Supreme court to decide if company can stream OTA tv over the internet

Page 3 of 4  
bob haller wrote: "- show quoted text - no just interested in the industry. I repair machines for a living "
Great. And I happen to be the proad owner of a rooftop antenna picking up my ATSC that way and loving it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 11:41:53 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I have a yagi rooftop antenna witha rotor. am not using it currently...
The issue is this, we need internet access and the most affordable is comcast.
I would drop tv but it saves very little money....
we are looking at internet alternatives, but so far no really good deals...
the antenna works very good
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:41:03 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

So then WHY are you in favor of doing away with OTA?? smh...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/24/2014 10:53 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

A number of years ago, I bought one of those walkman types of portable TVs. Granted, I'd bought it "open box" which may have been a problem, but I rarely got any decent reception on it, despite living close to the local networks' combined candelabra tower. And it had a telescoping antenna that was, I don't know, 8-10" long; I'm not sure that would be too popular on a phone, although may on a table it wouldn't be too big. (Actually, I wish I could buy one of those walkman tvs now. It would come in handy during power outages when I wouldn't have wifi anyhow).
Aereo appears to be an interesting idea, but it only has the same channels I can get anyhow (still close to that candelabra). If it carried a few more channels like TNT, I'd be more interested.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/24/14 05:28 pm, Lee B wrote:

TNT isn't an OTA channel, and I think it's only OTA broadcasts that Aereo is relaying.
I doubt very much whether there is anything to stop you sending signals from your antenna to a bunch of neighbors by coaxial cable (transmitting would require a license for a frequency allocated to you), but the problem seems to be that Aereo is charging for the service, and CBS, NBC, etc., aren't getting a cut, as they do from the satellite and cable companies.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/24/2014 6:08 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Sorry, I should have clarified. I realize that TNT is not OTA. There are a few non-OTA networks that I watch, TNT being one, and if I could figure how to get those "missing" channels, I'd be more willing to get rid of my cable and live with an OTA dvr or a service like Aereo which has a dvr of sorts. Truthfully, I'd be happy if I could just watch those few cable stations online for a small fee, but for now they only allow online viewing if you can prove you subscribe to a participating cable/sat company. Or maybe I'll just learn to live without them! In any case it will be interesting to see how this case turns out, and if Aereo wins, see if similar companies pop up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:08:17 PM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Of course there is something stopping you from taking an OTA signal and then redistributing it for free. The court case with Aero is over copyrights and violation of copyrights occurs whether you charge for it or give it away. If you put up an antenna and ran a cable down the street to 6 houses, unlikely that the networks are going to know about what you're doing or even do anything if they found out, but from everything I see, it's exactly the same copyright violation issue that they are pursuing with regard to Aero. You can't take something that's copyrighted and redistribute it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Used to be that cable systems were subjected to Must Carry Laws meaning just that because the locals were concerned about being shut out. Then CATV got to be big biz and TV stations decided they wanted a cut and got the Congress to change the law.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If only they'd done the same for WKRP instead of replacing all the rock music with public-domain crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

With MV, the show was often built around the music and it was like another character. With WKPR the music was just something going in the background to let you know it was a radio station. Of course that don't make it right (grin).
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

The most egregious example of that I can think of is the "The Rebel" which when broadcast in primetime had the very catchy theme song sung by Johnny Cash. In syndication that song's nowhere to be heard.
http://www.last.fm/music/Johnny+Cash/_/The+Rebel+-+Johnny+Yuma
Using popular music has gotten a lot easier for TV producers (almost every dramatic show seems to have a pop music montage ending these days) but it still costs a pretty penny for nationally broadcast shows. I listen to the commentary on DVDs and the directors are always lamenting how much a tiny snippet of even a fairly out-of-date popular song costs.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

I find their position a little disingenuous because they are supported by the ads interspersed with their broadcast content so they could actually claim *more* users and raise their ad rates. Not sure if Aereo's DVR has a commercial skip button (one of God's greatest gifts to mankind, IMHO) - that might get their panties in a bunch. I am trusting the Supremes to royally screw up this decision in the same way they've screwed up so many other decision. Throughout the years, both left and right leaning courts have shown remarkable ignorance when it comes to deciding technical issues. I've watched them testify in Congress about the court's technical needs and so far, only Justice Thomas seem to understand the basics of computers.
Justice Steven's new book really takes CJ Robert's to the woodshed:
<<Last month's decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission struck down aggregate contribution limits, allowing rich people to make donations to an unlimited number of federal candidates. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. started his controlling opinion with a characteristically crisp and stirring opening sentence: "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders."
But that was misleading, Justice Stevens said. "The first sentence here," he said, "is not really about what the case is about."
The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had made contributions to 15 candidates in the 2012 election. He sued so he could give money to 12 more. None of the candidates in the second group was running in Alabama.>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/politics/justice-stevenss-prescription-for-giant-step-in-wrong-direction.html
http://tinyurl.com/m8tpdfz
Ah, Alabama, leading the country backwards as fast as shi+ through a canebrake. )-:
I think Stevens hit the nail squarely on the head in describing how national "interest" (more like "pressure") groups are distorting American politics by trying to influence so many local elections with outside money. I've confident that just as the many decisions of the ultra-liberal Warren court got neutered over the years, so shall it be with the decisions of the ultra-conservative Robert's court in years to come.
Or, as my friend put so succinctly "If Roberts is right and corporations are basically the same as people with free speech and freedom of religion rights, why hasn't Governor Perry executed one yet?"
--

Bobby G.







Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Sounds like you watched the same PBS special last night that I did. Pretty amazing stuff!
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

Total hogwash.
For one thing, the 700 mhz band was once used by UHF channels 53 through 69. All TV stations in north america that were using those channels got kicked off them. The 700 mhz band has many excellent reception qualities for small devices with limited antenna space. It doesn't get that much worse for lower-freqency channels (like 20 through 52).
The VHF channels would be more problematic, but many TV stations have abandoned them in favor of UHF.
Combine that with the fact that your average TV transmitting is pumping out 10's of kwatt (at minimum) to several hundred thousand watts of RF power, and digital signals mean you either get a solid picture - or you don't, means that your argument has just been cut to horse shit.
Finally, there ARE cell phones in asia with built-in ATSC tuners.
There are many more different types of consumer electronics products in asia that are not seen in the US market, like digital versions of the good-old VCR (not talking about cable boxes with hard drives either).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While unnecessarily full-quoting, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

If instead of selling you a TV antenna and installing it for, oh, say $250, what if I rented it to you for $5 a month?
What if I included a box that was a tuner and digital VCR combination that let you record stuff on a schedule for you to watch later? All you do is connect your TV via hdmi and use it like a monitor.
You cancel the service, I take back the box and antenna.
How would that be any different, from a content rights point of