hot air. They are already giving the content away to OTA users, so giving it away to users with Aereo doesn't fundamentally change their business model. Even if they do pull stuff from the air, they are not going to just pull the whole station, but rather pull some of the signature shows and put them on cable channels while backfilling with syndicated content. However, that would just be continuation of the move of the good content to cable anyways.

And how does it affect TiVo? It doesn't.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> I disagree. The one antenna that Aereo uses is also only available to me at any given moment.


That really is the crux of the argument though. I don't think it would have any affect on TiVo at all because the Supreme Court seemed very aware of the ramifications according to their questions. My guess is if they shoot down Aereo's argument, they will be very limited in their scope. And since the TiVo Stream is in the hands of the owners, it isn't going to be affected.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Fox tried to sue Dish over Sling when they put Sling in the Hopper, but it was tied to the commercial skipping as well. Sling technology has been out for quite a while and it never went to court. I think Sling-style placeshifting, which TiVo's implementation would fall under, is generally grandfathered into being OK. It's going to be tough to try to litigate something that has been in the marketplace for 7 years or so is all of a sudden illegal.

However, the Aereo model is different. With a TiVo/Sling, you are always connecting to the same hardware. You bought the hardware. You paid for the TV subscription, or you are receiving the signal at your place of business/residence. With Aereo, you could possibly never be in the DMA where you're receiving the signal, you are "renting" the hardware, and probably the most damaging to Aereo, you don't necessarily get the same antenna and tuner every time. While I personally don't think Aereo is infringing, and it's silly to protect retrans fees for broadcasters who give their signals away for free, I'm not a lawyer, and the outcome may be bad for them but it won't affect TiVo.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

mcf57: Aero chose markets where the courts were expected to be friendly to their legality, which has worked out for them so far.

They have green lights to operate in New York and Boston for now.

They lost in the 10th circuit which means Denver and Salt Lake City had to be shutdown unless they have a higher court (SCOTUS) reverse it.

The 9th circuit which has California, has sided with the big broadcasters against an Aero competitor called PlayOn. http://www.playon.tv/supported-devices


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BobCamp1 said:


> It's also the content providers. The NFL and NHL have threatened to make their games cable-only. It's trivial to set up Aereo to replace NFL Sunday Ticket or NHL Center Ice, since most of those subscribers just watch one team anyway.


I'm not a sports person generally (I get addicted to the Olympics and some years watch the little league world series, that's about it)...

But are you saying NFL Sunday Ticket simply shows the exact same games that are broadcast over the air? What does it do, show even ones that are locally blacked out?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.

Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Some of Aereo documents imply that once you leave the coverage area / city, something would no longer work.

Is this not true?


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.
> 
> Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.


Actually, to take it one step further; I am in the Atlanta area and we were the 3rd market to be up and running with Aereo. I actually also had a 3 month free beta trial subscription to Aereo last summer & tried it. At one point, we went on vacation down in FL to see some family (St. Augustine area). I brought our iPad and thought I would try Aereo down there with my account & see if I could watch an NFL game.

It initially said it was not available in my area (presumably because my ip address was coming from a FL location). However, it also stated that sometimes corporate firewalls can give false locations. It made me agree that I was truly in Atlanta and then allowed me to continue. Therefore, I was watching a Falcons game down in FL.

I didn't really continue or watch it too much, but was more curious if it could be done. Now, who knows if they would have cut me off if I kept doing this continuously. I was only in the area for a few days and then returned home. I also never kept the subscription past the free 3 month trial.



telemark said:


> Some of Aereo documents imply that once you leave the coverage area / city, something would no longer work.
> 
> Is this not true?


This example for me was over 9 months ago so not totally sure if its still this way and maybe it has changed or been corrected in recent months.

I think it was a worthy service if you are looking to cut the cord and don't have a TiVo (since its also a DVR service). I guess we'll see what happens with the case and go from there.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The networks are largely full of hot air. They are already giving the content away to OTA users, so giving it away to users with Aereo doesn't fundamentally change their business model. Even if they do pull stuff from the air, they are not going to just pull the whole station, but rather pull some of the signature shows and put them on cable channels while backfilling with syndicated content. However, that would just be continuation of the move of the good content to cable anyways.
> 
> And how does it affect TiVo? It doesn't.


It would if Tivo was more popular. Tivo has been shying away from OTA technology but if they were to push their OTA boxes, you can be sure the networks would come after them.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

I always thought it would be a great idea if TiVo would somehow incorporate (or even buy) Aereo. Could be a great addition to all their other available services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Youtube, etc.) and could really give people another big boost & reason to cut the cord, but also still use one box for everything. 

Of course, I am sure this could also risk their relationships with cable companies too so it could be a double edged sword in some ways. I am sure the majority of TiVo users subscribe to cable so I suppose you don't want to alienate that partnership too much. That and maybe they are waiting to see what happens with this case before they possibly move on anything related to Aereo.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

rainwater said:


> That really is the crux of the argument though. I don't think it would have any affect on TiVo at all because the Supreme Court seemed very aware of the ramifications according to their questions. My guess is if they shoot down Aereo's argument, they will be very limited in their scope. And since the TiVo Stream is in the hands of the owners, it isn't going to be affected.


It can easily be limited in scope. Note that it doesn't matter who owns the equipment at all. It does matter if the receiving device is typically found in a residential home. So that's one thing protecting Slingbox. Aereo's setup in its entirety is not typically found in a residential home.

But the other major thing protecting Slingbox is the number of retransmissions and the number of people involved. Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people. A Slingbox only retransmits the content a few times to people who live within the same residence where the signal was originally received.

The one thing protecting Aereo so far is that some courts don't think 10,000 private performances of the same content, where one party is the same for all 10,000 performances, constitute a public performance. But the end effect is the same as a public performance. Aereo is using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law -- it's a loophole. And one that can easily be plugged with legislation if needed (of course, with this Congress, nothing is easy).


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.
> 
> Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.


And heaven forbid that a federally protected monopoly funded by tax payer dollars should ever lose a nickle of revenues to the benefit of tax payers.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> And heaven forbid that a federally protected monopoly funded by tax payer dollars should ever lose a nickle of revenues to the benefit of tax payers.


+1

It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.

I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> I disagree. The one antenna that Aereo uses is also only available to me at any given moment. If what Aereo is doing is illegal, than I'm guessing the Tivo Stream also becomes an illegal device. If Tivo were in more homes, the broadcasters would be going after them. The fact that Tivo is still a niche market has saved them from a lot of litigation (although they have had their fair share).


What Aereo is doing is clearly not (technically) unlawful. As Justice Roberts said in his questioning, Aereo's "technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's, you know, lawyers do that." But the fact remains that they HAVE stayed within the bounds of the law.

If it were just Aereo's business at stake, the networks wouldn't care. While Aereo's technology may work, it is difficult to scale, and not cost effective once you get down to smaller markets. What the networks are worried about is that EVERY satellite and cable operator could do the same thing. In fact, Dish Network did EXACTLY this several years ago when they started offering local broadcast channels. They put up antennas, connected them to their digital encoders and transmitted them to the uplink for distribution, all without paying the broadcasters. The result was that the law was changed and specifically said that any re-transmission of broadcast signals by satellite providers fell under retransmission consent rules. Today, Dish pays to retransmit the local channels.

While retransmission fees may be ONLY 10% of network revenue, it is the one that is growing while advertising revenue is falling (partly due to DVRs, partly due to growing competition from the internet). If Aereo wins, ALL of this money (close to $3 billion today and projected to reach over $6 billion within 3 years) goes away.

In the case of both Slingbox and Tivo Stream, all content fees have been paid. The content providers were paid by the cable company for the content before you got it. The fact that Tivo allows you to record it and play it back to a remote device doesn't bother the networks at all (in fact they might actually welcome it since skipping commercials over a remote connection is not as smooth as doing so at home). Also, there is not a service fee associated with the personal streaming devices, so the business model is different. You don't pay TiVo or Sling Media an subscription fee for the streaming capability, it is a pure technological solution. It is hard to argue that if Tivo Stream or Slingbox were not available, that the viewer would instead subscribe to a service that produces revenue to the content owner. In a copyright case, without a loss of revenue there can be no injury and so no basis for a lawsuit.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> +1
> 
> It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.
> 
> I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.


MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. The NAB lobbied for this provision and they won. Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. .......


 You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?


Diana Collins said:


> Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.


Skipping commercials with DVR's can happen with OTA-received video, also. I understand the NAB's desire for revenue but that doesn't make it either right or deserving of being codified in law or regulations. If maintaining NAB revenue is in the public interest it should be funded in such a way that all parties receiving the signals pay equally, not just MSO or Aereo customers. I suspect this just is a case of "let's get the money where it's easy to get", i.e., government funding of OTA is not popular so just sock it to the MSO and Aereo customers.

I think NAB broadcasting should sink or swim based on the ad revenue they can attract.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.
> 
> Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.


But by that logic, it would be NFL vs. Aereo or DirecTV vs. Aereo, not broadcasters vs. Aereo. I don't think that's the use case that they are concerned about, even if some people have family "back home" register an Aereo account for them to watch football...



aadam101 said:


> It would if Tivo was more popular. Tivo has been shying away from OTA technology but if they were to push their OTA boxes, you can be sure the networks would come after them.


On what grounds? VCRs were deemed legal a long, long time ago...



mcf57 said:


> I always thought it would be a great idea if TiVo would somehow incorporate (or even buy) Aereo. Could be a great addition to all their other available services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Youtube, etc.) and could really give people another big boost & reason to cut the cord, but also still use one box for everything.


That makes no sense. _The entire point of TiVo is that it's a DVR_, not an internet streaming box.



dlfl said:


> +1
> 
> It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.
> 
> I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.


Exactly. It makes no sense that I could pay the station through Comcast, or put an antenna up and get it for free...



Diana Collins said:


> MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. The NAB lobbied for this provision and they won. Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.


The government shouldn't be protecting old business models. If they don't work, let them not work on their own.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

dlfl said:


> You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?


Weird wording. MVPDs pay retrans fees (Satellite, telco, and cable all have to pay retrans fees) because the law says the broadcast stations can charge those fees.

There's a few rules in the law related to broadcast stations with regard to cable/satellite/telco TV:


If a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor wishes to carry a station, that station has the right to demand payment from the MVPD
Local stations are obviously within their rights to offer their programming to MVPDs for free
If a MVPD carries ANY stations in a given local market, then they must carry, for free, any full power station that requests it (IE: a local independent or religious channel can demand carriage, given that they don't charge for it, and the MVPD will have no choice but to carry the channel)


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> In the case of both Slingbox and Tivo Stream, all content fees have been paid.


Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.

I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That makes no sense. _The entire point of TiVo is that it's a DVR_, not an internet streaming box.


I'm not sure that Tivo would want to buy them but it certainly makes sense to add an Aereo app to Tivo. Many cord cutters would like to buy a Roamio Plus or Pro but can't because there is no OTA on those boxes. Even cable users could benefit since the OTA signal is often MUCH better than the cable signal.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> But by that logic, it would be NFL vs. Aereo or DirecTV vs. Aereo, not broadcasters vs. Aereo. I don't think that's the use case that they are concerned about, even if some people have family "back home" register an Aereo account for them to watch football...


But the leagues are threatening to pull the games from OTA networks and move them to cable instead. Those games are VERY lucrative to the networks so they have a ton of incentive to want to fight to keep them.

But that's just a secondary reason. The main reason they're fighting is to protect their retransmission fees.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

telemark said:


> .........
> The 9th circuit which has California, has sided with the big broadcasters against an Aero competitor called PlayOn. http://www.playon.tv/supported-devices


Can you supply details about this or a link? The link you provided doesn't talk about the court decision and Googling or searching the PlayOn forum didn't yield anything either.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, *it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.*
> 
> I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.


Except it isn't! and I can't understand why people keep thinking it is.
The Tivo model is all based around what you do with the signal AFTER it has come in to your home in a legal manner, either OTA or cable. The Aereo model never has you getting the signal. when you tie in the fact that the hundreds of little antennas are a total kludge JUST to get around the existing laws, yeah, I vote they're breaking it.

It's very easy IMO to see where Aereo is skirting laws by design to make a profit.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> It can easily be limited in scope. Note that it doesn't matter who owns the equipment at all. It does matter if the receiving device is typically found in a residential home. So that's one thing protecting Slingbox. Aereo's setup in its entirety is not typically found in a residential home.
> 
> But the other major thing protecting Slingbox is the number of retransmissions and the number of people involved. *Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people.* A Slingbox only retransmits the content a few times to people who live within the same residence where the signal was originally received.
> 
> The one thing protecting Aereo so far is that some courts don't think 10,000 private performances of the same content, where one party is the same for all 10,000 performances, constitute a public performance. But the end effect is the same as a public performance. Aereo is using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law -- it's a loophole. And one that can easily be plugged with legislation if needed (of course, with this Congress, nothing is easy).


"Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."

But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world.

If you and I live side by side in a city served by Aereo, the cable company can pull in the local CBS affiliate on a single antenna and send that to splitters and distribution amps and send it both our houses (and a whole lot of others), and that's considered "re-transmission".

If each of us puts up an antenna to bring that CBS affiliate's signal into our respective houses, that's not considered re-transmission, it's just reception.

If we both subscribe to Aereo, Aereo has to dedicate an antenna to each of us, so that's two antennas where the cable company only uses one.

You don't see the signal that comes in via my Aereo antenna, and vice versa, any more than either of us sees the signal from the other's house mounted antenna.

So what we get from Aereo is not, legally, a re-transmission, so re-transmission fees don't have to be paid to that local broadcaster.

The reason the networks are involved is that Aereo is currently mostly if not exclusively in big cities, where the network affiliated broadcast stations tend to be owned and operated by the networks with which they are affiliated.

The broadcasters don't really care if we use cable or Aereo, as long as they get paid whichever one it is, and they'd probably prefer it was Aereo, because that means you're not on cable so you're not watching cable only channels instead of them.

If you had the CBS franchise in your area, would you prefer to compete for eyeballs with only ABC, NBC, PBS, and FOX, or would you like HBO, TNT, TBS, USA, FX, AMC, TCM, A&E, SyFy, and a dozen or two more added in as well?

But they've gotten used to getting money from the cable companies whether the cable customers watch them or not.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

JosephB said:


> Weird wording. MVPDs pay retrans fees (Satellite, telco, and cable all have to pay retrans fees) because the law says the broadcast stations can charge those fees.
> 
> There's a few rules in the law related to broadcast stations with regard to cable/satellite/telco TV:
> 
> ...


The original law the NAB was trying to get passed back in the analog days of the early 80's was called "Must Carry-Must Pay" where even a crappy local TV station that nobody watched could force their NTSC signal onto the local cable system (which would rather have used the bandwith for pay channels) AND get paid by the cable system.

So that tells you where the broadcasters are coming from, unless you think they've become less about the bottom line and more about serving "in the public interest" since then.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

unitron said:


> ...
> So that tells you where the broadcasters are coming from, unless you think they've become less about the bottom line and more about serving "in the public interest" since then.


Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Only for cable/satellite users. Tivo users can still use OTA on many boxes and even a current model. There are no fees being paid. The signal is captured in one location and streamed to a different location. From a technology standpoint, it's the same thing as what Aereo is doing. The only difference is the location of the antenna.
> 
> I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.


If you started to charge your neighbors to use that antenna, then setup many other antennas and started charging more people for the right to use them, and connected the antennas to your customers by tuning their selected channel, encoding the received data into IP packets and transmitting it over the internet, then you would likely get notification from the broadcasters challenging your business model, just like Aereo.

The key issues that MAY cause Aereo to fall on the wrong side of the law are:

1) Unlike a community antenna, Aereo is receiving (i.e. tuning) the channel and then sending it to the viewer as a data stream.

2) They are charging a subscription fee.

Ultimately, if you read through the verbal questioning and arguments from both sides, I think point 2 will be the issue. If Aereo can convince the court that they have created an innovative use of technology that in and of itself warrants the subscription fee, then they will prevail. If not, then they are just making money by distributing someone else's property without a license. It would be no different than someone taking a DVD, making hundreds of copies and then streaming each one to viewers for a fee. They may have obtained the DVD legally, just as Aereo is receiving the OTA broadcasts legally, but the distribution to multiple viewers is not legal.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> "Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."
> 
> But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world...


Yes it does, IF the court is convinced that this is a unique and innovative use of technology and not just a gimmick to try and justify the copyright infringement.

This is an interesting question. It seems that the decision any given person makes in this regard is driven by the perspective they bring to the question. As the copyright owners, the broadcasters see a gimmick. As consumers, potential customers of Aereo see it is a clever innovation.

Personally, I am of two minds. As a person that makes her living selling intellectual property (enterprise computer software) any legal decision that erodes copyright protection makes me nervous. But as a television viewer and user of DVRs and many different video streaming technologies, I'd love to see Aereo succeed.

It will be interesting to see the decision and read the opinions of the Justices.



unitron said:


> If you and I live side by side in a city served by Aereo, the cable company can pull in the local CBS affiliate on a single antenna and send that to splitters and distribution amps and send it both our houses (and a whole lot of others), and that's considered "re-transmission".
> 
> If each of us puts up an antenna to bring that CBS affiliate's signal into our respective houses, that's not considered re-transmission, it's just reception.
> 
> ...


I'm not aware of any "legal" defintion of what constitutes retransmission. The broadcasters are arguing that the use of a "private" antenna is meaningless. Since Aereo is using an ATSC tuner to receive the broadcast, decoding the 8VSB signal and extracting the raw MPEG, then re-encoding that for transmission (I don't know which streaming protocol Aereo uses) on the Internet in IP packets, the broadcasters are arguing that this IS retransmission.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?


Yes, sorry...badly phrased. It should have been "MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the broadcasters can demand payment."



dlfl said:


> Skipping commercials with DVR's can happen with OTA-received video, also. I understand the NAB's desire for revenue but that doesn't make it either right or deserving of being codified in law or regulations. If maintaining NAB revenue is in the public interest it should be funded in such a way that all parties receiving the signals pay equally, not just MSO or Aereo customers. I suspect this just is a case of "let's get the money where it's easy to get", i.e., government funding of OTA is not popular so just sock it to the MSO and Aereo customers.
> 
> I think NAB broadcasting should sink or swim based on the ad revenue they can attract.


Sure, you can skip commercials even if you record OTA content. But in that case there was no commercial enterprise involved in getting that OTA signal from the transmitter to your house. If there were (i.e. a cable or satellite company) then THEY would have to pay a retransmission fee.

I'm not going to defend the broadcasters' desire to maximize revenue. But Congress made retransmissuion consent, and the associated fees, part of the law. The court is required to rule on the case in front of them, not on the fairness of the law. Nowhere has anyone in this case argued that retransmissions fees are unconstitutional, only that the law, as written, does not apply to Aereo. That is the only question the Justices must answer. The issues of subscription fees, individual antennas, and all the other technology that Aereo makes use of, are simply the details that will determine whether or not what Aereo is doing is a retransmission. If it is, they must pay. If not, they don't. It is as "simple" as that.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

More than anything else, I think something that is telling about the Aereo situation that might bite them (if it was even brought up in the arguments, I haven't listened to the proceedings) is that you can only "rent" an Aereo antenna/tuner in the market in which you live, and you can only use it while you are geographically in that DMA. Seems a weird restriction since they are essentially arguing that they're renting you a Slingbox, and I can watch my Slingbox anywhere in the world.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> "Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."
> 
> But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world.
> 
> ...


First of all, as an RF engineer, I can guarantee you that Aereo uses two or three giant antennas. The tiny objects are elements to the antenna. We're all receiving the same signal. Justices don't have an advanced degree in engineering, and you can find an engineer who'll say anything if you give him enough money to be an expert, but that's one giant antenna.

Second, copyright law says that the equipment that receives the signal must be typically found in a home. That giant antenna array is NOT found in a home, and neither is the tiny element that Aereo is trying to pass off as an antenna.

Third, copyright law is focused on the performance, not the signal. Some of the exceptions do depend on how the signal is received, where it is received, how it is used, etc. And they're written in such a way that some of the exceptions can have an unintended meaning as applied to Aereo.

Here's a link to an article on that, along with my favorite quote:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...g-consumers/Kl7yn8bx35O8ju2rNMWZDN/story.html



> Furthermore, Frederick made a distinction between video-on-demand services and what Aereo provides, saying that no recording made by a customer is ever accessible to anyone else because its a distinct copy  and thus, a private performance.
> 
> If Im making a copy using Aereos system, no one else can look at it, Frederick said. Even if you happen to have watched the same program, you cant watch my copy, I cant download it . . . 
> 
> ...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

BobCamp1 said:


> And they're written in such a way that some of the exceptions can have an unintended meaning as applied to Aereo.


Just because a loophole is unintended doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it's illegal for someone to take advantage of it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.


Sure sounds like Comcast to me.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Well that is what capitalism is all about - maximizing the bottom line. Without rules (Government regulation) capitalism devolves into pure evil as those willing to be the most evil will win (destroying all competitors while fleecing their customers to the max). Basically the Mafia is a good example of pure unregulated capitalism.


Hmm... Let's see --- what entities will come after me with a gun (i.e., use violence) to enforce a mob's will? Well there is the mafia (criminals to be more general) and there's the government. Capitalists are not on that list. Paraphrasing someone famous (Mark Twain? Will Rogers?) there are only two criminal classes in the USA: Organized crime and the Congress.

I agree that some minimal amount of government regulation is necessary, and certainly effective law enforcement is a valid government function. But if we keep layering on regulations and the associated government bureaucracy we are going to kill overall productivity in this country. We'll have a small fraction of our workers actually producing goods and services, while the rest are either working in the government or working in law firms, lobbying firms, or political action committees trying to rig the laws and regs to benefit the special interests they represent. Sad to say, we are already well down that path.

We can't afford enough government to ensure that a stupid apathetic careless person can bumble through life with complete protection from bad deals. What works, and is efficient, is caveat emptor, and informed consumers who take the consequences if they make a stupid choice.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Seriously you are trolling hard here. The government is at a smaller size than its been in decades. We have cut like crazy lately and pretty much prevented anything from passing in the current administration. You should be happy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I could get even closer to Aereo's scenario if I was to rent the roof next to my building and mount an antenna there. It would be ridiculous to call that illegal.


And by extension, if you rent an apartment and have a shared antenna with everyone else in the building...



aadam101 said:


> I'm not sure that Tivo would want to buy them but it certainly makes sense to add an Aereo app to Tivo. Many cord cutters would like to buy a Roamio Plus or Pro but can't because there is no OTA on those boxes. Even cable users could benefit since the OTA signal is often MUCH better than the cable signal.


The entire point of TiVo is that it receives an RF signal (either OTA ATSC-8VSB or cable ATSC-QAM) and can play that RF signal back live, time shift/trick play it, or record it for later use. _Without that RF signal, TiVo is completely pointless._ You may as well buy a $99 Roku at that point.



Dan203 said:


> But that's just a secondary reason. The main reason they're fighting is to protect their retransmission fees.


They don't have any reason to care about Aereo per se, even if people can watch something in one DMA, and not in another. What they are worried about is cable companies somehow replicating this functionality (U-Verse would the the only one capable of doing it technically for now) and not paying retrans. However, what I don't understand is why they can't just force-bundle their affiliate with the parent company's cable programming like they do now with little-watched cable channels, in which case, it's a non-issue entirely.

What really will get weird is if they decided to broadcast all of the Detroit channels, some of which are in Canada, and had to deal with Canadian law in addition to US law. They have sidestepped that for now by doing a partial (US-only) offering for Detroit. If they did a complete offering, I might considering signing up with a friend or family member's address to get CBC...



BobCamp1 said:


> First of all, as an RF engineer, I can guarantee you that Aereo uses two or three giant antennas. The tiny objects are elements to the antenna. We're all receiving the same signal. Justices don't have an advanced degree in engineering, and you can find an engineer who'll say anything if you give him enough money to be an expert, but that's one giant antenna.


We know there are thousands of separate antennas. Are you arguing that somehow those antennas only work if they are in a specific formation, and that a single antenna alone wouldn't work?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> However, what I don't understand is why they can't just force-bundle their affiliate with the parent company's cable programming like they do now with little-watched cable channels, in which case, it's a non-issue entirely.


They already do this in cities that the local affiliate is network owned and operated. That's why CBS was pulled from TWC/BHN, but not all cities, when there was the dispute between TWC and CBS.

The retrans agreement is between the station owners and the MVPDs, not between the network and the MVPDs.



> We know there are thousands of separate antennas. Are you arguing that somehow those antennas only work if they are in a specific formation, and that a single antenna alone wouldn't work?


I've heard this argument several times. Supposedly it's not possible to pick up a signal with that small of an antenna, that many working together is "technically" "one" antenna. I'm not an RF engineer so who knows.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

The most interesting thing to me was there was a brief by "small and independent broadcasters" (including WKRP) in support of Aereo.

It opens:
"Contrary to Petitioners assertions, not all broadcasters oppose Aereos platform for enabling individual audience members to use an antenna to initiate their own recording and reception of over-the-air programming for personal viewing. In fact, many small and independent broadcasters (SIBs) depend heavily on such user-friendly viewing technologies to reach their audiences, esp. audiences that cannot afford home viewing equipment, cable, or satellite television, audiences who only watch broadcast content via mobile networks or the Internet, or audiences who may not be technologically sophisticated enough to set up their own antenna, digital receiver, or DVR, and configure their own mobile devices."

This to me represents those who should be on the public air waves, those who want their stuff watched without asking for additional payment and restrictions.

The more I think about it, this does not have effect for in-home Tivo's but, Tivo wants to be a cloud DVR provider next and the Cablevision DVR ruling could easily relate to that.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Except it isn't! and I can't understand why people keep thinking it is.
> The Tivo model is all based around what you do with the signal AFTER it has come in to your home in a legal manner, either OTA or cable. The Aereo model never has you getting the signal. when you tie in the fact that the hundreds of little antennas are a total kludge JUST to get around the existing laws, yeah, I vote they're breaking it.
> 
> It's very easy IMO to see where Aereo is skirting laws by design to make a profit.


I am very doubtful they are profitable. I don't believe it was ever their intention to make a profit. Barry Diller is throwing money at this because he wants to see some change in the TV industry. Some kind of change will come out of this.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...We know there are thousands of separate antennas. Are you arguing that somehow those antennas only work if they are in a specific formation, and that a single antenna alone wouldn't work?


I think that is exactly what he is saying. As someone who has tried to receive OTA broadcasts in Long Island City, I can tell you that you need a highly directional antenna to reject the reflections from buildings in Manhattan and the RFK and Queensboro bridges. I suspect that there are, indeed, some big antennas in use and those thumbnail units are, at best, just picking up a repeated signal.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> I think that is exactly what he is saying. As someone who has tried to receive OTA broadcasts in Long Island City, I can tell you that you need a highly directional antenna to reject the reflections from buildings in Manhattan and the RFK and Queensboro bridges. I suspect that there are, indeed, some big antennas in use and those thumbnail units are, at best, just picking up a repeated signal.


Well from their video it is clear their receiving antennas have good line of sight with little chance of powerful reflections. Antenna placement is a location, location, location kind of thing. Also TV signals are quite strong when you are withing 5 to 10 miles of the towers.

On one hand I can imagine that those little things are not the entire antenna structure. They may be soldered to longer circuit board traces that act as collector elements. If that is the case, then those little pieces may be more like individual RF pick-offs from those elements than actual full-on antennas. On the other hand, cell phones do just fine with tiny internal antennas. And cell phone signal power is tiny in comparison to what comes off a TV transmitter. So there is plenty of precedent for them actually being individual antennas. With good line of sight and a close distance to the source, power is more than sufficient to allow for a small collection area to work.

One thing is certain, there is no need for a repeater, and it is clear that there isn't one there between the antenna boxes and the windows.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

It was explained to me by an RF guy on another forum that those little elements, by themselves, are physically too small to pick up the frequencies they are supposedly picking up. And he also didn't have any idea how the "electronically tuned to only pick up one specific channel" thing worked. 

I take Aereo at their word that each antenna is "independent" but I wonder if one of those little things, by itself, would actually work the way they work when they're in a large array like that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JosephB said:


> It was explained to me by an RF guy on another forum that those little elements, by themselves, are physically too small to pick up the frequencies they are supposedly picking up. And he also didn't have any idea how the "electronically tuned to only pick up one specific channel" thing worked.
> 
> I take Aereo at their word that each antenna is "independent" but I wonder if one of those little things, by itself, would actually work the way they work when they're in a large array like that.


The tiny antennas are a matter of curiosity since it usually takes a much larger one. However even a paper clip is picking up a tiny response from every signal in the air. If the signal-to-noise is adequate an amplifier can make the signal large enough to detect. I don't see any puzzle about electronic tuning. The tuner circuits in most TV's, radios and in TiVo's are electronically tuned. Still the actual engineering to make these small elements work would be interesting to see.

Antenna arrays, in which a collection of smaller elements act as one large antenna, require the elements to either (1) have mutual electronic inter-connections or (2) have all the individual responses input to a signal processor that phase-shifts and combines them. I doubt this is what Aereo is doing -- at least they are implying otherwise IMO.

I think the RF guy was thinking of tuned antennas where the length needs to be some fraction (e.g., 1/4 th) of the wavelength for maximum coupling to a rather narrow frequency band -- commonly used in HAM radio for example. But this concept doesn't apply well to the TV band where frequencies span a wide band from 54 MHz to 890 MHz, or wavelengths from 5.55 m to 0.34 m.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dianebrat said:


> .....The Aereo model never has you getting the signal. when you tie in the fact that the hundreds of little antennas are a total kludge JUST to get around the existing laws, yeah, I vote they're breaking it. It's very easy IMO to see where Aereo is skirting laws by design to make a profit.


They're not doing it "JUST" to get around the law, they're doing it to "COMPLY" with the law, which makes it 100% legal in my humble opinion. NAB is just pissed they didn't think of it so they could rake in the profits from said idea.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

FYI the oral arguments in SCOTUS wil be on one of the C-SPAN channels tonight (Friday) at 8 pm EDT.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

HarperVision said:


> They're not doing it "JUST" to get around the law, they're doing it to "COMPLY" with the law, which makes it 100% legal in my humble opinion. NAB is just pissed they didn't think of it so they could rake in the profits from said idea.


I agree -- Aereo didn't make the law. It's a dumb law that is just designed as a favor to NAB members -- a typical example of how special interests manipulate the government.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JosephB said:


> It was explained to me by an RF guy on another forum that those little elements, by themselves, are physically too small to pick up the frequencies they are supposedly picking up. And he also didn't have any idea how the "electronically tuned to only pick up one specific channel" thing worked. I take Aereo at their word that each antenna is "independent" but I wonder if one of those little things, by itself, would actually work the way they work when they're in a large array like that.


The size of an antenna can be "tuned" electronically using inductance (coils) and capacitance to make them look like any size that's a multiple of the original, as mentioned about 1/4, 1/2 wavelengths, etc. (for optimum performance). We used to do just that using HF probe antennas on the ends of the wings of the SAC Looking Glass aircraft, making it seem like the approx 4' long probe antenna was as much as an 800+ foot long trailing wire antenna. We also did the same type of thing with both horizontal and vertical trailing wire antennas used for broadcasting HF and MF (AM) transmissions from the Commando Solo airborne TV and radio broadcast aircraft. Those put out about 56 KW ERP (effective radiated power) with 10KW amplifiers, so all Aereo is doing is the reverse concept of receiving milliwatt TV signals, so I'm certainly sure based on what I know at least, that those tiny antennas "should" be able to be tuned electronically using the same design with caps and coils.

The key is knowing the freqs, which Aereo would in each given area, and then tuning them in for the best possible S/N ratio and bandwidth rejection characteristics. This is similar to what I mentioned above, but in reverse, re: broadcasting while I was in the USAF and we tuned transmission antennas based on VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio, i.e - signal reflection) back into the amps.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

More than one poster has pointed out that the Aereo approach is not "scalable". I'm not so sure of that. Lets say the cost of setting up a tiny antenna and tuning circuit is $500 and make the worst case assumption that there actually has to be one antenna per subscirber. Say the cost of maintaining the equipment and the cloud support costs $4/mo. per sub. That leaves $4/mo to amortize the antenna/tuner cost, or $48/year. That is almost a 10% return on the $500 investment, which is quite attractive.

My numbers are pulled out of the air but even if they are way off, the potential for profitable scalability seems to be there.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

HarperVision said:


> The size of an antenna can be "tuned" electronically using inductance (coils) and capacitance to make them look like any size that's a multiple of the original, as mentioned about 1/4, 1/2 wavelengths, etc. (for optimum performance). We used to do just that using HF probe antennas on the ends of the wings of the SAC Looking Glass aircraft, making it seem like the approx 4' long probe antenna was as much as an 800+ foot long trailing wire antenna. We also did the same type of thing with both horizontal and vertical trailing wire antennas used for broadcasting HF and MF (AM) transmissions from the Commando Solo airborne TV and radio broadcast aircraft. Those put out about 56 KW ERP (effective radiated power) with 10KW amplifiers, so all Aereo is doing is the reverse concept of receiving milliwatt TV signals, so I'm certainly sure based on what I know at least, that those tiny antennas "should" be able to be tuned electronically using the same design with caps and coils.
> 
> The key is knowing the freqs, which Aereo would in each given area, and then tuning them in for the best possible S/N ratio and bandwidth rejection characteristics. This is similar to what I mentioned above, but in reverse, re: broadcasting while I was in the USAF and we tuned transmission antennas based on VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio, i.e - signal reflection) back into the amps.


Yeah, you are probably right, like I said I'm not an RF or antenna guy, just things I've heard chatter about. I'm inclined to believe Aereo because while there are a lot of shady people in the world, I don't think they'd have been able to raise the money they've raised if it was a scam.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Hmm... Let's see --- what entities will come after me with a gun (i.e., use violence) to enforce a mob's will? Well there is the mafia (criminals to be more general) and there's the government. Capitalists are not on that list.


Hahahaha what? This is maybe the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard.

Do you think the Mob is anti-capitalism? If you don't think capitalists will come to your door with guns, what about with chemicals they dumped into your water supply, like in Charleston WV? Or soot illegally vented to the air, like at KU energy in KY? Or what about with illegal anti-competitive hiring practices, like at Google/Apple/etc? Or maybe they will just mess up your life with rent seeking behaviors, like banning direct sales of Tesla motor's cars?

Your gibberish about capitalists being innocuous shows an incredibly naivety on many fronts. Capitalism is by definition a self-serving enterprise, and frequently results in zero-sum wealth distribution outcomes.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

unitron said:


> "Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people."
> 
> But they are doing so one antenna and one customer at a time, and that makes all the difference in the world.
> 
> ...


It's the money that counts, if you and your neighbor share a OTA antenna and don't charge money that called reception, no problem, put up a community antenna and charge money for re-transmission, that what the Court has to decide.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Hahahaha what? This is maybe the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard.
> 
> Do you think the Mob is anti-capitalism? If you don't think capitalists will come to your door with guns, what about with chemicals they dumped into your water supply, like in Charleston WV? Or soot illegally vented to the air, like at KU energy in KY? Or what about with illegal anti-competitive hiring practices, like at Google/Apple/etc? Or maybe they will just mess up your life with rent seeking behaviors, like banning direct sales of Tesla motor's cars?
> 
> Your gibberish about capitalists being innocuous shows an incredibly naivety on many fronts. Capitalism is by definition a self-serving enterprise, and frequently results in zero-sum wealth distribution outcomes.


Actually your examples are what are nonsensical. Your first three examples are all illegal, and you labeled two of them as such. Government is supposed to protect us from illegal actions. You choose to view these examples as the primary results of capitalism, or free enterprise, which is just a smear job.

Banning direct sales of Tesla can only be done by government action so it's not an example of capitalism or free enterprise. Rather, if it succeeds, it's an example of government interfering with free enterprise to the detriment of consumers. With so much government control of everything, special interests (in this case the other car dealers) will lobby to rig the law in their favor. This only happens because lawmakers allow it, and they are only that kind of lawmaker because those who elect them are too apathetic to pay attention to what they do. It's terrible but do you know a better system?

Your examples of course represent instances of human nature. People in any situation try to pursue their self interests at the expense of others -- most of the time, although they sometimes fool themselves into thinking otherwise. Government provides many opportunities for this. If you think only capitalists have this impulse or indulge in it, **you** are the one being naive. Capitalists are subject to the law while government **is** the law. I'm a lot more afraid of the results of human nature among government members than of those of capitalists.

The USSR had a government that was defined as controlling everything to the benefit of the people. And on paper it did that right to the bitter end. What actually happened there was massive corruption and a failing economy. A popular saying then was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> First of all, as an RF engineer, I can guarantee you that Aereo uses two or three giant antennas. The tiny objects are elements to the antenna. We're all receiving the same signal. Justices don't have an advanced degree in engineering, and you can find an engineer who'll say anything if you give him enough money to be an expert, but that's one giant antenna.
> 
> ...............
> 
> .......


Really?

Here is a link to an article that has a video that shows their antenna farm and what the individual antennas look like. As well as discussing the process of one antenna for each individual and the equipment involved in the process.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2014-04/inside-aereos-boston-rooftop-antenna-farm/#comments


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Bigg said:


> ...
> 
> The entire point of TiVo is that it receives an RF signal (either OTA ATSC-8VSB or cable ATSC-QAM) and can play that RF signal back live, time shift/trick play it, or record it for later use. ...


No, it takes that RF signal and demodulates it, extracting the information and only recording the information onto the hard drive, discarding the carrier wave.

If it wants to send it back out as RF, it would have to generate a carrier locally and re-modulate it with the information.

Which, when cable companies do it, is called re-transmission.

It's also what S1s and S2s (and VCRS) did, putting out a channel 3 or channel 4 NTSC signal for TVs that didn't have line inputs.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> Yes it does, IF the court is convinced that this is a unique and innovative use of technology and not just a gimmick to try and justify the copyright infringement.
> 
> This is an interesting question. It seems that the decision any given person makes in this regard is driven by the perspective they bring to the question. As the copyright owners, the broadcasters see a gimmick. As consumers, potential customers of Aereo see it is a clever innovation.
> 
> ...


Why can't it be both a unique and innovative use of technology and a gimmick?

And if there is no legal definition of re-transmission, then how can the broadcasters claim they're owed money because the cable companies are doing it?

And unlike any other copyright question, this involves broadcasters getting to use the public airwaves, supposedly "in the public interest".


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Really?
> 
> Here is a link to an article that has a video that shows their antenna farm and what the individual antennas look like. As well as discussing the process of one antenna for each individual and the equipment involved in the process.
> 
> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2014-04/inside-aereos-boston-rooftop-antenna-farm/#comments


Thanks -- very interesting. No details about the circuits that make the antennas work but there is a statement that they are actively tuned, presumably by switching in/out circuit elements (capacitance, inductance etc). I assume further details are proprietary.


unitron said:


> Why can't it be both a unique and innovative use of technology and a gimmick?
> 
> And if there is no legal definition of re-transmission, then how can the broadcasters claim they're owed money because the cable companies are doing it?
> .........


+1
Is SCOTUS going to be forced to define re-transmission to decide this case? I bet they cringe at that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> They already do this in cities that the local affiliate is network owned and operated. That's why CBS was pulled from TWC/BHN, but not all cities, when there was the dispute between TWC and CBS.
> 
> The retrans agreement is between the station owners and the MVPDs, not between the network and the MVPDs.


So the network can't force the station owners to bundle with them in order to be part of the network? Although I guess at that point, the O&O stations would force bundle, and stations in smaller markets could do whatever they wanted...



unitron said:


> No, it takes that RF signal and demodulates it, extracting the information and only recording the information onto the hard drive, discarding the carrier wave.


Ok, fair enough. But you get my point... A TiVo that's not tuning from an RF signal of some sort makes no sense.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Audio recording is up now:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_461


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

It was curious to read the zat's not funny article comments about the judges owning a roku and such with not knowing if such is based on fact or not but it makes up a more interesting speculation. I would be more concerned about the judges truly understanding the true nature this emerging technology when the opposition is financed by corporate attorneys who are highly skilled in the art of BS. 

I predict that Aero is going to lose this fight due as not as much the fact they are retransmitting the OTA signal without compensating the network providing it but more on the pretense the subscriber doesn't OWN the antenna/receiver/encoding system and rather are renting the service. My cable company is required to pay for the ability to send me the the OTA signal to me, the only thing I own is the some of the hardware once the cable enters my home, while it's not described this way but I by all means I rent the virtual assigned system the cable company uses to get the OTA RF signal from their antenna, receiver, encoder systems and so on until it gets to my house.

Their mistake perhaps and possible downfall will be they should have created a transfer of ownership were the subscriber owns the assigned virtual reciever system capable of receiving the OTA signals and not a rental agreement. Without the consumer legally owning the system, small as it might be this is nothing more than a retransmission system. Now this would have made a better argument, for example let's say the consumer buys the assigned collective virtual receiver system for $20 then the company would charge a "caretaking" $12.99 monthly fee to watch over, protect and repair the subscriber's property when the legal subscriber "owner" is unable to be there in person to do it themselves (or what ever you want to call Aereo's function to receive their monthly fee) . Should the "owner" decide they no longer wish to own the Internet OTA reciever, they sell it back to the caretaker (Aereo) were they advertise it to sell it to a new prospective owner and the process is repeated. That would seem to me a much better defence against the companies that are up in arms against Aereo. 

Yes, OTA signals should be allowed to be delivered in the way Aereo does but in this world of corporate giants and special interest lobbyists, they are facing a lopsided battle that isn't in their favor. Now personally I can't imagine spending $12 a month just to receive OTA TV, but of course others feel I'm an idiot paying monthly fees to TiVo just so I can watch TV on my terms, granted they are simply offering a true cloud based dvr service but they are also acting in the same manner as a cable company and most likely will be required to have payed contracts to retransmit the network OTA signals.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I just heard the oral arguments on C-SPAN. I thought the Aereo attorney did an excellent job and if the case were to be decided purely on reason and fairness, Aereo would win. But it will be decided on interpretation of stupid laws passed by Congress so I'm afraid Aereo is screwed.

What Aereo does is identical in effect to having additional people buy antennas and DVR's and view/record OTA signals, which is perfectly legal. Why having additional OTA viewers should be subject to royalties is a mystery to me. I would think the broadcasters would welcome that.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

dlfl said:


> *What Aereo does is identical in effect to having additional people buy antennas and DVR's and view/record OTA signals, which is perfectly legal. *Why having additional OTA viewers should be subject to royalties is a mystery to me. I would think the broadcasters would welcome that.


How? how on earth is them running a service of a farm of antennas and providing a DVR and bandwidth for your app without you ever actually receiving the signal in your home "the same"? that's the part of the logic from your side of the fence that I just don't understand, you the consumer never have the actual signal in your "possession" Aereo has total control of the signal, and that's why my opinion is that they don't have a chance in winning.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> More than one poster has pointed out that the Aereo approach is not "scalable". I'm not so sure of that. Lets say the cost of setting up a tiny antenna and tuning circuit is $500 and make the worst case assumption that there actually has to be one antenna per subscirber. Say the cost of maintaining the equipment and the cloud support costs $4/mo. per sub. That leaves $4/mo to amortize the antenna/tuner cost, or $48/year. That is almost a 10% return on the $500 investment, which is quite attractive.
> 
> My numbers are pulled out of the air but even if they are way off, the potential for profitable scalability seems to be there.


I agree that Aereo is likely scalable. The reason it will fail as a business is because if this is found to be legal, cable companies will offer a competing service and crush them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> ........
> What Aereo does is identical in effect to having additional people buy antennas and DVR's and view/record OTA signals...........





dianebrat said:


> How? how on earth is them running a service of a farm of antennas and providing a DVR and bandwidth for your app without you ever actually receiving the signal in your home "the same"? that's the part of the logic from your side of the fence that I just don't understand, you the consumer never have the actual signal in your "possession" Aereo has total control of the signal, and that's why my opinion is that they don't have a chance in winning.


The key words you are ignoring in my statement are "in effect". The functionality, including control of the signal (i.e., what is tuned, what is viewed and what is recorded), is identical to having an antenna and DVR in your home.

There is no way the broadcaster could even detect a difference. The problem is the stupid existing law set the precedent for retransmission fees by Cable and SATV, which was wrong to begin with. But the SCOTUS has to be consistent with existing law if at all possible. That is what may doom Aereo.

The fees Aereo charges are just for setting up and maintaining your antenna and cloud DVR, **not** for the video content. The video content is already available for free so why would a consumer pay for it? No, they pay for the convenience of not having to have their own antenna and DVR. Some customers also benefit because they cannot locate an antenna where it would get good reception, e.g., amongst tall city buildings.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I don't think the cable companies are interested in the low end of the market. $8/month. I haven't seen a cable offering remotely close to that.

For the camp that says it's completely unfair, there are lots of exemptions in the law that are close to analogous if not actually analogous:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#111

Idk if the transcript is correct, but the copy I saw had a reference to iDrop and Roku's license which kinda makes me wonder how many out of nine are missing something about this.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I agree that Aereo is likely scalable. The reason it will fail as a business is because if this is found to be legal, cable companies will offer a competing service and crush them.


You have more confidence in the business acumen of cable companies than I do. I wonder if they actually could compete for $8/mo. There's an interview with the founder of Aereo in the C-SPAN archives and he responds to this issue. IIRC his attitude was something like "let the cookie crumble". He strikes me as someone who could run circles around the fossilized MSO's. If not with Aereo then with some other innovative venture.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Cable companies wouldn't use this technology to compete for $12/mo, they would use it to save the millions they pay in retransmission fees. 

This while business is f*cked up. They give the content away for free, transmit clear over the air, but they expect that people pay extra for any method of receiving it other then their opinion of approved technology. 

If their content is so f*cking valuable then they should move to cable and start charging for it. But instead they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to use OUR airwaves for free, to make millions (billions?) on advertising, but if anyone tries to make a dollar making it easier for people to access that content they want a chunk of that as well. It's corporate greed at it's finest. :down:


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Cable companies wouldn't use this technology to compete for $12/mo, they would use it to save the millions they pay in retransmission fees.


A lot of people have mentioned this, but didn't the cable association side against Aereo? In any case, it should be easy for the court if they wanted to, to say Aereo is not a cable company so doesn't have to pay transmissions fees, but cable companies and satellite companies still have to.

Edit: I guess I got it wrong. Cablevision sided against Aereo but American Cable Association sided for Aereo.

Otherwise, I totally agree. It would be nice to have 1 transmission media which is consumer friendly instead of constant encroachment, and I vote for it being OTA since cable is already not.

Did you all know that some OTA carriers carry subscription video channels?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Cable companies wouldn't use this technology to compete for $12/mo, they would use it to save the millions they pay in retransmission fees. This while business is f*cked up. They give the content away for free, transmit clear over the air, but they expect that people pay extra for any method of receiving it other then their opinion of approved technology. If their content is so f*cking valuable then they should move to cable and start charging for it. But instead they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to use OUR airwaves for free, to make millions (billions?) on advertising, but if anyone tries to make a dollar making it easier for people to access that content they want a chunk of that as well. It's corporate greed at it's finest. :down:


 :up: x 1,000!
(and I used to work for an NBC affiliate)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Every dollar spent must compete with every other way that dollar could be invested. I believe that will eventually prompt broadcasters to continue down the path toward monetizing OTA more and more. If retransmission fees don't work, then we can expect to see more commercial time per hour, more commercial overlays, etc. The problem is that if OTA channels start doing something, the cable channels will do it as well. I'd rather have everyone pay retransmission fees than prompt broadcasters to pursue these other ways to make more money.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> Why can't it be both a unique and innovative use of technology and a gimmick?


Well, in this case, "gimmick" means an invasion of copyright protection, and "innovative" means exempt from copyright protections. This not meant to be pejorative or commending, it is just the way the Justices were talking.



unitron said:


> And if there is no legal definition of re-transmission, then how can the broadcasters claim they're owed money because the cable companies are doing it?


That's what the case will decide. Since there is no official legal definition, the courts need to evaluate each case and decide whether it does or does not qualify as retransmission. Just like there is no official definition of "reasonable" and a huge number of civil and criminal cases turn on whether what the defendant did was reasonable.



unitron said:


> And unlike any other copyright question, this involves broadcasters getting to use the public airwaves, supposedly "in the public interest".


I don't think that is true. I haven't heard either side claim the use of the public airwaves is a determining factor, other than as a technical issue (i.e. "The signals are freely available for reception"). The broadcasters don't get to use the airwaves for free, as some have suggested. They pay license fees to the government, and spend not insignificant sums on preparing license renewal documentation, which is both technical and legal, and must produce public affairs programming to retain their licenses (this is the "public interest" requirement).

This case turns on one issue: "Is Aereo a retransmitter?" If they are, they have to pay.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Well from their video it is clear their receiving antennas have good line of sight with little chance of powerful reflections. Antenna placement is a location, location, location kind of thing. Also TV signals are quite strong when you are withing 5 to 10 miles of the towers.


I live about 15 miles from the NYC transmitters, which for a few more months are atop the Empire State Building, at 34th street and 5th Avenue. I have clear line of sight as well. However, I need a large directional antenna to get a clear signal because of reflections from the Palisades (granite cliffs about a mile away). The Queensboro bridge has the same effect in Long Island City as the Palisades do here.

Of course, in a few months NYC TV broadcasts will move several miles south to the new World Trade Center tower. That will vastly complicate the multipath issues.

This is one reason the Aereo solution is attractive...if I want OTA broadcasts I *could* just put up an antenna. But the difficulty of getting a good signal in a city like NY makes it not worth the effort. It is far easier to just subscribe to cable. Aereo just offers a cheaper option, and one that is viable for residents of the few building in New York that aren't wired for cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> This case turns on one issue: "Is Aereo a retransmitter?" If they are, they have to pay.


And I believe that should come down to whether or not they change the format of the transmission anywhere along the line. Which, of course, they do.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> I live about 15 miles from the NYC transmitters, which for a few more months are atop the Empire State Building, at 34th street and 5th Avenue. I have clear line of sight as well. However, I need a large directional antenna to get a clear signal because of reflections from the Palisades (granite cliffs about a mile away). The Queensboro bridge has the same effect in Long Island City as the Palisades do here.
> 
> Of course, in a few months NYC TV broadcasts will move several miles south to the new World Trade Center tower. That will vastly complicate the multipath issues.
> 
> This is one reason the Aereo solution is attractive...if I want OTA broadcasts I *could* just put up an antenna. But the difficulty of getting a good signal in a city like NY makes it not worth the effort. It is far easier to just subscribe to cable. Aereo just offers a cheaper option, and one that is viable for residents of the few building in New York that aren't wired for cable.


You make a good point but Aereo than becomes just another cable co to you and your reception would now be from a RJ45 jack not coax cable and Aereo should pay for the programing, just like any cable co now has to, if they did there would be no court case.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Here's something interesting written last September by a couple of lawyers.

"Retransmission consent is but one strand of the complex web of carriage regulations that Congress either brought into being or left in place when it adopted the 1992 Cable Act. For example, even as it created a new retransmission consent right for broadcasters in 1992, Congress preserved the compulsory licensing regime established in the 1976 Copyright Act,7 under which content owners receive a statutory fee from cable operators in connection with the cable retransmission of broadcast signals. _Indeed, Congress made clear that broadcasters' new retransmission consent right *was entirely distinct from copyright*_, and was meant to promote the availability of local broadcast signals.8 The 1992 Cable Act also introduced the requirement that all broadcast signals be carried on the basic, most widely distributed tier of cable service (in areas where the cable system does not face effective competition), and the requirement that cable subscribers purchase the basic tier as a condition of accessing other services.9 And Congress declined to alter the FCC's territorial exclusivity rules, which allow a local station providing network or syndicated programming to prevent the local cable system from carrying that programming as broadcast by an out-of-market station.10"

The full article (where all those numbers at the end of sentences are clickable) is here:

http://www.bna.com/how-the-fcc-can-protect-consumers-in-the-battle-over-retransmission-consent/


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

dlfl said:


> The fees Aereo charges are just for setting up and maintaining your antenna and cloud DVR, **not** for the video content.


I believe the reason the SCOTUS will strike down Aereo is those fees. There is no _firewall _(for lack of a better word) between the money they presumably charge for the equipment, and the money they say they don't charge for the content.

So bottom line, they collect fungible money for content, and current law prohibits that. Unless agreed upon thru retransmission contract. Which Aereo doesn't have.

I can't see any scenario where Aereo comes out ahead in this case.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

unitron said:


> The 1992 Cable Act also introduced the requirement that all broadcast signals be carried on the basic, most widely distributed tier of cable service (in areas where the cable system does not face effective competition), and the requirement that cable subscribers purchase the basic tier as a condition of accessing other services


This, more than anything, needs to be changed.

I honestly don't care about local channels, retransmission consent, or anything else. Cable companies are breaking out the costs for local broadcast channels, but we as customers cannot opt out. If cable companies could offer service WITHOUT local channels, you'd probably see a lot of folks opt out.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JosephB said:


> This, more than anything, needs to be changed.
> 
> I honestly don't care about local channels, retransmission consent, or anything else. Cable companies are breaking out the costs for local broadcast channels, but we as customers cannot opt out. If cable companies could offer service WITHOUT local channels, you'd probably see a lot of folks opt out.


I don't even think I've even met anyone that doesn't watch the local channels. Whether it is the local news, local sports or the Network programming. Everyone I've run into watches something from a local network at some time or another.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I don't even think I've even met anyone that doesn't watch the local channels. Whether it is the local news, local sports or the Network programming. Everyone I've run into watches something from a local network at some time or another.


I watch one show that I can get from OTA - Greys Anatomy.

Cable only shows are
Comcast sports network 
Bates Motel
Dallas
Justified
Nurse Jackie
Shameless
Mad Men
Walking Dead
Bill Maher
Drop Dead Diva
The Newsroom
Who do you think you are
Girls
Daily show
Masters of Sex
Homeland
Fargo
True Detective
TechKnow

Then add Netflix

Ok I am going to add 24

I used to watch This Old House and friends but now there schedules are so crazy I have sort of given up.

So you tell me how valuable local stations are!

Now play nice!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Once OTA channels go under, from lack of viewership and therefore lack of money, they suddenly won't be there when there is a natural disaster.

Maybe the answer is to make at least one channel in each market a government-operated channel, perhaps carrying local, government-sanctioned news. Sound familiar?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> I don't even think I've even met anyone that doesn't watch the local channels. Whether it is the local news, local sports or the Network programming. Everyone I've run into watches something from a local network at some time or another.


I don't watch anything on local channels.

Now you've met someone.

And what relevance does that have to the question at hand? Whether or not most or all people watch local channels doesn't matter. I should have the choice of if I'm going to pay for it. Also, my primary reason for not wanting to buy local channels from the cable company wouldn't be so that I didn't have access. It would be so that I could use my antenna to watch what I can get for free.

I live plenty close to town that I pick up all the locals with an antenna. Why should I be forced to pay for what I can very easily pick up for free just because I also want to get ESPN and TNT and HBO?


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

JosephB said:


> I don't watch anything on local channels.
> 
> Now you've met someone.
> 
> ...


Likewise here, if I could get a cheaper monthly rate by having a the local networks removed from my cable service I would do it in a heartbeat. The only things my local networks offer in my area is as bad as 35 minutes of show content with 25 minutes of commercials. Don't even get me started with how my cable company inserts SD commercials into a HD broadcast which totally screws up the TiVo fast forward. Personally I believe local broadcast channels will eventually fade away in a few more years, too many sources for the same content from national sources on the Internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You make a good point but Aereo than becomes just another cable co to you and your reception would now be from a RJ45 jack not coax cable and Aereo should pay for the programing, just like any cable co now has to, if they did there would be no court case.


Wow. Total lack of understanding of the law there. Aereo isn't re-transmitting, hence why they are 100% in the clear legally.



zalusky said:


> I watch one show that I can get from OTA - Greys Anatomy.
> 
> ...
> 
> I used to watch This Old House and friends but now there schedules are so crazy I have sort of given up.!


Yeah, this is definitely the trend. I've found myself watching more and more HBO and less and less of anything else.

TOH is easy with a TiVo... The schedules are a bit nuts, but I have been able to keep up with them because of TiVo...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Wow. Total lack of understanding of the law there. Aereo isn't re-transmitting, hence why they are 100% in the clear legally.
> ...


I don't understand your statement above,* (Aereo isn't re-transmitting)* that is your opinion, not any fact or it would not be in the highest Court.

Why is Aereo any less re-transmitting then that of a cable co ??, You can't even put up an antenna in a sports bar without paying to show the programing to your customers. OTA is for personal use only, unless you pay for commercial use of the OTA signal. Some grey area in the Aereo case, that is why it is in the Court, IMHO they will *not* win, but that only my opinion, and I am not on the Court.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Wow. Total lack of understanding of the law there. Aereo isn't re-transmitting, hence why they are 100% in the clear legally....


Wow. Total lack of understanding of the technology and the law. 

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

Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JosephB said:


> I don't watch anything on local channels.
> 
> Now you've met someone.
> 
> ...


I would save more money dropping all the ESPN channels than dropping the local channels. The ESPN channels cost alot more. I don't even know why there are so many ESPN channels. I only watch the main one. Yet I'm forced to pay for all the other ones that I will never watch. The local programming cost is minor compared to the cost of the ESPN channels.

But not watching any local channels I would think is unusual. Just from the local sports teams, many people watch the local channels at one time or another because of them.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> Once OTA channels go under, from lack of viewership and therefore lack of money, they suddenly won't be there when there is a natural disaster.
> 
> Maybe the answer is to make at least one channel in each market a government-operated channel, perhaps carrying local, government-sanctioned news. Sound familiar?


The answer is to stop allowing Cable Companies to have monopolies.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I would save more money dropping all the ESPN channels than dropping the local channels. The ESPN channels cost alot more. I don't even know why there are so many ESPN channels. I only watch the main one. Yet I'm forced to pay for all the other ones that I will never watch. The local programming cost is minor compared to the cost of the ESPN channels.


Planet Money did a pretty good podcast about how cable bills got to the point they are at. They specifically talk about ESPN.

They compare cable pricing to that of a grocery store. Imagine going to the grocery store and being told you must buy an orange for every apple you buy? You would walk out of the store and go to the store down the street. Unfortunately, this can't be done by most people when it come to cable.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...ode-488-the-secret-history-of-your-cable-bill


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Planet Money did a pretty good podcast about how cable bills got to the point they are at. They specifically talk about ESPN.
> 
> They compare cable pricing to that of a grocery store. Imagine going to the grocery store and being told you must buy an orange for every apple you buy? You would walk out of the store and go to the store down the street. Unfortunately, this can't be done by most people when it come to cable.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...ode-488-the-secret-history-of-your-cable-bill


I must say though. I do pay alot less than I did when I had DirecTV from 2001 to 2007. I was paying them around $120 a month and had fewer channels than I have now with FiOS. While TV with FiOS is costing me around $70 a month right now.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> I would save more money dropping all the ESPN channels than dropping the local channels. The ESPN channels cost alot more. I don't even know why there are so many ESPN channels. I only watch the main one. Yet I'm forced to pay for all the other ones that I will never watch. The local programming cost is minor compared to the cost of the ESPN channels.
> 
> But not watching any local channels I would think is unusual. Just from the local sports teams, many people watch the local channels at one time or another because of them.


I understand that you'd save money by dropping ESPN. And, we're just a step away from having an argument about a la carte.

The difference between being forced to buy my local channels and being forced to buy ESPN is that 1) the local channels built their business using the public airwaves that they got for free. airwaves that belong to you and me, but I have to pay for the privilege to watch them. 2) and, this steams me even worse, is that *I can pick up every single local station for free with an antenna*. How is their signal worth more because it reaches me over coax instead of me grabbing it out of the air?

And again, just because *you* can't see why people would not watch locals, doesn't mean that we aren't out there. There's no local sports teams in my market. The news here sucks, bad. And network primetime TV is garbage.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

JosephB said:


> I understand that you'd save money by dropping ESPN. And, we're just a step away from having an argument about a la carte.
> 
> The difference between being forced to buy my local channels and being forced to buy ESPN is that 1) the local channels built their business using the public airwaves that they got for free. airwaves that belong to you and me, but I have to pay for the privilege to watch them. 2) and, this steams me even worse, is that *I can pick up every single local station for free with an antenna*. How is their signal worth more because it reaches me over coax instead of me grabbing it out of the air?
> 
> And again, just because *you* can't see why people would not watch locals, doesn't mean that we aren't out there. There's no local sports teams in my market. The news here sucks, bad. And network primetime TV is garbage.


What OTA channels are worth too you or any other individual is irrelevant. The same is true for any individual cable channel.

You get the packages being offered by your cable company because your cable company has decided that those package are providing the most profit for the cable company.

They could refuse to pay for your locals but they made a business decision to pay for them. You can thank Satellite for that, if your cable company was the only option they would refuse to pay for locals and your locals would have no choice but to allow the cable company to carry them for free (actually your locals would force the cable company to carry them - but it would be for free).

I have posted in another thread that this whole channel setup regardless if it is cable or OTA should be destroyed. We will never see a la carte "cable" without a government mandate and over site. Better off to just replace the whole thing.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> What OTA channels are worth too you or any other individual is irrelevant. The same is true for any individual cable channel.


It has nothing to do with what it's worth to me. Again, this isn't an a la carte situation. It's a distinct issue from bundling of cable channels. Local broadcast stations built their business using airwaves they got for free, along with the fact that I can put up an antenna and legally get the content for free.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


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


Precisely.



Diana Collins said:


> Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.


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


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


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


Precisely.



Diana Collins said:


> Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.


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



aadam101 said:


> The answer is to stop allowing Cable Companies to have monopolies.


Cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge this, because they themselves have fewer personal choices because of their own personal biases and preferences, but the law is clear and consistently applied in this regard.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

JosephB said:


> It has nothing to do with what it's worth to me. Again, this isn't an a la carte situation. It's a distinct issue from bundling of cable channels. Local broadcast stations built their business using airwaves they got for free, along with the fact that I can put up an antenna and legally get the content for free.


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

However that is not what the current laws allow. From a cable company business point of view carrying local OTA stations is not much different than carrying any other cable only channel. The cable company pays the lowest fee possible with the one difference being the law mandates the network channels be in the basic cable package, so the cost of OTA channels has to be built into that package.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> Wow. Total lack of understanding of the technology and the law.
> 
> They receive an 8VSB signal, decode it into the original MPEG 2 data, and then *retransmit* this data via IP packets (which are encoded using one of several possible streaming protocols). They only way this could NOT be a retransmission would be to deliver the 8VSB signal to the viewers TV or DVR tuners.
> 
> Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.


At the time, way, way back when, when the concept of re-transmission of a broadcast signal arose, the definition was pretty much the same as that of transmission--analog modulation of a carrier wave coupled into an antenna that sent it out into "the ether".

So we have a situation where the actual definition of transmission and re-transmission has grown with the development of newer technologies or advances in older ones, and the law lags behind, leaving the courts to decide whether new ways of doing things are violations of the original intent of the legislatures and legislators who wrote those laws.

If you're going to argue that de-modulation and re-modulation define re-transmission, then why, a few years ago, would a (hypothetical) cable company, that received an analog NTSC TV broadcast and just fed it into a booster amp ahead of splitters ahead of more boosters ahead of more splitters until it eventually reached the antenna input of a cable subscribers television, owe the station anything, as I'm sure the station would have argued?

The problem is the ridiculous notion that broadcasters using the public airwaves to send out their signal get to tell the public, in the geographic area the broadcaster is licensed to serve, how they may and may not receive that signal.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> The answer is to stop allowing Cable Companies to have monopolies.


That is a totally separate issue from broadcasters expecting to be paid when anyone, in the geographical area which they are licensed to serve via over the air signals, employs an outside party to assist in the reception of those signals.

If there were 5 different cable companies whose cables ran past your house and you were free to do business with whichever one you wished, the broadcasters in your area would still expect you to pay, through whichever cable company to which you subscribed, for getting the same signal over that cable which you are entitled to pull out of the air with your own equipment for free.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> If what you are saying is that cable, Satellite, Aereo, whoever, should be able to rebroadcast OTA channels without paying a rebroadcasting fee because of the nature of OTA broadcasting (free & add supported) then I am in agreement with you.
> 
> However that is not what the current laws allow. From a cable company business point of view carrying local OTA stations is not much different than carrying any other cable only channel. The cable company pays the lowest fee possible with the one difference being the law mandates the network channels be in the basic cable package, so the cost of OTA channels has to be built into that package.


I understand this. I'm actually not necessarily advocating for allowing the cable companies to carry local channels for free (although I would not oppose such a change in policy).

My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

JosephB said:


> ...
> 
> My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.


Back when I had Dishnetwork that is how it worked. Once locals became available if you wanted them it was $5/mo more and was optional. They have since discontinued that option, I am guessing that the locals have made "mandatory carry" part of their retransmission contract.

I am also guessing that in many areas locals now cost allot more the $5/mo and I agree with you because of the nature of OTA there should be an optional package for OTA stations (like HBO). Unfortunately it would require the law be changed to require the breakout package and the chances of that happening are near zero.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Or that the SCOTUS doesn't understand this technological aspect.
> 
> Cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge this, because they themselves have fewer personal choices because of their own personal biases and preferences, but the law is clear and consistently applied in this regard.


Of course they do! I live in an area where Comcast is my ONLY choice for subscription TV service. If I want a channel like AMC or HBO, I MUST fork over my money to Comcast. There is nothing else. Dish is not an option in my building.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> ...If you're going to argue that de-modulation and re-modulation define re-transmission, then why, a few years ago, would a (hypothetical) cable company, that received an analog NTSC TV broadcast and just fed it into a booster amp ahead of splitters ahead of more boosters ahead of more splitters until it eventually reached the antenna input of a cable subscribers television, owe the station anything, as I'm sure the station would have argued?
> 
> The problem is the ridiculous notion that broadcasters using the public airwaves to send out their signal get to tell the public, in the geographic area the broadcaster is licensed to serve, how they may and may not receive that signal.


If anyone had done that, without also bundling in cable only channels, then that would have been a community antenna and so would never have been subject to retransmission fees. But that is not what cable companies did, even back in the old analog days.

Yes, broadcasters use the public airwaves, and as a member of that public, you are free to erect an antenna and receive their broadcasts. But when a company takes those broadcasts, manipulates them, and tries to make a business out of delivering them to viewers, then they are required by law to pay a licensing fee. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is the law. To avoid Aereo paying a fee, the law would have to be changed.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

JosephB said:


> I understand this. I'm actually not necessarily advocating for allowing the cable companies to carry local channels for free (although I would not oppose such a change in policy).
> 
> My argument, in the vein of this conversation regarding retrans fees, has been that the requirement that locals be placed in the very basic tier, and that I must buy that tier if I buy any other video services should be removed. Let the broadcasters charge the cable companies as much as they want. But, let me opt out of buying local channels from the cable company and put up my own antenna. That is my argument here.


It has been the policy of the federal government since the earliest days of television that local channels be given preferential treatment and their existence and viability protected. This was to provide immediate news coverage in the event of an emergency (hurricanes, floods, tornados, terrorist attacks). Again, you would need to lobby to change that policy to change the way broadcasting laws are written.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Of course they do!


Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.

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

If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.
> 
> Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.
> 
> If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.


There is a traditional monopoly as your discussing and there is a co-operative monopoly. Comcast has been telling companies like HBO to not offer their products directly to the consumer market. They can offer through it the big guys. HBO and friends know where they get the lions share of their income and they don't want to upset that cart.

Can you think of any other reason they would not offer that service directly in addition through the Cable/Sat/Phone channels. They are are afraid of retaliation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> There is a traditional monopoly as your discussing and there is a co-operative monopoly.


You can split the hairs as much as you want, but all that matters is how the government splits the hairs. If you think your definition should prevail, prove it by having the government break or regulate the monopoly you object to. I've been reading such posturing for decades, first with regard to MSOs and now with regard to ISPs. It's all fine-and-good as an intellectual exercise but if you want it acknowledged as a legitimate perspective then make your definition have merit through prevailing in the courts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.
> 
> Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.
> 
> If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.


If there is an absolute monopoly or not is not necessarily the correct question. Our laws prohibit more than just absolute monopolies. Just ask AT&T and T-Mobile; if they had combined there would have been 3 solid nationwide mobile providers, the government decided that wasn't sufficient.

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

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

Well it is pretty clear that for the vast majority of the country that isn't economically possible. Heck for large areas of Rural America it is just like electricity and telephone, if the government doesn't force coverage it isn't going to happen.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> If there is an absolute monopoly or not is not necessarily the correct question. Our laws prohibit more than just absolute monopolies.




bicker said:


> You can split the hairs as much as you want, but all that matters is how the government splits the hairs. If you think your definition should prevail, prove it by having the government break or regulate the monopoly you object to. I've been reading such posturing for decades, first with regard to MSOs and now with regard to ISPs. It's all fine-and-good as an intellectual exercise but if you want it acknowledged as a legitimate perspective then make your definition have merit through prevailing in the courts.


Like I said, I've seen folks express the uber-consumerist perspective repeatedly for decades. I know the difference between what the regulators block and what they do not.



atmuscarella said:


> Well it is pretty clear that for the vast majority of the country that isn't economically possible. Heck for large areas of Rural America it is just like electricity and telephone, if the government doesn't force coverage it isn't going to happen.


The reality is that the last thirty five years have seen less and less acceptance of government taking that sort of thing on. The fact that you wish it to, in this case, because you are a consumer in this scenario, isn't going to make the difference in the halls of government. What's necessary is a radical reversal of the trend, toward more government regulation. I don't see that happening soon.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> ...
> The reality is that the last thirty five years have seen less and less acceptance of government taking that sort of thing on. The fact that you wish it to, in this case, because you are a consumer in this scenario, isn't going to make the difference in the halls of government. What's necessary is a radical reversal of the trend, toward more government regulation. I don't see that happening soon.​


I tend to agree with you and for pay TV I am not sure I even believe there is a reasonable way for the government to increase regulations.

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

I have brother in deeply rural MN (his closest neighbor is more than a mile away and he has to go 10 miles before he gets to a corner with a few houses together) and he has access to reliable 12Mbps (he could pay for up to 25Mbps) wireless (WiMax I think) high speed internet via a directional antenna thats cost less than my DSL (which is my only option) that cannot maintain anything more than 1Mbps most evenings and I live 1.5 miles outside of a village in a fairly well populated area of Rural Western NY (there are 4 villages & about 20,000 people within 8 miles of my home).​


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


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


Perhaps, but I think that's given them too much credit. I think they're banking on advancements to make the complains go away, not necessarily caring that they get resolved in the consumer's favor. There are simply a great number of people in government today intent on allowing business to have the upper hand, over consumers, over employees, over neighbors, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I don't understand your statement above,* (Aereo isn't re-transmitting)* that is your opinion, not any fact or it would not be in the highest Court.
> 
> Why is Aereo any less re-transmitting then that of a cable co ??, You can't even put up an antenna in a sports bar without paying to show the programing to your customers. OTA is for personal use only, unless you pay for commercial use of the OTA signal. Some grey area in the Aereo case, that is why it is in the Court, IMHO they will *not* win, but that only my opinion, and I am not on the Court.


We're right back into the arguments of the case. Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is also extremely biased against Aereo, and against the law, they have come out and said that they support the broadcasters.



Diana Collins said:


> Wow. Total lack of understanding of the technology and the law.
> 
> They receive an 8VSB signal, decode it into the original MPEG 2 data, and then *retransmit* this data via IP packets (which are encoded using one of several possible streaming protocols). They only way this could NOT be a retransmission would be to deliver the 8VSB signal to the viewers TV or DVR tuners.
> 
> Therefore, they are in violation of the law. Their only hope is that the SCOTUS carves out a special exception for them on the grounds that the end result is the same as having relayed the original ATSC broadcast.


If you include the conversion of an MPEG-2 stream that is 8VSB modulated to IP packets, then a Roamio with TiVo Minis is illegal. Then Windows is illegal, as it can convert 8VSB modulated MPEG-2 to an MPEG-2 IP stream.

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

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



aaronwt said:


> I would save more money dropping all the ESPN channels than dropping the local channels. The ESPN channels cost alot more. I don't even know why there are so many ESPN channels. I only watch the main one. Yet I'm forced to pay for all the other ones that I will never watch. The local programming cost is minor compared to the cost of the ESPN channels.


The main one is the bulk of the cost. I think it's up to $6/mo. There are packages now that don't include sports programming, but they aren't very popular, as most people, like myself, need their fix of some sport that is partially broadcast on ESPN. Mine is NCAA basketball.



atmuscarella said:


> If what you are saying is that cable, Satellite, Aereo, whoever, should be able to rebroadcast OTA channels without paying a rebroadcasting fee because of the nature of OTA broadcasting (free & add supported) then I am in agreement with you.
> 
> However that is not what the current laws allow. From a cable company business point of view carrying local OTA stations is not much different than carrying any other cable only channel. The cable company pays the lowest fee possible with the one difference being the law mandates the network channels be in the basic cable package, so the cost of OTA channels has to be built into that package.





atmuscarella said:


> They have since discontinued that option, I am guessing that the locals have made "mandatory carry" part of their retransmission contract.


NO! You are getting two different things completely confused. The law does NOT force any cable company to pay anything for any channel. What the law says is that either:

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

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

That being said, as part of a private deal for carriage of cable content, I don't see why a network with numerous cable channels like NBC or ABC/ESPN couldn't force-bundle the local with the cable content...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal.


That's self-serving claptrap: The law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal. Reasonable people disagree about this, so the SCOTUS decision very well may clarify the law, not indicate bias akin to the bias exhibited in your comment. There is no question that the SCOTUS is politically biased, but not that they're biased toward some companies and against others.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> We're right back into the arguments of the case. Either the Supreme Court finds Aereo legal, or we know that they are heavily biased in favor of the broadcasters (more likely result), since the law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is completely legal....................





bicker said:


> That's self-serving claptrap: The law is very clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal.......................


If the law was very clear either way, they would not be in the supreme court. The lower court has already ruled in favor of Aereo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

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.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...If you include the conversion of an MPEG-2 stream that is 8VSB modulated to IP packets, then a Roamio with TiVo Minis is illegal. Then Windows is illegal, as it can convert 8VSB modulated MPEG-2 to an MPEG-2 IP stream...


You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well *IF* it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).

Suppose I set up a bunch of Slingboxes, wired up to some ATSC tuners, each tuned to a given channel in my area, and for $8 per month gave people access to those Slingboxes, and put up a web page so that they could select which Slingbox/channel they wanted? I guarantee that as soon as someone noticed, I'd get a cease and desist letter from the broadcasters. This is exactly what Aereo is doing, just with their own hardware instead of Slingboxes.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Diana Collins said:


> You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well *IF* it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).
> 
> Suppose I set up a bunch of Slingboxes, wired up to some ATSC tuners, each tuned to a given channel in my area, and for $8 per month gave people access to those Slingboxes, and put up a web page so that they could select which Slingbox/channel they wanted? I guarantee that as soon as someone noticed, I'd get a cease and desist letter from the broadcasters. This is exactly what Aereo is doing, just with their own hardware instead of Slingboxes.


No, that is very far away from what Aereo is doing. (I agree that your scenario is illegal).

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

The legal question is whether you are allowed to rent a remote antenna and store the signal remotely.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

bicker said:


> Like I said, I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that cable companies don't have monopolies on subscription television service. Maintaining the fiction that they do may make you feel better about your complaining, but it doesn't actually rationalize your complaining.
> 
> Remember: Monopoly has nothing to do with you personally. A company has a monopoly only when they are the only provider of a commodity in a market. The commodity that cable companies offer service in is subscription television service. You aren't a market. There isn't a single municipality in the nation where a commercial cable company has a monopoly for subscription television service.
> 
> If you insist on disagreeing, then get the government to sue on your behalf and break the monopoly. You won't be able to. Not because the government hates you. Rather: Because the cable company doesn't have a monopoly, even though you want it to be such that they do.


Where I live Time Warner has a monopoly, de facto if not de jure, on cable TV and cable internet. All the alternatives to them are something that's not cable.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> If anyone had done that, without also bundling in cable only channels, then that would have been a community antenna and so would never have been subject to retransmission fees. But that is not what cable companies did, even back in the old analog days.


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



Diana Collins said:


> Yes, broadcasters use the public airwaves, and as a member of that public, you are free to erect an antenna and receive their broadcasts. But when a company takes those broadcasts, manipulates them, and tries to make a business out of delivering them to viewers, then they are required by law to pay a licensing fee. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is the law. To avoid Aereo paying a fee, the law would have to be changed.


"Manipulate" strikes me as not a neutral, non-emotional way to describe the process.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> You are 100% correct...that would be retransmission as well *IF* it is used by anyone except the licensee (i.e. the subscriber to a cable service, or the entity that received the OTA broadcast).


This is the entire crux of the argument. That the "entity that received the OTA broadcast" is the customer, not Aereo. That effectively they are leasing you a facility and YOU are the one doing the receiving, recording, and "retransmitting".

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

Also, there's a lot of folks in this thread stating very definitively what the law is or isn't, or what is or isn't retransmission, but if any of you were actually right this case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court. You may ultimately be proven right, but right now whether or not this is legal or not is not settled.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

steve614 said:


> There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.


LOL. But since the argument is public it still matters.


bicker said:


> ......... There are simply a great number of people in government today intent on allowing business to have the upper hand, over consumers, over employees, over neighbors, whether we like it or not.


Hmmm..... not the way it looks to me. My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

dlfl said:


> LOL. But since the argument is public it still matters.
> 
> Hmmm..... not the way it looks to me. My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.


Seriously! Government is at its lowest head count in decades. Most of the remaining unemployment right now is from government workers who have been let go. At the same time consolidation is rampant in the corporate America. We used to have lots of babybells and cable companies.
Now there is Comcast/Verizon/DTV/ATT with a small smattering of others who control media distribution. They are getting as big as government.

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

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


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

JosephB said:


> This is the entire crux of the argument. That the "entity that received the OTA broadcast" is the customer, not Aereo. That effectively they are leasing you a facility and YOU are the one doing the receiving, recording, and "retransmitting".
> 
> I mean, how would this be any different from renting space in a colocation facility and putting my own Aereo or Slingbox in? Someone else is still making money off it, and I still have exclusive access to the signal.
> 
> Also, there's a lot of folks in this thread stating very definitively what the law is or isn't, or what is or isn't retransmission, but if any of you were actually right this case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court. You may ultimately be proven right, but right now whether or not this is legal or not is not settled.


Yes, this is exactly what I said a couple of pages back...there is no definition of what does or does not constitute "retransmission." Therefore it falls to the court to rule on each case.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> No, that is very far away from what Aereo is doing. (I agree that your scenario is illegal).
> 
> Aereo is capturing the signal with a particular antenna that the user is renting. It is the user's signal from the moment it is captured. Any change of form and retransmission after that is a particular user changing the form, and users are allowed to do that.
> 
> The legal question is whether you are allowed to rent a remote antenna and store the signal remotely.


So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.


I think they are banking mostly on the courts focusing on whether or not the signal is "copied", not "retransmitted", since that is a much easier concept for them to wrap their heads around. And, by giving everyone their own distinct antenna instead of "splitting" the signal from a master antenna, they are hoping that is distinct enough from cable TV (especially the origins of cable TV, MATV) and will seem like it's not "copying"


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.


Isn't one of the features of a community antenna that the broadcasts are not modified in any way, such as no insertion of advertisements?

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

A shared community antenna does have a one to many relationshop though. Each individual subscriber has no control over what comes down the wire to him. He gets it all, whether he uses it or not. With Aereo the subscriber only gets what he specifically sets up himself/herself. That is probably a significant difference.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

dlfl said:


> My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.


Just stop please with the stupid political stuff, it has no place here and has no good ending.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

unitron said:


> Where I live Time Warner has a monopoly, de facto if not de jure, on cable TV and cable internet.


That's like saying that McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.



unitron said:


> All the alternatives to them are something that's not cable.


All the alternative burgers are something that's not a Big Mac.

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



steve614 said:


> There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that.


There's no point in arguing because bicker *is* right. Folks are trying to argue that they themselves are a "market" and that the law applies to whatever commodity they specifically want it to apply to, no matter how specific they choose to make the definition of the commodity. It is ridiculous the depths some people in this thread are diving to try to rationalize misusing a loaded word like "monopoly".


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> 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.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> 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.)


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> 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.



unitron said:


> ..."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 (Aug 21, 2002)

zalusky said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2002)

lessd said:


> 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.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

lessd said:


> 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?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> 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.



aaronwt said:


> 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.



Diana Collins said:


> 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.



Diana Collins said:


> 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".



eboydog said:


> 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.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

eboydog said:


> 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 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.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> 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?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

bicker said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

eboydog said:


> ..........
> 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.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

unitron said:


> 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?


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

lessd said:


> 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.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

eboydog said:


> 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.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

lessd said:


> 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.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> 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.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> 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.



Diana Collins said:


> 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.



eboydog said:


> 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:

JosephB said:


> 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.



Bigg said:


> No. The law is very clear that it's legal.


False.



Bigg said:


> The SCOTUS will either decide to continue following the law, as it is written, or they will show extreme bias.


Self-serving claptrap.



Bigg said:


> 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).



Bigg said:


> 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.



unitron said:


> 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.



astrohip said:


> 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.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> 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?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> 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.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> 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.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> (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.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> ........
> 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?





JosephB said:


> 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.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> 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.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

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.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> 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!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JosephB said:


> 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?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

dlfl said:


> 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)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JosephB said:


> 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.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> 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?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> > 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.



dlfl said:


> 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-digital-only-phone-service-in-2-areas-1.735979

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


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

bicker said:


> 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.


Well I understand that it won't happen, but it's what I think should happen.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

There are so many more important things that should be imposed on business before making Netflix downloads less expensive for movie-watchers.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If the court rules in favor of Aereo, then the cable companies can change their infrastructure to mirror what Aereo is doing and cease all retransmission fee payments. It seems that retransmission fee payments represent approximately 10% of the revenue of a local TV station. This would have some impact on the TV stations, but they could just raise their local advertising rates and the same goes for the networks. There would be some justification for raising the advertising rates, because of the increased viewership from Aereo.

The obvious intent of the law is for the people to be able to watch OTA without paying for the content. The retransmission fee is a perversion that requires people to pay a fee for the content that is supposed to be free.

The supreme court should rule in favor of Aereo, because Aereo is clearly selling an antenna service, a dvr service and a cloud storage service. They aren't selling the content. The local TV stations can adjust their fees to make up for the loss of retransmission fee revenue.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dlfl said:


> 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?*_


Yes


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

bicker said:


> Which should naturally lead to a bifurcated discussion.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


I still have analog cable and don't have to use any cable company provided equipment, so for me satellite is not a burger.

And if I want a burger (cable), my choices are TWC, TWC, or TWC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> It seems that retransmission fee payments represent approximately 10% of the revenue of a local TV station.


I couldn't find any current info about the profit margins for local television stations, but Derek Baine, a senior analyst at SNL Kagan, said a good year for a broadcast network is a 10 percent profit margin, and I bet most local television stations have thinner margins than the big networks - especially the local television stations in generally under-served areas, i.e., those areas likely to be harmed most by failure of significant numbers of local channels.



shwru980r said:


> This would have some impact on the TV stations, but they could just raise their local advertising rates and the same goes for the networks.


That's not true. Television advertising pricing is not infinitely elastic, as you suggest.



shwru980r said:


> The obvious intent of the law is for the people to be able to watch OTA without paying for the content.


The obvious intent of what law?



shwru980r said:


> The retransmission fee is a perversion that requires people to pay a fee for the content that is supposed to be free.


The law is what sets forth the basis for retransmission fees. These two sentences combine to make me question whether you know enough about this topic to comment on it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

unitron said:


> I still have analog cable and don't have to use any cable company provided equipment


That may not be the case much longer.



unitron said:


> so for me satellite is not a burger.


It still is, even if you don't like it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> 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?


Why? It allows people to receive the "over the airwaves that belong to the public" broadcasts which they are legally entitled to receive, just with the antenna a little farther from the house.

(and Aereo subscribers, just like people with rabbit ears, can't be lured away from the broadcast offerings by whatever's on HBO or TNT or whatever, they're locked in to just the local broadcasts.)

If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, perhaps they should surrender their licenses and let local governments run the stations as local events billboards with lots of PSAs and the occasional emergency announcement as necessary.

If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, maybe their programming which they think is so popular that they can increase the fees they get from cable subscribers by threatening to withhold it isn't as popular after all.

If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, no one is obligated to help them stay in business.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> If the court rules in favor of Aereo, then the cable companies can change their infrastructure to mirror what Aereo is doing and cease all retransmission fee payments. It seems that retransmission fee payments represent approximately 10% of the revenue of a local TV station. This would have some impact on the TV stations, but *they could just raise their local advertising rates and the same goes for the networks*. There would be some justification for raising the advertising rates, because of the increased viewership from Aereo...


I'm afraid not...the broadcasters have turned to retransmission consent fees to help slow the LOSS of revenue from traditional advertising. Advertisers don't spend as much money on broadcast commercials as they used to, diverting those dollars to cable and internet advertising. I have personal knowledge of at least one major network's ad rates and they have, on average, not kept up with the rate of inflation being nearly flat for the past 5 years. Many broadcasters in smaller markets (and some larger ones too) are still in debt from the cost of digital conversion and upgrades for HD. Broadcasting is not the money making machine that some seem to think it is.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

bicker said:


> That may not be the case much longer.
> 
> It still is, even if you don't like it.


SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT CABLE IS NOT CABLE!!!

and my cable choice is TWC or no cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

unitron said:


> Why? It allows people to receive the "over the airwaves that belong to the public" broadcasts which they are legally entitled to receive, just with the antenna a little farther from the house.


Because the signal is retransmitted. If Aereo simply strung a wire from their antennas to the subscribers' homes, then you'd be correct; there would be no problem.



unitron said:


> If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, perhaps they should surrender their licenses and let local governments run the stations as local events billboards with lots of PSAs and the occasional emergency announcement as necessary.


Most people would prefer to foster broadcast OTA service as it is today, even with the retransmission fees and other means of raising revenue to pay operating costs - anything to avoid it becoming an encumbrance on the public taxpayer.



unitron said:


> If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, no one is obligated to help them stay in business.


And if Aereo cannot survive if subject to retransmission fees, then no one is obligated to help Aereo to stay in business either.



unitron said:


> SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT CABLE IS NOT CABLE!!!


Stop shouting. Read the law. Learn what "multi-channel video programming distributor" means. Shouting isn't going to suddenly make the realities you don't like go away.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> Why? It allows people to receive the "over the airwaves that belong to the public" broadcasts which they are legally entitled to receive, just with the antenna a little farther from the house...


And involving a 3rd party (Aereo) that is neither the viewing public, nor the broadcaster, and who is making money by delivering the content without permission.

That's why...and that is my opinion, just as your contrary position is your opinion. We look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. Which is why this case is in front of the Supreme Court.



unitron said:


> ...(and Aereo subscribers, just like people with rabbit ears, can't be lured away from the broadcast offerings by whatever's on HBO or TNT or whatever, they're locked in to just the local broadcasts.)...


Except for whatever they have available on their Roku, Apple TV, XBox, Playstation, etc. No one is "locked into" anything.



unitron said:


> ...If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, perhaps they should surrender their licenses and let local governments run the stations as local events billboards with lots of PSAs and the occasional emergency announcement as necessary...


Be careful what you wish for...if Aereo prevails in court, you may indeed see hundreds of TV stations surrender their licenses. Of course, it is VERY unlikely that the government would take them over...they would just go dark.



unitron said:


> ...If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, maybe their programming which they think is so popular that they can increase the fees they get from cable subscribers by threatening to withhold it isn't as popular after all...


If broadcast TV were not so popular, Aereo wouldn't be able to make a business out of delivering it to people.



unitron said:


> ...If broadcasters cannot survive just on ad revenue, no one is obligated to help them stay in business.


Obligated? No. But like it or not, the federal government has been propping up and protecting broadcast TV for decades, and this case is not going to change that. Congress sees broadcast TV as a leveling device...it ensures that viewers in the smallest town in America has access to same information and entertainment content as a viewer in the largest metropolis. Not mention that it is also the best way for them to get political advertising to the voter.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Be careful what you wish for...if Aereo prevails in court, you may indeed see hundreds of TV stations surrender their licenses. Of course, it is VERY unlikely that the government would take them over...they would just go dark.


What is more likely is simply substantially more and more time will be turned over to shop-at-home services.



Diana Collins said:


> If broadcast TV were not so popular, Aereo wouldn't be able to make a business out of delivering it to people.


It does seem that every bit of logic that people post to support Aereo's position post can be just as readily use to discredit Aereo's position.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

So, retransmission fees are (claimed to be) necessary to keep TV stations in business. Thus in effect people who have cable or satellite services are paying so people who only have antennas can see broadcast network programming (from CBS, NBC, etc), which is the major benefit, plus have the benefit of local news, emergency announcements (and political ads ).

It has been stated that congress wants it that way, and that must be true (or it wouldn't be that way). It has also been stated that this is popular with the public. I question that. Given the penetration of cable and satellite in the TV market, I wonder what a poll would show if you included in the question the fact that cable and satellite subscribers are paying several dollars a month in retransmission fees. But never mind, Congress makes the laws and they sometimes ignore popular opinion, for both valid (e.g., constitutional) and invalid (e.g., rewarding special interest contributors) reasons.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...It does seem that every bit of logic that people post to support Aereo's position post can be just as readily use to discredit Aereo's position.


Yes...different people look at the same information and draw different conclusions - the very definition of why this case ended up in court.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> So, retransmission fees are (claimed to be) necessary to keep TV stations in business. Thus in effect people who have cable or satellite services are paying so people who only have antennas can see broadcast network programming (from CBS, NBC, etc), which is the major benefit, plus have the benefit of local news, emergency announcements (and political ads ).
> 
> It has been stated that congress wants it that way, and that must be true (or it wouldn't be that way). It has also been stated that this is popular with the public. I question that. Given the penetration of cable and satellite in the TV market, I wonder what a poll would show if you included in the question the fact that cable and satellite subscribers are paying several dollars a month in retransmission fees. But never mind, Congress makes the laws and they sometimes ignore popular opinion, for both valid (e.g., constitutional) and invalid (e.g., rewarding special interest contributors) reasons.


I doubt very many people ever give copyright law, retransmission consent fees or how much broadcast locals add to their cable bill a moment's thought. The amount that retrans fees add to your cable or satellite bill is pretty small...from under a dollar in some small markets to a few dollars in really large markets. In as much as one cable channel (I'm looking at you ESPN) costs more than all the locals combined, I also doubt many people would look to their locals as a way to economize.

Picking up on a comment made earlier in the thread...

As long as we're talking about how broadcasters should be able to live without retrans fees, I question whether or not paying retrans fees would cripple Aereo. While the cable companies hate the concept of Aereo (since it encourages more cord-cutting) the broadcasters don't mind, as long as they get paid and Aereo doesn't eliminate retrans fees completely. So, if Aereo were required to pay the same rates cable providers do, the monthly fee would rise from $8 to perhaps $10. Is that going to destroy their viability in the market? I doubt it.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> It has been stated that congress wants it that way, and that must be true (or it wouldn't be that way). It has also been stated that this is popular with the public. I question that. Given the penetration of cable and satellite in the TV market, I wonder what a poll would show if you included in the question the fact that cable and satellite subscribers are paying several dollars a month in retransmission fees. But never mind, Congress makes the laws and they sometimes ignore popular opinion, for both valid (e.g., constitutional) and invalid (e.g., rewarding special interest contributors) reasons.


If cable were allowed carry the network programming directly, bypassing the locals, I suspect they would jump at the chance to do so. It would certainly be cheaper for them to take one national feed than all those locals. But would that be in line with Congress' view of "public interest"? Probably not. Would it be in line with the public's view of their own interest? Perhaps if it brought their cable bill down, but there is no guarantee it would do that. Since congress can't hold spectrum licenses over the head of cable to force local coverage, how you or I get notice of an approaching Tsunami or Tornado in that world without Local Broadcast TV?

As with most messes, it got this way organically. Something better will need to come along before it is likely to change.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> I doubt very many people ever give copyright law, retransmission consent fees or how much broadcast locals add to their cable bill a moment's thought.


If that's true, I don't see how it could be true that:


> Most people would prefer to foster broadcast OTA service as it is today, even with the retransmission fees and other means of raising revenue to pay operating costs - anything to avoid it becoming an encumbrance on the public taxpayer.


(Quoted from bicker's post #191) 


Diana Collins said:


> The amount that retrans fees add to your cable or satellite bill is pretty small...from under a dollar in some small markets to a few dollars in really large markets. In as much as one cable channel (I'm looking at you ESPN) costs more than all the locals combined, I also doubt many people would look to their locals as a way to economize.


Here is an interesting recent article from the Milwaukee Business Journal:
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2014/02/time-warner-cable-adds-225-to-bill.html?page=all
Note the retrans cost mentioned is $2.25 and Milwaukee is a relatively small market, and TWC stated this is only a portion of the total retrans fees.

Interesting quote from this:


> Retransmission fees skyrocketed from $215 million in 2006 to more than $3 billion in 2013, and are projected to eclipse $6 billion in 2018, according to research Time Warner Cable cited from media researcher SNL Kagan.


I don't see any perspective in which this can be seen as anything other than far outpacing any related statistic such as subscriber counts or revenues.



Diana Collins said:


> Picking up on a comment made earlier in the thread...
> 
> As long as we're talking about how broadcasters should be able to live without retrans fees, I question whether or not paying retrans fees would cripple Aereo. While the cable companies hate the concept of Aereo (since it encourages more cord-cutting) the broadcasters don't mind, as long as they get paid and Aereo doesn't eliminate retrans fees completely. So, if Aereo were required to pay the same rates cable providers do, the monthly fee would rise from $8 to perhaps $10. Is that going to destroy their viability in the market? I doubt it.


But (since they are hostile to Aereo) wouldn't the broadcasters hold them up for much higher fees just to kill them?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> 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.


The law is clear in what it says. The problem is that the conclusion that the law comes to is completely insane, because the law itself is completely insane in the first place. Because the technical distinction of one antenna vs. many has no practical implication, it makes the actual meaning of the law hard to stomach, but it is what it is. And it does say that what Aereo is doing is completely legal.



bicker said:


> Political bloviation (especially inane given most of the SCOTUS was appointed by Republican POTUSs).


Well, it's true. The administration's position is awful on this. I'm less and less enthusiastic about the Obama administration as time goes on. He's not a real liberal.



> 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.


I understand what it says. Anyone who puts ANY thought whatsoever into it will realize that the law, as written, makes no sense. You have to look at the background of where this crazy differentiation between antennas comes from, and realizing that the law makes no sense in the first place explains why the end result (a warehouse of tiny antennas) ends up becoming some sort of bizarre satire on how nuts the law is in the first place.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> And involving a 3rd party (Aereo) that is neither the viewing public, nor the broadcaster, and who is making money by delivering the content without permission.
> 
> That's why...and that is my opinion, just as your contrary position is your opinion. We look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. Which is why this case is in front of the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


That makes no sense.

Aereo subscribers are people who don't want to, or don't want to pay to, get TV from cable or satellite (except for getting some of it over cable modem internet), but for whatever reason have a problem with receiving OTA via an antenna at their viewing location--they're in an RF "shadow", they're too near large reflecting structures that create unsurmountable multi-path problems, they're in structures other than stand alone houses which means they can't put up an outside antenna-they just don't want to hassle with putting up an outside antenna, whatever.

These are viewers the broadcasters would not have if not for Aereo.

They aren't time-shifting or commercial avoiding any more than people with antennas who have DVRs in their houses, but broadcasters don't seem to be in a hurry to get rid of viewers who pluck their signal out of the air with all the receiving equipment in that one location (if they are, then they no longer need an FCC broadcast license).

If the court rules in Aereo's favor, they'll be saying that Aereo is different from cable when it comes to "re-transmission", or that the legal definition of "re-transmission" is such that it applies to cable but not Aereo, so a ruling in Aereo's favor will not result in cable being able to get out of paying re-transmission fees to the broadcasters.

In other words, a ruling in Aereo's favor does nothing to reduce the amount of money the broadcasters are currently getting, it just keeps them from getting even more.

Of course if the court rules against Aereo and the retrans fees are such that it destroys Aereo's business model, then the broadcasters will have just thrown away viewers, so they should be careful for what they wish.

Remember, Aereo takes the signal out of the air at no additional operating cost to the broadcaster who has to put it there anyway.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

I read somewhere recently that local broadcasters are forced to kick back some of the retrans money they get to whichever network it is with which they are affiliated.

Everywhere you turn these days, rentseekers.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

unitron said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> Aereo subscribers are people who don't want to, or don't want to pay to, get TV from cable or satellite (except for getting some of it over cable modem internet), but for whatever reason have a problem with receiving OTA via an antenna at their viewing location--they're in an RF "shadow", they're too near large reflecting structures that create unsurmountable multi-path problems, they're in structures other than stand alone houses which means they can't put up an outside antenna-they just don't want to hassle with putting up an outside antenna, whatever.
> 
> ...


The networks don't want to have any more loss of control of their public free signal than they have to. Technology does make some older laws hard to understand and interpret hence the SC, if people on this Thread could not argue so passionately on both sides of this the case, this case would have never made it to the SC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> If that's true, I don't see how it could be true that:


Because so many people are so pathologically hateful toward taxes that even ignorant of the other aspects of the issue, they will choose the option that doesn't have taxpayers paying the cost of operating television stations.



Bigg said:


> Well, it's true. The administration's position is awful on this. I'm less and less enthusiastic about the Obama administration as time goes on. He's not a real liberal.


IMHO, that's a good thing. A balancing of both sides, liberal in the interest of human decency and conservative with regard to non-essential things like ESPN and HBO.



Bigg said:


> I understand what it says.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

unitron said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> Aereo subscribers are people who don't want to, or don't want to pay to, get TV from cable or satellite (except for getting some of it over cable modem internet), but for whatever reason have a problem with receiving OTA via an antenna at their viewing location--they're in an RF "shadow", they're too near large reflecting structures that create unsurmountable multi-path problems, they're in structures other than stand alone houses which means they can't put up an outside antenna-they just don't want to hassle with putting up an outside antenna, whatever.
> 
> ...


If Aereo wins all the cable companies would need to do is setup a similar system and then they could avoid retransmission fees altogether.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

The broadcasters are NOT hostile towards Aereo...they are terrified by it's business model. If the court holds that Aereo is not reqired to pay retransmission fees, then EVERY cable and satellite system in the country will adopt the same approach. I don't see how the court can hold that Aereo is doing something different than cable except by citing the mechanics of what they are doing. That would make cable and satellite eligible to do the same and also avoid the fees. This will completely eliminate a revenue stream that the stations and networks have come to depend upon.

If, on the other hand, Aereo is found to be subject to retransmission fees then the broadcasters would embrace Aereo as a way to extend their market. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that the fees charged Aereo will exceed those paid by cable and satellite operators (indeed, they might even be less).

Whatever opinion one may have about the logic or equity of the law, retransmission fees are the result of, among other things, DVRs. There were discussions on boards just like this one, back in the late 1990's about how DVRs would erode advertising rates and that broadcasters would find some way to make up the difference. Product placements and retransmission fees were a couple of the ways they developed. You can consider retransmission fees as part of the cost of skipping commercials.

This is the fundamental concept that gets lost in most discussions on this subject. OTA broadcasts are NOT free. Inherent in the OTA model is a "contract" between the broadcaster and the government (IOW, the station's license) that grants to the broadcaster the right to use a given set of frequencies, and to insert advertising into their broadcasts to pay for the cost of operations and content development. The amount of money the station charges advertisers is directly tied to the number of viewers that actually see the advertisement. Advertisers have, for the past several years, been discounting a program's ratings by the percentage of viewers with DVRs. In 2008 only about a quarter of households had DVRs while today almost half do. Add in people watching via Netflix and Amazon, and to lesser extent Hulu, and suddenly even immensely popular shows don't bring in the advertising revenue that mediocre success did 10 years ago. That missing revenue has to come from somewhere, since it isn't getting any cheaper to run a TV station. 

Since the model where advertising paid for broadcast TV is no longer working, the only way to keep broadcasting alive was to find a different model. Just like any cable channel, the cable and satellite operators have to pay to carry the channel. That is the new business model. Forget about the "public airwaves" arguments - they are irrelevant. Forget about the fact that the broadcasts are unencrypted and free to recieve - also irrelevant. There is no such thing as "free TV" - either advertisers pay for it, or you do (or, more commonly, a bit of both).


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Because so many people are so pathologically hateful toward taxes that even ignorant of the other aspects of the issue, they will choose the option that doesn't have taxpayers paying the cost of operating television stations.
> ........


Not sure that applies to a discussion of retrans fees (which technically are not taxes), but responding to the statement per se:

So many people are hateful toward taxes because they know there are so many people, roughly 50% of federal income tax payers, who pay no net federal income tax at all, and thus are prone to favor increased spending (and thus increased debt and/or taxes) even ignorant of the other aspects of the issue -- since there is no cost to them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> The broadcasters are NOT hostile towards Aereo...they are terrified by it's business model. If the court holds that Aereo is not reqired to pay retransmission fees, then EVERY cable and satellite system in the country will adopt the same approach. I don't see how the court can hold that Aereo is doing something different than cable except by citing the mechanics of what they are doing. That would make cable and satellite eligible to do the same and also avoid the fees. This will completely eliminate a revenue stream that the stations and networks have come to depend upon.
> 
> If, on the other hand, Aereo is found to be subject to retransmission fees then the broadcasters would embrace Aereo as a way to extend their market. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that the fees charged Aereo will exceed those paid by cable and satellite operators (indeed, they might even be less).


I hope you're right but the broadcasters would know they have Aereo over a barrel and that kind of power tends to drive fees up -- just because they "need" the money and they can do it.


Diana Collins said:


> Whatever opinion one may have about the logic or equity of the law, retransmission fees are the result of, among other things, DVRs. There were discussions on boards just like this one, back in the late 1990's about how DVRs would erode advertising rates and that broadcasters would find some way to make up the difference. Product placements and retransmission fees were a couple of the ways they developed. You can consider retransmission fees as part of the cost of skipping commercials.
> 
> This is the fundamental concept that gets lost in most discussions on this subject. OTA broadcasts are NOT free. Inherent in the OTA model is a "contract" between the broadcaster and the government (IOW, the station's license) that grants to the broadcaster the right to use a given set of frequencies, and to insert advertising into their broadcasts to pay for the cost of operations and content development. The amount of money the station charges advertisers is directly tied to the number of viewers that actually see the advertisement. Advertisers have, for the past several years, been discounting a program's ratings by the percentage of viewers with DVRs. In 2008 only about a quarter of households had DVRs while today almost half do. Add in people watching via Netflix and Amazon, and to lesser extent Hulu, and suddenly even immensely popular shows don't bring in the advertising revenue that mediocre success did 10 years ago. That missing revenue has to come from somewhere, since it isn't getting any cheaper to run a TV station.
> 
> Since the model where advertising paid for broadcast TV is no longer working, the only way to keep broadcasting alive was to find a different model. Just like any cable channel, the cable and satellite operators have to pay to carry the channel. That is the new business model. Forget about the "public airwaves" arguments - they are irrelevant. Forget about the fact that the broadcasts are unencrypted and free to recieve - also irrelevant. There is no such thing as "free TV" - either advertisers pay for it, or you do (or, more commonly, a bit of both).


Even if one accepts the validity of this concept, consider this quote from an earlier post of mine:


> Retransmission fees skyrocketed from $215 million in 2006 to more than $3 billion in 2013, and are projected to eclipse $6 billion in 2018, according to research Time Warner Cable cited from media researcher SNL Kagan.


With this kind of exponential growth of fees, the business model is going to collapse of its own weight. We're going to have to find a new way to accomplish the public benefits of broadcast TV stations, instead of one that amounts to massive transfer payments from cable and satellite subscribers to antenna watchers.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> I hope you're right but the broadcasters would know they have Aereo over a barrel and that kind of power tends to drive fees up -- just because they "need" the money and they can do it...


They have cable and satellite over the same barrel. The fees charged Aereo will very likely be commensurate with those charged to Time Warner Cable or any other operator.



dlfl said:


> ...With this kind of exponential growth of fees, the business model is going to collapse of its own weight. We're going to have to find a new way to accomplish the public benefits of broadcast TV stations, instead of one that amounts to massive transfer payments from cable and satellite subscribers to antenna watchers.


I don't argue with what you're saying, but I think there is a LOT of elasticity still in the market. Even if the sum of retransmission fees reached $10 per subscriber (about 4 times or more what they average today) I don't think the model will collapse. The truth is we don't know at what price we hit the ceiling for TV entertainment. Prices have risen, across the board, quite steadily year after year. When you see what ESPN and regional sports networks are pulling in, and consider how much sports coverage (particularly pro football) is on OTA broadcast TV, I think the ceiling for retransmission consent fees is still quite a ways off.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> With this kind of exponential growth of fees, the business model is going to collapse of its own weight.


There's no reason to believe that: ESPN charges cable companies $24.4B per year - that's one channel that charges eight times as much as all the local channels combined. And there are dozens and dozens of cable channels that charge fees to multi-channel video programming distributors. The retransmission fees aren't going to break the multi-channel video programming distributors' business model.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> That makes no sense.


Wow, good catch. I missed the part about the OTA stations "going dark". First of all, they are not just going to shut down and lose millions and millions and millions of dollars as some sort of political stunt. Second of all, if for some reason they feel threatened by Aereo itself, which is a ridiculous concept, they would take a more graceful path to moving the higher value content off to affiliated cable channels, and then backfilling with low-value syndicated content that they can still make money on with an OTA distribution system. They are not just going to go dark overnight. That's crazy fear mongering talk. The networks might threaten that, but it's ultimately a (mostly) empty threat. The real threat is an increase in the pace of moving content to cable, which is already happening.



bicker said:


> IMHO, that's a good thing. A balancing of both sides, liberal in the interest of human decency and conservative with regard to non-essential things like ESPN and HBO.


The problem is, there is no truly liberal national platform or politicians, outside of a couple of representatives, but that's another story...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Unfortunately my POS Macbook Pro eat part of my post (it randomly shuts off due to a failed battery what a POS), so I'll try to get back on my original train of thought here.



Diana Collins said:


> The broadcasters are NOT hostile towards Aereo...they are terrified by it's business model. If the court holds that Aereo is not reqired to pay retransmission fees, then EVERY cable and satellite system in the country will adopt the same approach.


First of all, satellite can't, because they have to distribute with a single stream. Secondly, cable could do it, in theory, but it would require a separate VOD stream for every single sub watching a local channel, which in and of itself would be extremely bandwidth intensive. The middle of the network would be insane, in terms of bandwidth requirements, especially during something like the Super Bowl, with most of the customers in a given area all watching copies of the same thing. And then they'd have to build an antenna farm like Aereo's, but on a way bigger scale. The bottom line is that even if they could engineer something like that, *it would end up costing far more than the retransmission fees do in the first place.* The broadcasters really have nothing to worry about.



> There is no such thing as "free TV" - either advertisers pay for it, or you do (or, more commonly, a bit of both).


There is no such thing as free TV, but plenty of people still watch the commercials, and yes, some content is moving off to cable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

When will we actually have a ruling on this?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> When will we actually have a ruling on this?


June 2014


----------



## bundrell (May 2, 2014)

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).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, that was mentioned a while back in this thread. Might want to go back and read through it.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

bundrell said:


> 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).


That is currently the law now, except channels that demand carriage under must carry cannot also demand a retransmission fee.

If they allowed must-carry stations to also charge a retransmission fee, that would be ridiculous. Rates would then go through the roof, and I think that would be the straw to break the cable companies' backs


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...First of all, satellite can't, because they have to distribute with a single stream. Secondly, cable could do it, in theory, but it would require a separate VOD stream for every single sub watching a local channel, which in and of itself would be extremely bandwidth intensive...


Depends on what (legally) makes Aereo different from what cable and satellite operators are doing now, and how that is recognized and written into the Court's decision. At a minimum, they could do *exactly* what Aereo is doing, including using the internet to delivery the content. Perhaps satellite might have a problem, since they have a higher percentage of households with slow or no broadband service in their customer base, but cable could do it quite easily (or at least as easily as Aereo). Bandwidth consumption is as much a problem for Aereo as anyone else. Not to mention the possibility, if Aereo's service were to catch on, of the cable operators and other ISPs throttling Aereo's traffic to an unacceptably slow rate.

The more one looks at it, and plays out the long term ramifications, the more Aereo seems like a short term solution.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

lessd said:


> June 2014


During oral arguments, the first line of questioning was whether Aereo is a Cable Company and it was suggested then the issue might be remanded.

If the justices decide to remand we will have to wait for another appeal before having finality on this case.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Depends on what (legally) makes Aereo different from what cable and satellite operators are doing now, and how that is recognized and written into the Court's decision. At a minimum, they could do *exactly* what Aereo is doing, including using the internet to delivery the content. Perhaps satellite might have a problem, since they have a higher percentage of households with slow or no broadband service in their customer base, but cable could do it quite easily (or at least as easily as Aereo). Bandwidth consumption is as much a problem for Aereo as anyone else. Not to mention the possibility, if Aereo's service were to catch on, of the cable operators and other ISPs throttling Aereo's traffic to an unacceptably slow rate.
> 
> The more one looks at it, and plays out the long term ramifications, the more Aereo seems like a short term solution.


The whole point of Aereo, and the reason that it is legal under current law is that each subscriber gets their own fee. That's the whole point behind Aereo, and why they can legally do what they are doing.

If they used the internet, they would have to replace almost all of the STBs out there with IP-capable boxes, and then it would still use the same amount of bandwidth, as every user would still need their own feed. It just doesn't scale. No matter what format it gets to the consumer in, it doesn't scale.

Cable companies are far less incented to do this than Aereo, as Aereo doesn't pay for the last mile bandwidth, whereas if Comcast goes to an Aereo-like solution (imagine scaling Aereo for tens of millions of users- WHOA), then they have to pay for the additional bandwidth, as they forced the change, not the consumer.

With satellite, many users don't have fast enough internet or a good enough network or the right hardware to pull this off. If it was optional, the adoption rate would be low, and it would still end up costing just about as much, if not more, to do with kludgy work-around than it would to just pay the retrans fees. The only thing that broadcasters should be worried about is the satellite companies going out and putting antennas up, but Aereo has nothing to do with that.

*The bottom line is that making a kludgy Aereo-like hackaround is going to cost more than just paying retransmission fees.* There's no way around that.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The whole point of Aereo, and the reason that it is legal under current law is that each subscriber gets their own fee. That's the whole point behind Aereo, and why they can legally do what they are doing.


You have to stop saying it is* legal under current law * as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

lessd said:


> You have to stop saying it is* legal under current law * as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.


You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal *for the time being*...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.
If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal *for the time being*...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.


That's irrevocably flawed logic. It denies the possibility of people violating the law - an assertion that is patently absurd. Incorporation and granting of certification to collect taxes doesn't certify the legality of the business conducted. And the specific matter of the legality of this business is not yet through the legal process to determine whether it is legal or not. The reality is that if the SCOTUS finds that what Aereo is doing is a violation, they're not only going to have to stop doing it, but that ratifies any and all civil lawsuits that will be initiated by the local broadcasters whose signals Aereo is retransmitting, something that wouldn't be possible if what Aereo is doing isn't a violation until the SCOTUS rules against them. The fact that the local broadcasters won't be able to collect on those claims, because Aereo will be Chapter 7, doesn't obviate the fact that what they were doing was indeed a violation.



steve614 said:


> If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.


The broadcasters have already sent cease and desist orders to Aereo, but of course, to be effective they must be court orders. Isn't the refusal by the courts to grant a C&D is part of what's being appealed? UPDATED: Actually there was at least one C&D (court) order, but it was set aside, as part of the appeals process, which - again - is not yet over.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bicker said:


> That's irrevocably flawed logic. It denies the possibility of people violating the law - an assertion that is patently absurd. Incorporation and granting of certification to collect taxes doesn't certify the legality of the business conducted. And the specific matter of the legality of this business is not yet through the legal process to determine whether it is legal or not. The reality is that if the SCOTUS finds that what Aereo is doing is a violation, they're not only going to have to stop doing it, but that ratifies any and all civil lawsuits that will be initiated by the local broadcasters whose signals Aereo is retransmitting, something that wouldn't be possible if what Aereo is doing isn't a violation until the SCOTUS rules against them. The fact that the local broadcasters won't be able to collect on those claims, because Aereo will be Chapter 7, doesn't obviate the fact that what they were doing was indeed a violation.
> 
> The broadcasters have already sent cease and desist orders to Aereo, but of course, to be effective they must be court orders. Isn't the refusal by the courts to grant a C&D is part of what's being appealed? UPDATED: Actually there was at least one C&D (court) order, but it was set aside, as part of the appeals process, which - again - is not yet over.


+1


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

It ain't over 'til the fat Justice sings?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You have to stop saying it is* legal under current law * as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.


You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing? Yeah right. They designed it to comply with the law. If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, they will find Aereo legal based on them finding a loophole in the law, and will defer to Congress to re-write the law if they want to help their campaign donors who represent the big networks and screw Aereo by closing that loophole. But that is Congress's decision, not the court's.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing? Yeah right. They designed it to comply with the law. If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, they will find Aereo legal based on them finding a loophole in the law, and will defer to Congress to re-write the law if they want to help their campaign donors who represent the big networks and screw Aereo by closing that loophole. But that is Congress's decision, not the court's.


You think in a new type of business any lawyer can know for* sure *that it is legal, not even close, just look at the first VCRs, it did take the SC to say it was legal, you don't think Sony had good lawyers ?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

steve614 said:


> You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal *for the time being*...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.
> If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.


Isn't it legal because the lower court ruled in their favor?
The only way for it to become illegal is for the SC to overturn that ruling or for congress to change some things.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bigg said:


> You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing?


What seems most strange is that you seem not to realize that the explanations in every rationalization you post in Aereo's defense applies just as readily to those who filed cease and desist letters against Aereo.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ..It just doesn't scale. No matter what format it gets to the consumer in, it doesn't scale....
> 
> ...*The bottom line is that making a kludgy Aereo-like hackaround is going to cost more than just paying retransmission fees.* There's no way around that.


Both of these statements are no less true when speaking of Aereo itself (including the characterization of what Aereo does as a "kludgy hackaround."



Bigg said:


> You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing?....


Do you think the broadcasters don't have good lawyers? Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law. There have been some court decisions against Aereo, so at least some judges agree that what Aereo is doing is an infringement of copyright protections.

Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.


This is actually very true in the Aereo case. It has been ruled on differently by two different courts, one that it's legal and one that it's not. So, the law has been interpreted differently, and it is both legal and illegal for Aereo to operate, depending on which part of the country you're in.

So, just about everyone who has commented on the legality of it is technically right for now.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law.


I believe the opposite. CBS and FOX believe they can LOSE the case. That is why they are making stupid threats about moving the networks to cable. I think they view Aereo as a real threat who has the ability to crush their business by using a loophole in the law that may or may not ever get closed. Broadcast TV already isn't what it once was and Aereo has the potential to be a huge disruption only furthering the inevitable end of broadcast TV.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I believe the opposite. CBS and FOX believe they can LOSE the case. That is why they are making stupid threats about moving the networks to cable. I think they view Aereo as a real threat who has the ability to crush their business by using a loophole in the law that may or may not ever get closed. Broadcast TV already isn't what it once was and Aereo has the potential to be a huge disruption only furthering the inevitable end of broadcast TV.


Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

unitron said:


> Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?


I don't think that is the issue, the Cable systems pay the networks for re-transmission, if Aereo should win than the cable type co.s may be able to get out of paying money to the networks, that would cost them.

Remember we have a fluid legal system in our country, in the 50s ATT was legal, than they became not so legal and had to break up, Abortion was illegal in many states, then in 1973 it became legal in all states (Roe vs Wade), even Amazon.com was doing legal business with their one-click checkout , then got sued by someone because their business had used this one-click checkout before Amazon, this case is so ridiculous (IMHO) I have not followed it as I go nuts thinking about it.
The point being the USA does not have a fixed legal system for things that have never been decided in court, and also for thing that were decided in court, that later congress changed.
Two things I know for sure you can't start a business to rob banks, and with you getting the proper license from your town, you can sell lemonade on your lawn.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You think in a new type of business any lawyer can know for* sure *that it is legal, not even close, just look at the first VCRs, it did take the SC to say it was legal, you don't think Sony had good lawyers ?


They would have had to have been pretty sure to let it continue.



bicker said:


> What seems most strange is that you seem not to realize that the explanations in every rationalization you post in Aereo's defense applies just as readily to those who filed cease and desist letters against Aereo.


Not at all. The networks are just having a hissy fit because the law had a giant loophole in it, and they don't like change, so they are grasping at straws to find something to bring Aereo down.



Diana Collins said:


> Both of these statements are no less true when speaking of Aereo itself (including the characterization of what Aereo does as a "kludgy hackaround."


Aereo is totally a kludgy hackaround to exploit a loophole in the law. But that loophole is in the law, so Aereo is legal. If the broadcasters want the law changed, then they are going to need to throw some more cash to Congress to buy themselves a new law that would force Aereo to pay retrans fees.



> Do you think the broadcasters don't have good lawyers? Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law. There have been some court decisions against Aereo, so at least some judges agree that what Aereo is doing is an infringement of copyright protections.


They are delusional if they think they are right. I think they are throwing a big hissy fit and know it. Really, what they are doing is taking the first steps to then go to Congress and ask for the law to be changed, and they will have the background to say that they have gone through the process to determine what the existing law said.



> Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.


In order to support the networks' case, you have to go by the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, that's not how laws work, they work based on exactly what is written, not some interpretation of what they might have been meant to mean, even though they don't.



lessd said:


> I don't think that is the issue, the Cable systems pay the networks for re-transmission, if Aereo should win than the cable type co.s may be able to get out of paying money to the networks, that would cost them.


Not the way the law is written today. And if it were re-written, our corrupt Congress would likely tilt it far in favor of the networks, and against Aereo. At least I would hope that they would have the common sense to write into the law that Aereo automatically gets the ability to get a restrans agreement at the lowest price that the network offered it to any other provider.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?


No. They are going to bring the end of broadcast TV by eliminating carriage fees. If Aereo doesn't pay, cable companies won't pay either. They will simply copy the technology. Likely, they will even charge us MORE for the new "feature".


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> No. They are going to bring the end of broadcast TV by eliminating carriage fees. If Aereo doesn't pay, cable companies won't pay either. They will simply copy the technology. Likely, they will even charge us MORE for the new "feature".


So are the cable companies going to come up with a new type of set-top box so they can "internet" the local channels to their subscribers? Will it replace the ones people have to rent from them now?

Trying to integrate that with the current boxes and cable supplied DVRs would be a support nightmare, I'd think, especially if it meant 2 cable company remote controls to have to keep up with.

They can't plan on all of their customers being savvy enough to hook a computer up to their TVs.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Not at all. The networks are just having a hissy fit because the law had a giant loophole in it, and they don't like change, so they are grasping at straws to find something to bring Aereo down.


That's nothing more than a self-serving bit of claptrap with no basis in the facts, the law, or the industry.

You want Aereo to win. Message received. Stop trying to make it sound - even to yourself - like they have got to win. All you're doing, in doing so, is setting yourself up for a much bigger disappointment, and a much steeper climb down the hill of your previous comments, should they lose. This isn't morality or religion we're talking about - this is business. And so the Kipling maxim applies: "Trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too."


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...In order to support the networks' case, you have to go by the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, that's not how laws work, they work based on exactly what is written, not some interpretation of what they might have been meant to mean, even though they don't...


In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they _[the lawmakers]_ might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they _[the lawmakers]_ might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.


The ACA is a good example of what you just said, as the SC said that a *penalty* that the ACA calls for in *plane English *is not a penalty at all, it is a tax, congress just did not know the difference when they passed the ACA, but the SC did know what congress meant as a penalty would not have been legal, so the SC changed the word in the ACA law from penalty to tax.
Our legal is great, is it not !!!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> So are the cable companies going to come up with a new type of set-top box so they can "internet" the local channels to their subscribers? Will it replace the ones people have to rent from them now?
> 
> Trying to integrate that with the current boxes and cable supplied DVRs would be a support nightmare, I'd think, especially if it meant 2 cable company remote controls to have to keep up with.
> 
> They can't plan on all of their customers being savvy enough to hook a computer up to their TVs.


The STB part of it is the least of the issues. It could be seamlessly integrated to the user. But, as I have explained in previous posts, it makes no sense from a network standpoint. It would cost tens of millions if not more in network architecture and bandwidth build-outs to save millions on carriage fees. The math just doesn't work out on this luny idea.



bicker said:


> That's nothing more than a self-serving bit of claptrap with no basis in the facts, the law, or the industry.
> 
> You want Aereo to win. Message received. Stop trying to make it sound - even to yourself - like they have got to win. All you're doing, in doing so, is setting yourself up for a much bigger disappointment, and a much steeper climb down the hill of your previous comments, should they lose. This isn't morality or religion we're talking about - this is business. And so the Kipling maxim applies: "Trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too."


I have no hill to climb down if the lose. My personal opinion is that they will lose. However, the court either follows the existing law, as written, and Aereo wins, or they in effect legislate from the bench and bow to the corporate interests, and the networks win. If the court wants to follow the law, then they have to rule in favor of Aereo, as the law is extremely clear in what it says. I find it abhorrent that the administration, whom I originally supported but have cooled off to post-2008, supports Obama's corporate buddies in the business, and not the law. He, as a lawyer, should know better, although maybe he hasn't actually reviewed all the law himself (I hope he hasn't considering that he has far more important things to do).

The court should give an option to Congress, like they did with Net Neutrality, except here the corrupt corporate interests would be on the other side of the legislation, to go and change the law, but they should follow the law as written in their decision and deem Aereo legal under current law. Then Aereo and the networks can go battle it out in Congress. The networks will probably keep throwing hissy fits all over the place, but in reality, it doesn't really affect them. If anything, Aereo helps them out a bit.



Diana Collins said:


> In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they _[the lawmakers]_ might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.


If the law says what the law says, then that's what it says. Not what someone might have meant it to say. Computers aren't that sophisticated yet. And what the law says is that Aereo is legal in the United States.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> If the law says what the law says, then that's what it says. Not what someone might have meant it to say. Computers aren't that sophisticated yet. And what the law says is that Aereo is legal in the United States.


What Obama did with the ADA act must drive you nuts if you feel the law is the law, it not and never has been, it only a suggestion until the court (or our President) gets involved. Lawyers earn their living giving their option as to what the law means and what they think you can do, it works unless challenged in court and the lawyers don't win.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bigg said:


> However, the court either follows the existing law, as written, and Aereo wins, or they in effect legislate from the bench and bow to the corporate interests, and the networks win.


That's nothing but claptrap. "If it doesn't go my way, someone did something wrong." Ridiculous. It's no different from blind dogma. Reasonable people have already explained to you how either side could win on the merits.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

lessd said:


> *plane English *


As opposed to, say, English used on a bus or train?

*ducking*


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...If the law says what the law says, then that's what it says. Not what someone might have meant it to say. Computers aren't that sophisticated yet. And what the law says is that Aereo is legal in the United States.


That's so naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Obviously, you have no understanding of what the law represents or how it works. The law is recorded in words, and practically every word in the English language has multiple meanings. Therefore, laws need to be interpreted.

As to computer sophistication, your view of the law doesn't require sophistication. According to you the law is a series a checkboxes - you either follow the letter of the law or you have broken the law. It seems that your view of the law requires nothing more sophisticated than a series of logic gates.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> That's so naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Obviously, you have no understanding of what the law represents or how it works. The law is recorded in words, and practically every word in the English language has multiple meanings. Therefore, laws need to be interpreted.


Precisely. In addition, laws are worded to reflect what is understood to be the matters of contention at the time the laws are written. Lawmakers don't have crystal balls so that they can be sure to word every law so that it is clear and definitive with regard to every context of every aspect of society far in the future. The judiciary is an equal partner in our society, along with the executive branch and the legislative branch, because of critical their role is. If it was a simple matter of lexicographical analysis, it would be an administrative role of the executive branch, instead of a peer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> That's so naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Obviously, you have no understanding of what the law represents or how it works. The law is recorded in words, and practically every word in the English language has multiple meanings. Therefore, laws need to be interpreted.
> 
> As to computer sophistication, your view of the law doesn't require sophistication. According to you the law is a series a checkboxes - you either follow the letter of the law or you have broken the law. It seems that your view of the law requires nothing more sophisticated than a series of logic gates.


Interpreted, not just BS'ed. It's very clear what the law currently says in regards to Aereo. Comprehending English can be done to a certain extent with a computer, but not totally.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Interpreted, not just BS'ed. It's very clear what the law currently says in regards to Aereo. Comprehending English can be done to a certain extent with a computer, but not totally.


You don't seem to understand our justice system, no matter how clear the law is (or you think it is) it can be changed by the courts, or in some cases the President of the country, just look at the ACA law and how much the SC and the President changed the law because it made sense to them to make such changes.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Please stop with the ACA political asides, this is not the place for it.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Interpreted, not just BS'ed. It's very clear what the law currently says in regards to Aereo. Comprehending English can be done to a certain extent with a computer, but not totally.


So now it is clear you don't understand how computers work, as well as not understanding how the legal system works.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Please stop with the ACA political asides, this is not the place for it.


I don't care about the ACA itself (I am over 65) only that it is well known law and shows an example of the fungibility a law as written can be subject to.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Interpreted, not just BS'ed. It's very clear what the law currently says in regards to Aereo. Comprehending English can be done to a certain extent with a computer, but not totally.


Alright, point to the exact section in copyright law that specifically allows Aereo to do what they are doing.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Alright, point to the exact section in copyright law that specifically allows Aereo to do what they are doing.


I would assume it is not about what section allows it but what section disallows what Aereo is doing. The pertinent sections seems to be 110 and 111 although both are open to interpretation which is why the Supreme Court is involved.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision and find the obvious that Aereo is completely legal, and Congress needs to write laws for their corporate overlords if their corporate overlords want to squash innovation, but I fear the opposite.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm surprised so many people seem to want Aereo to lose. Whether you think it's legal or not, they are the only virtual DVR that I'm aware of. What they have done is truly innovative and the television industry should be admiring them, not shunning them.

We all watched the music industry begin to implode when they tried to resist innovation. The same will happen to TV and movies. Networks should be bending over backwards to get people to watch their content. Ratings are down year over year. 

They are fighting over money they receive from people who don't even watch their crap. Fools.....


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aadam101 said:


> I'm surprised so many people seem to want Aereo to lose. Whether you think it's legal or not, they are the only virtual DVR that I'm aware of.


Cablevision has a network DVR service in the field (that they were sued over, incidentally) and TiVo offers such a product, but no one has rolled it out yet.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> I'm afraid not...the broadcasters have turned to retransmission consent fees to help slow the LOSS of revenue from traditional advertising. Advertisers don't spend as much money on broadcast commercials as they used to, diverting those dollars to cable and internet advertising. I have personal knowledge of at least one major network's ad rates and they have, on average, not kept up with the rate of inflation being nearly flat for the past 5 years. Many broadcasters in smaller markets (and some larger ones too) are still in debt from the cost of digital conversion and upgrades for HD. Broadcasting is not the money making machine that some seem to think it is.


I read that the retransmission fees only represent 10% of their revenue.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Whole lotta smeekin' goin' on.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I'm surprised so many people seem to want Aereo to lose. Whether you think it's legal or not, they are the only virtual DVR that I'm aware of. What they have done is truly innovative and the television industry should be admiring them, not shunning them.
> 
> We all watched the music industry begin to implode when they tried to resist innovation. The same will happen to TV and movies. Networks should be bending over backwards to get people to watch their content. Ratings are down year over year.
> 
> *They are fighting over money they receive from people who don't even watch their crap. * Fools.....


Yeah, it's called rent seeking, I think.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> I'm surprised so many people seem to want Aereo to lose. Whether you think it's legal or not, they are the only virtual DVR that I'm aware of. What they have done is truly innovative and the television industry should be admiring them, not shunning them.
> 
> We all watched the music industry begin to implode when they tried to resist innovation. The same will happen to TV and movies. Networks should be bending over backwards to get people to watch their content. Ratings are down year over year.
> 
> They are fighting over money they receive from people who don't even watch their crap. Fools.....


I don't think anyone WANTS Aereo to lose (I certainly don't) but the reality is that they probably will, since what they are doing skirts so close to the line, legally, that the justices will opt to maintain the status quo and tell Aereo they have to pay retransmission fees.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> I read that the retransmission fees only represent 10% of their revenue.


*ONLY* 10%. How would your household budget take it if your income were cut 10%? A reduction in revenue of 10% is pretty significant, particularly for an industry where the net profit is less than that (IOW, without that revenue they slip into the red).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I want people who create things to control how much money for-profit middlemen can make off of those creations.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

bicker said:


> I couldn't find any current info about the profit margins for local television stations, but Derek Baine, a senior analyst at SNL Kagan, said a good year for a broadcast network is a 10 percent profit margin, and I bet most local television stations have thinner margins than the big networks - especially the local television stations in generally under-served areas, i.e., those areas likely to be harmed most by failure of significant numbers of local channels.
> 
> That's not true. Television advertising pricing is not infinitely elastic, as you suggest.
> 
> ...


I wasn't addressing the profit margin of local stations. I was looking at the percentage of total revenue that retransmission fees represent. If the retransmission fees represent a small percentage of total revenue, then the revenue reduction is not significant.

I believe I was suggesting finite elasticity of advertising revenue based on the 
additional viewers added by Aereo.

I think the law requires free OTA signals. Another law authorizes the local stations to charge a retransmission fee. Ultimately the retransmission fees are passed on to the cable/satellite company customers. I believe this is a perversion, because the intent was for the public to be able to view the OTA channels for free.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> I wasn't addressing the profit margin of local stations. I was looking at the percentage of total revenue that retransmission fees represent.


What is the point in considering _anything _about a business without considering its impact on the business?



shwru980r said:


> > Derek Baine, a senior analyst at SNL Kagan, said a good year for a broadcast network is a 10 percent profit margin, and I bet most local television stations have thinner margins than the big networks - especially the local television stations in generally under-served areas, i.e., those areas likely to be harmed most by failure of significant numbers of local channels.
> 
> 
> If the retransmission fees represent a small percentage of total revenue, then the revenue reduction is not significant.


If the retransmission fees make the difference between the business concern being worthwhile or not, then it is significant. Without having numbers that refute the implication of Baine's numbers, your logic not only is poor, but leads you to the wrong conclusion.



shwru980r said:


> I think the law requires free OTA signals.


That's not the case, and so it only makes one wonder how many _other _of your assumptions are as wrong as that one.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

The intent of nearly all telecommunications law with regard to local television broadcasts has been to protect, nurture and encourage local broadcasters. Congress has long seen local television broadcasts as important as a source of news, emergency information and public service (the fact that they run political ads doesn't hurt either). The broadcasters are required by law to devote a certain percentage of their broadcast hours to news and/or public affairs content. In return for this stipulation (and some rather hefty license fees) the broadcasters were allowed to use the airwaves to deliver their content to everyone's home. None of this has anything to do with retransmission of the content. The broadcaster sends it across the airwaves, viewers erect antennas, receive the signals and then are free to do with the signals what they please, as long as they use it for their own, private, non-commercial (i.e. non-money-making) purposes.

Cable and satellite companies take this content (sometimes received via antenna, sometimes fed directly from the broadcaster) and bundle it with a bunch of cable content and sell that as a service. Since this is commercial (i.e. money making) use of the content, the cable and satellite operators are required to pay the broadcasters a fee (since the cable and satellite operators are making money of a package that contains other people's copyrighted material they must share that revenue with the copyright holders).

The key distinction here is that the first paragraph above deals with a SIGNAL, while the second deal with CONTENT. No one says the viewer must pay a fee to receive the broadcaster's signal. That is established law. The issue here is that Aereo is receiving the *signal *(as is their right) and then retransmitting the *content* and/or recording it for later viewing. Most significantly, they are charging viewers for the privledge. Since they are making money by distributing someone else's copyrighted material they must pay a fee to the copyright holder. This is also established law.

The dispute that the SCOTUS has been asked to resolve is whether or not Aereo is, under the law, the entity receiving the content, or are they actually selling a physical space to keep an antenna and the viewer is actually doing the receiving. Were a single antenna assigned *permanently* to a single viewer, they would be on stronger ground. However, when viewer A stops using the antenna, that antenna (and all the attached computing and storage equipment) can be used by viewer B. The broadcasters maintain that this makes it a content delivery service, not a community antenna.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Were a single antenna assigned *permanently* to a single viewer, they would be on stronger ground.


I disagree. Earlier you made the point about the difference between signal and content. Aereo would be on defensible ground if they were passing along the broadcaster's signal, instead of extracting the content out of the signal, and passing that along to the customer.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Do you two (bicker and Diana Collins), and/or the law, have agreed-upon definitions of 'signal' and 'content'? From a technical standpoint there seems to be room for ambiguity. For example, does 'signal' mean the radio-frequency carrier modulated, for example using 8-VSB modulation with the transport stream that defines the video signal? (Or content?). Does 'content' mean the entire sequence of video, including commercials? Or does it mean just program content, which is the case in some contexts?

Any further discussion without clear definitions is of questionable value.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

rainwater said:


> I would assume it is not about what section allows it but what section disallows what Aereo is doing. The pertinent sections seems to be 110 and 111 although both are open to interpretation which is why the Supreme Court is involved.


Technically, the way the law is written, everything invoking copyrighted material is illegal, then exceptions are carved out. The question is whether any of the exceptions carved out for sports bars and Superbowl parties also apply to Aereo.

But there is no section that says what Aereo is doing is legal, as some erroneously continue to argue.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> I wasn't addressing the profit margin of local stations. I was looking at the percentage of total revenue that retransmission fees represent. If the retransmission fees represent a small percentage of total revenue, then the revenue reduction is not significant.
> 
> I believe I was suggesting finite elasticity of advertising revenue based on the
> additional viewers added by Aereo.
> ...


And they can view them for free. But in the case of cable, they are not receiving them OTA. People aren't being forced to use cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Aereo doesn't even dispute the fact that they're retransmitting. They're simply claiming that they're allowed to retransmit without permission or payment. They're claiming that they're not streaming content, but they are, just like online music services and just like remote DVR services. Let's not lose sight of the actual issue being decided: Aereo is essentially claiming that they are allowed to retransmit the signal, even without paying license for it initially (neither in the manner online music services pay license, nor in the manner providers of remote DVR services pay license).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Do you two (bicker and Diana Collins), and/or the law, have agreed-upon definitions of 'signal' and 'content'? From a technical standpoint there seems to be room for ambiguity. For example, does 'signal' mean the radio-frequency carrier modulated, for example using 8-VSB modulation with the transport stream that defines the video signal? (Or content?). Does 'content' mean the entire sequence of video, including commercials? Or does it mean just program content, which is the case in some contexts?
> 
> Any further discussion without clear definitions is of questionable value.


There are no clear definitions on purpose. The law actually refers to the word "performance", which is "an act of staging or presenting a play, concert, or other form of entertainment" (Google.com). It's basically any performance, even if different actors and/or musicians are used. It's why tribute bands pay royalties and why I can't reenact each full episode of "Game of Thrones" and post it on Youtube.

The only reason Aereo is still in business today is because a lower court took an extremely broad interpretation of the previous Cablevision cloud-DVR case:

1. It ruled that simultaneously transmitting identical copies of the same performance 1,000 times to 1,000 different people did not constitute a public performance because it was one copy per person. But Aereo itself can be seen as retransmitting the performance to the public _in general_, with each performance essentially the same, and therefore you can argue that what Aereo is doing must be a single public performance.

2. The consumer generally does not have the right to allow an unapproved (licensed by the content owner) third party to record or retransmit the performance for them. I don't think SCOTUS will "go there", because it might have unintended consequences. But everything is illegal in copyright law unless a specific exception (or SCOTUS ruling) has been granted, and there's no exception for this. Note that your cable company could offer a cloud-based DVR service, as cable companies are specifically excluded in copyright law and have been approved by the networks to retransmit their performances. Tivo is still covered because in-home video time shifting is covered in the Betamax case. But for Aereo, they are not approved and their time shifting does not occur within the home.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Do you two (bicker and Diana Collins), and/or the law, have agreed-upon definitions of 'signal' and 'content'? From a technical standpoint there seems to be room for ambiguity. For example, does 'signal' mean the radio-frequency carrier modulated, for example using 8-VSB modulation with the transport stream that defines the video signal? (Or content?). Does 'content' mean the entire sequence of video, including commercials? Or does it mean just program content, which is the case in some contexts?
> 
> Any further discussion without clear definitions is of questionable value.


A legal definition? No.

But the point I was trying to make is that all of the rules allowing individuals to receive and record broadcast content without additional charge is based upon the _reception of a signal, not access to the content._ Obviously, once received, the content is governed by regular copyright law. In the case of video content, this allows the individual to view, record and playback the content for their own personal enjoyment within the home. This is sometimes referred to (somewhat inaccurately) as "fair use." Any public display or re-transmission of the content, particularly in conjunction with a commercial enterprise, is prohibited without the express written consent of the copyright holder. This is why bars pay more for cable and satellite than an individual pays for the same content. In other words, once the broadcast has been received, the content is no longer "free to use" by anyone other than the original viewer.

There is no such thing as "free" access to the broadcasters' content, only to the broadcast signal. Copyright law ALWAYS applies.

If the receiving entity is NOT an individual, but rather a commercial enterprise of any kind, then there is no law, rule, judgement or judicial opinion that allows the reception and use of public broadcasts without the express written consent of the copyright holder.

Therefore, it would seem that the only basis upon which the Court could find that Aereo is NOT violating copyright law is to find that Aereo is not receiving, using or re-transmitting the content. IMHO, that is a very difficult conclusion to draw, based upon the technology used and some of the statements made (some of Aereo's own comments included).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Comcast is supposed to be using a cloud based dvr in Philly and Chicago with their X2 platform. And soon they plan to roll it out in other areas.

And when I had a BoxeeTV 1.5 years ago, it also had a cloud based Dvr. I tried it out with hundreds of recordings in the cloud.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

In Aereo's case, the cloud-based DVR makes sense, with MPEG-4 delivery over the internet, but for a cable company, the cloud-based DVR is idiotic, as it is a total waste of bandwidth that could be used for more channels, faster internet, and better HD quality. It also gives the user even less control. Obviously the idea situation is the customer owning their own DVR, like we all do.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> In Aereo's case, the cloud-based DVR makes sense, with MPEG-4 delivery over the internet, but for a cable company, the cloud-based DVR is idiotic, as it is a total waste of bandwidth that could be used for more channels, faster internet, and better HD quality. It also gives the user even less control. Obviously the idea situation is the customer owning their own DVR, like we all do.


From the cable company's perspective, a cloud based DVR saves a ton of money. No local DVR need be purchased, stocked, delivered, installed, refurbished or supported. The DVR is just a piece of software running at their facility. The fact that it also gives them control of playback (they can sell "no skip" protection to advertisers) and the ability to gather truly accurate stats of what is recorded, and how it is watched (great data to sell back to broadcasters and advertisers) are both bonus benefits. Far from being "idiotic," it is a potentially large source of both additional income and reduced cost. That's the Holy Grail of business investments.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> it is a potentially large source of both additional income and reduced cost.


They will also make sure consumers pay MORE for it. It's win win for them.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, yet another reason for them to hate Cablecard, or any standard IP access method that takes away control of the user experience.

It's a damn shame that the FCC keeps letting them foot-drag out a card successor, it's not like it's rocket science.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> From the cable company's perspective, a cloud based DVR saves a ton of money. No local DVR need be purchased, stocked, delivered, installed, refurbished or supported. The DVR is just a piece of software running at their facility. The fact that it also gives them control of playback (they can sell "no skip" protection to advertisers) and the ability to gather truly accurate stats of what is recorded, and how it is watched (great data to sell back to broadcasters and advertisers) are both bonus benefits. Far from being "idiotic," it is a potentially large source of both additional income and reduced cost. That's the Holy Grail of business investments.


They still need local boxes to be the endpoints, and now on top of that, they have to pay to run a huge farm of servers that before they just paid for once, handed out, and the customer had to pay for electricity and cooling. They could control playback on an MSO-provided DVR if they really wanted to. They control everything on the box.

The bottom line though, is that it's a massive waste of bandwidth. It's like VOD-izing everything from a network perspective, and it requires a huge investment in node-splitting just to support the bandwidth to do it during peak usage hours. Even VOD is a huge waste of bandwidth, although stupid customers seem to like it, since apparently having a TiVo or DVR with Season Passes is too complicated for a lot of people.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The bottom line though, is that it's a massive waste of bandwidth. It's like VOD-izing everything from a network perspective, and it requires a huge investment in node-splitting just to support the bandwidth to do it during peak usage hours. Even VOD is a huge waste of bandwidth, although stupid customers seem to like it, since apparently having a TiVo or DVR with Season Passes is too complicated for a lot of people.


Or VOD is used for people that hear about a good program after it played, or a news break-in caused the loss of a recorded program, I don't use VOD much but it is handy to have if I don't have to pay extra for it.

If cable takes control of what we watch not when we watch than commercials will be in the picture as they are with VOD in many cases. Commercial skip is one of the important reasons I have a TiVo.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> They still need local boxes to be the endpoints,


This could be done via a Roku or other cheap device (even a $35 Chromecast). Of course with a cable company a Chromecast would cost $8 per month.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The companies in this space employ value-based pricing.


> The term is used when prices are based on the value of a product as perceived from the customer's perspective. The perceived value determines the customer's willingness to pay and thus the maximum price a company can charge for its product.


http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=value_based-pricing

With value-based pricing, none of the measures discussed with affect the pricing in the long-term, since only making the product less valuable would lower pricing, overall. What we're talking about, therefore, is just moving the cost around, from one bill to some other bill.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> The companies in this space employ value-based pricing.http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=value_based-pricing
> 
> With value-based pricing, none of the measures discussed with affect the pricing in the long-term, since only making the product less valuable would lower pricing, overall. What we're talking about, therefore, is just moving the cost around, from one bill to some other bill.


Interestingly enough, I hear very few people refer to their cable bill as "good value". Pretty much everyone is disgusted at the cost based on what they are actually receiving.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Interestingly enough, I hear very few people refer to their cable bill as "good value". Pretty much everyone is disgusted at the cost based on what they are actually receiving.


I would say mine is a good value compared to what it cost and the channels I had in the early 2000s with DirecTV. I pay 30% less now with FiOs than I did back then. Plus I have many more channels and many many times the number of HD channels that I had back then.

There is no question it's a better value for me now than it was in the early 2000s


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> They still need local boxes to be the endpoints, and now on top of that, they have to pay to run a huge farm of servers that before they just paid for once, handed out, and the customer had to pay for electricity and cooling. They could control playback on an MSO-provided DVR if they really wanted to. They control everything on the box.
> 
> The bottom line though, is that it's a massive waste of bandwidth. It's like VOD-izing everything from a network perspective, and it requires a huge investment in node-splitting just to support the bandwidth to do it during peak usage hours. Even VOD is a huge waste of bandwidth, although stupid customers seem to like it, since apparently having a TiVo or DVR with Season Passes is too complicated for a lot of people.


The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

JosephB said:


> The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)


 *prevent you from FF through ads*, That would be a killer for me, I would most likely go to all premium Ch. without ads.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JosephB said:


> The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)


But right now, the way the cloud DVRs work, is that they each have a separate recording for each DVR. They don't share recordings between people. I thought they found that it was illegal to share the recording anyway? Which was the reason that there were using individual recordings for each DVR.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> But right now, the way the cloud DVRs work, is that they each have a separate recording for each DVR. They don't share recordings between people. I thought they found that it was illegal to share the recording anyway? Which was the reason that there were using individual recordings for each DVR.


Right, but eventually they'll get to the "utopia" of one recording for everyone. They just have to work out the licensing, which the programmers will want to do in order to get things like no fast forward through commercials. Cablevision got sued because they didn't ask for permission first.

Eventually non-live events will just be VOD, and they'll just be made available for viewing at a predetermined time. There won't even be any recording involved.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> But right now, the way the cloud DVRs work, is that they each have a separate recording for each DVR. They don't share recordings between people. I thought they found that it was illegal to share the recording anyway? Which was the reason that there were using individual recordings for each DVR.


My guess is that they are still using deduplication on the backend SAN which would roughly achieve the same space savings but let each user still have their own "copy".

Scott


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> But right now, the way the cloud DVRs work, is that they each have a separate recording for each DVR. They don't share recordings between people. I thought they found that it was illegal to share the recording anyway? Which was the reason that there were using individual recordings for each DVR.


Logical baby steps towards the desired goal of one copy.

First, you have one copy per consumer. Argue it's no different than if the consumer recorded it. Get folks used to that idea.

Then, you happen to store them on a storage medium that does dynamic deduplication. It's logically the same as storing separate copies, the disk is just smart enough to detect and merge duplicate data into references. Get folks used to that idea.

Then after some time, you change your architecture to simply save one copy. It's logically the same as saving multiple copies on deduplicating storage. And you've snuck your way across the finish line.

How the model eventually works out bandwidth wise (+/-) I have no idea. I've read too many disparate analysis's, both here and elsewhere to have an opinion on which is right. But the storage side is absolutely obtainable over the next decade as long as it's done in baby steps.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

JosephB said:


> provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)


If anything the networks and cable companies have shown they DON'T want to allow access across devices. They have discriminated based on device. I can't access HBO or Showtime on Roku just because Comcast chooses not to allow it. I have to assume Comcast extorted money out of other companies and Roku wouldn't pay up. There is no reason whatsoever not to allow it, other than Comcast wants to be a D***.

The networks have engaged in the same practices by not allowing network owned Hulu to be viewed on mobile browser even though there is no technical limitation.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aadam101 said:


> If anything the networks and cable companies have shown they DON'T want to allow access across devices. They have discriminated based on device. I can't access HBO or Showtime on Roku just because Comcast chooses not to allow it. I have to assume Comcast extorted money out of other companies and Roku wouldn't pay up. There is no reason whatsoever not to allow it, other than Comcast wants to be a D***.
> 
> The networks have engaged in the same practices by not allowing network owned Hulu to be viewed on mobile browser even though there is no technical limitation.


Well, obviously they will make you pay for it, but that doesn't mean it won't be an option or that the architecture to allow that to happen isn't where they're headed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Interestingly enough, I hear very few people refer to their cable bill as "good value".


If you pay a bill for teevee that you don't think is a good value, you're crazy.



aadam101 said:


> Pretty much everyone is disgusted at the cost based on what they are actually receiving.


People love to complain. Talk is cheap; gauge people's true feelings by their actions.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Interestingly enough, I hear very few people refer to their cable bill as "good value". Pretty much everyone is disgusted at the cost based on what they are actually receiving.


Considering that people are only averaging watching 17 channels out of the 100 or more they receive, I think they're mostly disgusted with having to pay for all the others.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

unitron said:


> Considering that people are only averaging watching 17 channels out of the 100 or more they receive, I think they're mostly disgusted with having to pay for all the others.


I find it hard to tell, with triple play, what I pay for each service, my package starts at $139 inc HBO STZ and 100Mb/s internet. With a 2nd full tel line and 4 cable cards and all extra taxes etc. the total cost does come out to $190/month. I was paying ATT about $89 for both my land lines when I switched to Comcast many years ago.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lessd said:


> I find it hard to tell, with triple play, what I pay for each service...


I'm pretty sure that's absolutely intentional on their part.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> If you pay a bill for teevee that you don't think is a good value, you're crazy.
> 
> People love to complain. Talk is cheap; gauge people's true feelings by their actions.


Looks like people are acting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-fall-for-first-time-as-streaming-gains.html


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> I find it hard to tell, with triple play, what I pay for each service, my package starts at $139 inc HBO STZ and 100Mb/s internet. With a 2nd full tel line and 4 cable cards and all extra taxes etc. the total cost does come out to $190/month. I was paying ATT about $89 for both my land lines when I switched to Comcast many years ago.


On FiOS it's written down on your monthly bill. There is no confusion what each product costs with the triple or quadruple play. Since they specifically break out the costs for you after showing what your bundle price is. Then they apply any discounts you have. Of course it didn't used to be this way. But it's been this way for awhile now.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> On FiOS it's written down on your monthly bill. There is no confusion what each product costs with the triple or quadruple play. Since they specifically break out the costs for you after showing what your bundle price is. Then they apply any discounts you have. Of course it didn't used to be this way. But it's been this way for awhile now.


Comcast does not do that but I would guess the discount depends on you getting the triple play.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

unitron said:


> Considering that people are only averaging watching 17 channels out of the 100 or more they receive, I think they're mostly disgusted with having to pay for all the others.


Which is, of course, irrational, on _two _levels. If 17 channels are worth $X, then surely 117 channels are worth $X (along with the fact that if neither is worth $X then of course they wouldn't be paying for cable).



aadam101 said:


> Looks like people are acting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. It doesn't. That's the point. The decrease is so slight that it is best for the industry to keep things as they are. I suspect that subscriptions would have to decrease by at least 1% to even be worthy of being discussed (the decrease is far less than that), and even then it would have to be apart from any migration to a higher cost broadband plan.

Furthermore, remember that much of the packaging is imposed by the content distributors: "You must carry X Y and Z on the basic package if you want to offer A." So that won't change unless people cutting the cord actually stop watching A (the valuable channel, i.e., ESPN). If people get the channels through some other means, where the distributor gets roughly the same amount for A that they got for X Y Z and A through cable, it's fine by them.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Or VOD is used for people that hear about a good program after it played, or a news break-in caused the loss of a recorded program, I don't use VOD much but it is handy to have if I don't have to pay extra for it.
> 
> If cable takes control of what we watch not when we watch than commercials will be in the picture as they are with VOD in many cases. Commercial skip is one of the important reasons I have a TiVo.


Usually stuff is re-run. I suppose on a rare occasion it could be useful for that.

That's the problem. Many VOD streams already are no-FF. And they also control when the show is available, and for how long. With TiVo, it's whenever I want it to be.



aadam101 said:


> This could be done via a Roku or other cheap device (even a $35 Chromecast). Of course with a cable company a Chromecast would cost $8 per month.


Unlikely that it would work very well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)


Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.



aaronwt said:


> A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.


ESPN has just about everything on their channel. It's nearly impossible to avoid ESPN at some point, no matter what sport you're following. NBA, NCAA basketball, and NFL covers just about everyone. It's a smart strategy for ESPN, as so many people have to have ESPN.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.


You keep thinking about it in terms of how the world is today. In 15 years, the industry will be completely different and TiVo as we know it won't exist.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.


The question is what is ESPN attached to. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney insisted on packaging some subset of ESPN, Disney (Disney Jr., Disney XD), ABC Family, Lifetime, A&E, History, Biography, H2, Military, and/or C&I. Folks from four or five constituencies are going to pay $7-$9 for "their" channel, and get the other channels included.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> They still need local boxes to be the endpoints, and now on top of that, they have to pay to run a huge farm of servers that before they just paid for once, handed out, and the customer had to pay for electricity and cooling. They could control playback on an MSO-provided DVR if they really wanted to. They control everything on the box.
> 
> The bottom line though, is that it's a massive waste of bandwidth. It's like VOD-izing everything from a network perspective, and it requires a huge investment in node-splitting just to support the bandwidth to do it during peak usage hours. Even VOD is a huge waste of bandwidth, although stupid customers seem to like it, since apparently having a TiVo or DVR with Season Passes is too complicated for a lot of people.


It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels *actually being watched* at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).



Bigg said:


> ...Unlikely that it would work very well.


And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.



Bigg said:


> Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.


What will most people do if the only way to get the content is to sit through the ads? Simple: they will sit through the ads. We all did that all the time until the DVR was invented. Once you can't skip commercials advertising rates will rise again. More revenue.

So, to recap, despite the need to have servers to run the cloud DVR software and store the recordings, cloud DVRs and IP based transport allows the cable companies to reduce costs (very cheap STBs), increase revenue (higher ad rates) and stretch the existing cable plant to deliver more services (which will open up new revenue streams).

Who is being idiotic?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels *actually being watched* at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).
> 
> And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.
> 
> ...


I started time shifting my TV watching in the mid 80's with a VCR. I used the VCR to skip over commercials. It didn't take a DVR to enable commercial skipping. But it did make it easier.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Who is being idiotic?


To be fair, you're outlining realities that many folks simply don't want to be true. They don't want the industry to run like an industry. They don't want to have to pay what things are truly worth, but rather want to get everything at very high quality for very low prices. It's human nature to rail against the reality you're putting forward.


----------



## rexreed (Jun 4, 2013)

Grakthis said:


> Wait, what? In what world would broadcasters stop broadcasting because now someone else can carry their content without paying them? You know that for decades the broadcasters received no carry fees, and were DELIGHTED when cable companies wanted to carry their channels, right?


That has NOT been the case for many years. Many folks, especially after the digital switch, rely on cable to receive their broadcast channels. The cable companies rely on local broadcasters for a percentage of their customers so they negotiate fees with the local provider.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lessd said:


> Comcast does not do that but I would guess the discount depends on you getting the triple play.


Comcast sent me an email about a "Video Bill" the other day. They created a whole video to explain how to read their bill.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.


I agree. I use my Roku everyday and it works perfect. I even use Aereo and it's flawless 100% of the time. How many people can say that about their Comcast boxes?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The expectations on the different devices are quite different, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Furthermore, there is no way around it - an IP-only video distribution model will be far more costly - 1000 streams instead of 250 - and you know who's going to pay for that, right? It'll only make sense to do it if customer see the worth in being expected to pay for it.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

bicker said:


> The expectations on the different devices are quite different, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Furthermore, there is no way around it - an IP-only video distribution model will be far more costly - 1000 streams instead of 250 - and you know who's going to pay for that, right? It'll only make sense to do it if customer see the worth in being expected to pay for it.


That would only be true of an all VOD IP model. Linear broadcasting would use multicast (a one to many session protocol) so 250 channels are 250 streams, no more. In addition, the digital content can be more efficiently transmitted over IP, and so would use the same or less bandwidth currently used for the QAM based system today. Even further, every router on the network works like a switched video junction, only passing the multicast traffic for channels actually being consumed downstream. So most "final mile" segments will only have a few dozen channels on the cable, instead of ALWAYS carrying 250.

The savings in hardware are huge. Furthermore, if the cable industry settles on a standard, the IP client could be built into TVs. Use an embedded Web browser and UI built in HTML5 and the cable operator has a zero footprint solution, totally under their control, with nothing beyond a cable modem on the customer premises.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> You keep thinking about it in terms of how the world is today. In 15 years, the industry will be completely different and TiVo as we know it won't exist.


In the 15 years since TiVo came out, we have gone from some small percentage of TV viewing being taped with VCRs to 15% being DVR'ed and 85% being watched live, and that's with over 50% adoption of DVRs among pay-TV customers. So maybe in another 15 years, we'll have 20 or 25% of TV usage being DVR'ed. Doesn't sound like doom and gloom for linear TV.



Diana Collins said:


> It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels *actually being watched* at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).


Well actually, they deliver just over 5gbps on a modern 860mhz plant, with non-video usages being a relatively small percentage of that. Many households watch multiple things at once. We often have 2 or 3 streams going at once, whether they are running through TiVo Premiere or Netflix/HBO Go.

Actually, by far the most expensive upgrade is going to be replacing every single box on the system, including the DTAs. Today's cloud DVR systems run on top of a linear QAM system, meaning that in addition to linear channels, you have to have that much MORE bandwidth for these stupid cloud DVR systems. They just make no sense. What makes sense is what Comcast started to do, and then stopped doing, which is to rebuild all the plants to 860mhz and then run all linear channels. The part that they are missing is the conversion to MPEG-4, which, when combined with an 860mhz plant, would give them incredible capacity.



> And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.


Not only are they relatively slow and unresponsive compared to a DVR, the cable company doesn't control the whole path, so people's crappy networks could screw everything up. Hence, they really need to be tied to coax so that the cable company controls the whole thing.



> What will most people do if the only way to get the content is to sit through the ads? Simple: they will sit through the ads. We all did that all the time until the DVR was invented. Once you can't skip commercials advertising rates will rise again. More revenue.


They will either pay more for a local DVR, and the network DVR will be underutilized, or if they can't do that, they will switch to whoever offers a DVR that actually works, like DirecTV. Cable wouldn't risk losing millions of subs because they wouldn't offer a real DVR that actually works.



> So, to recap, despite the need to have servers to run the cloud DVR software and store the recordings, cloud DVRs and IP based transport allows the cable companies to reduce costs (very cheap STBs), increase revenue (higher ad rates) and stretch the existing cable plant to deliver more services (which will open up new revenue streams).
> 
> Who is being idiotic?


The switch to IP would be ungodly expensive. Considering they don't want to spend the relatively small amount of money for plant rebuilds and MPEG-4 conversion, there's NO WAY they are going to spend the money to convert to IP in the foreseeable future.

The cable plants already can deliver more. The companies who are still in the dark ages with analog can kill that bandwidth waste off, and Comcast can move to an all-860mhz system with MPEG-4 HD. There's no need for spending hundreds of millions on IP delivery.



aadam101 said:


> Comcast sent me an email about a "Video Bill" the other day. They created a whole video to explain how to read their bill.


LOL. Their bills are totally unintelligible. I've never been able to balance one out with the various credits and charges that they use.



Diana Collins said:


> The savings in hardware are huge. Furthermore, if the cable industry settles on a standard, the IP client could be built into TVs. Use an embedded Web browser and UI built in HTML5 and the cable operator has a zero footprint solution, totally under their control, with nothing beyond a cable modem on the customer premises.


You think they would give up the control that boxes give them? HAHAHA. They love having control over the hardware (except for TiVo and MCE users anyways, but customers are customers).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

FiOS had planned to go to IP delivery by now. But instead they are adding more and more H.264 channels. The only reason they can't add a lot more is because a large percentage of boxes only handle MPEG2 and not H.264. So it would be very expensive to replace all those boxes.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> aadam101 said:
> 
> 
> > I use my Roku everyday and it works perfect.
> ...


Which is the most common manner with which Roku is used, today.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> In the 15 years since TiVo came out, we have gone from some small percentage of TV viewing being taped with VCRs to 15% being DVR'ed and 85% being watched live, and that's with over 50% adoption of DVRs among pay-TV customers. So maybe in another 15 years, we'll have 20 or 25% of TV usage being DVR'ed. Doesn't sound like doom and gloom for linear TV....
> 
> Well actually, they deliver just over 5gbps on a modern 860mhz plant, with non-video usages being a relatively small percentage of that. Many households watch multiple things at once. We often have 2 or 3 streams going at once, whether they are running through TiVo Premiere or Netflix/HBO Go.
> 
> ...


I think you are so focused on the trees, you are not seeing the forest. Conversion to IP distribution doesn't require MPEG-4 - actually, the more efficient distribution more than makes up for the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Conversion to MPEG-4 is a separate issue from IP delivery.

As far as the cost of replacing STBs, the vast majority of the STBs are fully depreciated, so they are already less profitable than they were. A hardware refresh with a box that costs them around $10 or so, but which they can continue to rent to the viewer at the current rates, resets the depreciation clock.

Nothing about IP distribution and/or "no STB" configurations causes a loss of control. Even with the UI coming from the cable company servers in HTML5 and a browser and app built into a TV, the cable company will still be able to control authorization and will still charge an "outlet fee" (just as DirecTV does with RVU enabled TVs).

Just because a company hasn't done "X" does not mean that they will never do "Y" (or "X" for that matter). To say that because cable companies have not yet converted to MPEG-4 means they won't convert to IP distribution is an invalid assumption. The cable companies are no more sure of the future (technologically, financially or regulatorily) than we are. The Cablecard rulings have been set aside, and the FCC is reviewing the options. If and when they issue a new set of rules, I think you'll see action. We are also not yet finished with the shake out in this industry. If Comcast/TWC is approved, you will probably see more mergers (e.g. AT&T/DirecTV). In this climate, I'm not surprised companies are holding off on major investments. They are all trying to stretch their current environments to last until the future is more clear. Eventually, the future will be here...and it won't take decades.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> I think you are so focused on the trees, you are not seeing the forest. Conversion to IP distribution doesn't require MPEG-4 - actually, the more efficient distribution more than makes up for the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Conversion to MPEG-4 is a separate issue from IP delivery.


If they issue new boxes and build a new architecture (which they aren't any time soon), it will support at least MPEG-4, and probably HEVC by then. Running everything in HEVC would be a huge bandwidth savings, and for a given codec, and the bandwidth of a QAM-based system with SDV and an IP-based system is about the same, unless you move to a newer modulation scheme with DOCSIS 3.1, but that would be a nightmare in and of itself.



> As far as the cost of replacing STBs, the vast majority of the STBs are fully depreciated, so they are already less profitable than they were. A hardware refresh with a box that costs them around $10 or so, but which they can continue to rent to the viewer at the current rates, resets the depreciation clock.


That makes sense for older boxes, like today's MPEG-2-only boxes to switch to QAM-based MPEG-4, but that doesn't work for the newer MPEG-4 capable boxes.



> Nothing about IP distribution and/or "no STB" configurations causes a loss of control. Even with the UI coming from the cable company servers in HTML5 and a browser and app built into a TV, the cable company will still be able to control authorization and will still charge an "outlet fee" (just as DirecTV does with RVU enabled TVs).


If they don't own the hardware that decodes the video, they lose control. They lose a lot of control over us because we have TiVos, but that's mandated by federal law.



> Just because a company hasn't done "X" does not mean that they will never do "Y" (or "X" for that matter). To say that because cable companies have not yet converted to MPEG-4 means they won't convert to IP distribution is an invalid assumption. The cable companies are no more sure of the future (technologically, financially or regulatorily) than we are. The Cablecard rulings have been set aside, and the FCC is reviewing the options. If and when they issue a new set of rules, I think you'll see action. We are also not yet finished with the shake out in this industry. If Comcast/TWC is approved, you will probably see more mergers (e.g. AT&T/DirecTV). In this climate, I'm not surprised companies are holding off on major investments. They are all trying to stretch their current environments to last until the future is more clear. Eventually, the future will be here...and it won't take decades.


My point is that Comcast and the others rarely ever upgrade ANYTHING unless they are dragged kicking and screaming into it. DirecTV finally dragged Comcast into upgrading their HD lineup, which required all-digital (they wanted to get rid of analog anyways, as people could steal it), and some plant upgrades (although they stopped halfway through that project). The benefits of MPEG-4 and rebuilding plants to 860mhz are known, clear, and proven in the field, and yet they are partially done or not done at all. This mythical future IP over coax system would be enormously expensive, and offer no benefit whatsoever to Comcast. MEPG-4 and 860mhz offer huge benefits to their ability to compete with other providers, offer more bandwidth, more channels, more pay packages, etc.

The only thing coming in the next decade is DOCSIS 3.1, and even that is going to be extremely slow, as it's not backwards compatible with the massive install base of DOCSIS 2 and 3 equipment that's out there now. DOCSIS 3 can be scaled up to 24 channels downstream on a single modem, and with limited competition in most areas, and FIOS showing no signs of going past 80mbps with a reasonably priced package, I think the 105/150mbps packages are pretty much the end of the line for speed upgrades. The two proven upgrades that they have available to invest in are MPEG-4 and 860mhz for the systems that aren't 860mhz yet.

The architecture is there, the big innovations in the coming years are going to be software, services, authentication, the boxes, etc. Look at X1, TV anywhere streaming, their new Wifi gateways. All of that stuff runs on the existing QAM infrastructure yet looks and feels new and innovative (and in some ways is) to the end user. And all that new equipment they are rolling out now is DOCSIS 3 and MPEG-2 or 4 over QAM, so that's what they will be using for many years to come.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> If they issue new boxes and build a new architecture (which they aren't any time soon), it will support at least MPEG-4, and probably HEVC by then. Running everything in HEVC would be a huge bandwidth savings, and for a given codec, and the bandwidth of a QAM-based system with SDV and an IP-based system is about the same, unless you move to a newer modulation scheme with DOCSIS 3.1, but that would be a nightmare in and of itself...


I give up...I and others point to industry trends, market developments and technology alliances and you respond with opinion with no factual support. Believe what you want.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> I give up...I and others point to industry trends, market developments and technology alliances and you respond with opinion with no factual support. Believe what you want.


First of all, any new system will NOT be MPEG-2. We know that. But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM. MPEG-4 is obvious, that's a capacity issue. But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> First of all, any new system will NOT be MPEG-2. We know that. But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM. MPEG-4 is obvious, that's a capacity issue. But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...


Comcast has! On multiple occasions! That's all that ever comes out of the mouths of CEOs and CTOs of cable companies, that IP distribution is coming and that is is what they are planning to move to.

You have obviously, over the course of this thread and others that you simply do not understand where the industry is going. You seem to be constantly viewing the state of things as if mobile devices don't exist, as if it is the year 2004.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Bigg said:


> But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM... But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...


Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.

Those things will never change.

Video-QAM works fine, but if you're going to expand your services to more devices, you'll have to keep 2 technologies forever, or you can choose one that can do both. The amount of headend equipment is cut in half. Even better, new services in the future would not require new headend equipment, but are just software services living in some server way way up the city or regional, maybe even national network..

Replacement box costs?
Most TV's sold today can decode mpeg4 and have IP stacks. As well as all the tablets and smart phones. And all the streamer boxes. This is actually reduced box costs almost free, the customer paid for them.

Anyway, I don't think the cost is an interesting question. They look at it as what services can they offer to increase revenue. Advertiser or Customer revenue.

Even the most basic, how is Comcast going to roll out more OnDemand screens? Switched Video-QAM and an IP request channel? Or an all IP channel?

If Comcast doesn't move into these segments, the customer will go to Apple or Amazon and Comcast would lose that revenue.

There's a whole other topic of ad insertion, I'm not going into.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?


Of course it will be a slow process. No one is claiming Comcast is going to replace 60-70 million set top boxes next month. Heck, Charter is even working on a new UI/software system for their boxes that delivers the guide over a QAM instead of IP based.

These things are transitory, though. The new boxes can receive their bits whether they're an MPEG stream directly encoded in QAM or whether they are delivered over a DOCSIS carrier. The point isn't what are they going to do over the next 5 years, it's what are they doing over the next 10-15?



telemark said:


> Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
> 3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.
> 
> Those things will never change.
> ...


Bingo. Why keep the QAM linear video system going when you could just put an "app" on every STB and use the same system for TVs that is used for iPads.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Comcast has! On multiple occasions! That's all that ever comes out of the mouths of CEOs and CTOs of cable companies, that IP distribution is coming and that is is what they are planning to move to.
> 
> You have obviously, over the course of this thread and others that you simply do not understand where the industry is going. You seem to be constantly viewing the state of things as if mobile devices don't exist, as if it is the year 2004.


Yeah right. Comcast is going to drag their heels for another god knows how many years on MPEG-4 and plant upgrades, and maybe eventually do those. At this point, it almost looks like they're never going to upgrade some of the archaic 650mhz plants like mine, and will instead use MPEG-4 to cram more channels onto a 1980's-era system instead of actually going out there and doing the upgrade that they need to do. At the rate they upgrade, IP is several decades off if they ever do it. They still have to get through MPEG-4, plant rebuilds, node splitting and maybe SDV before they even get to IP, and once they have all of those, they will have all the advantages of IP for a lot less money, so why on earth would they then rip everything out and do IP? It's an illogical argument.

Mobile has jack sh*t to do with how they distribute their cable TV service. They are two completely separate systems that share a wire. The current platform allows streaming video just fine.



aaronwt said:


> Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?


MPEG-4 would be relatively quick and easy (for a cable company) like the analog transition was. They would probably tier it, starting with premium channels, and trickling down a few channels at a time through Preferred and Starter so that not everyone who has somehow held on to an ancient HD box would be surprised at the same time when HD channels are disappearing.

System capacity. They could go to 5 or 6 HDs per QAM with MPEG-4, versus the they get now, and improve video quality in the process.



telemark said:


> Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
> 3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.


Those services are totally irrelevant to IP delivery of the cable TV product. They don't share the same streams, and they can't share the same streams. A 6-9mbps MPEG-4 stream delivered over IP can't be used for an iPad or laptop, as it's too high of a bitrate, and it's not adaptive. Secondly, it has no way to get from the cable side of things to the internet modem and through the user's router. The cable side uses IP multicast, and is a closed system, the internet side is an open system that uses IP unicast. Two different, incompatible systems. Look at U-Verse. WatchESPN is completely separate from ESPN the cable channel, WatchESPN is internet traffic, ESPN is cable traffic, and they are treated completely separately, even though they share the wire from the VRAD to the RG.

And if something in the house re-creates a new stream through re-encoding, well you can do that now with QAM.



> Those things will never change.
> 
> Video-QAM works fine, but if you're going to expand your services to more devices, you'll have to keep 2 technologies forever, or you can choose one that can do both. The amount of headend equipment is cut in half. Even better, new services in the future would not require new headend equipment, but are just software services living in some server way way up the city or regional, maybe even national network..


They are two completely separate services. Streaming video uses servers on the internet, not head end equipment at the cable head end.



> Replacement box costs?
> Most TV's sold today can decode mpeg4 and have IP stacks. As well as all the tablets and smart phones. And all the streamer boxes. This is actually reduced box costs almost free, the customer paid for them.


AT&T did briefly do the XBOX 360 experiment with U-Verse, but other than that, none of those could handle a U-Verse stream. They aren't designed for it, and AT&T wouldn't give up control anyways. It's the same for this mythical IP system on Comcast.



> Anyway, I don't think the cost is an interesting question. They look at it as what services can they offer to increase revenue. Advertiser or Customer revenue.
> 
> Even the most basic, how is Comcast going to roll out more OnDemand screens? Switched Video-QAM and an IP request channel? Or an all IP channel?


Plant upgrades, node splits, and MPEG-4. If they are running a jam-packed 1ghz plant, then SDV is the next step. IP is not needed in any of that, as SDV gets you the same advantages, as long as it works reliably. Node splits and SDV of course complement each other, since SDV makes so much more of the capacity re-usable.



> If Comcast doesn't move into these segments, the customer will go to Apple or Amazon and Comcast would lose that revenue.
> 
> There's a whole other topic of ad insertion, I'm not going into.


They are already doing all of this stuff on an archaic MPEG-2 QAM system. They can go to MPEG-4 with QAM, get more capacity in the mean time, and be able to keep most of their existing equipment.


----------

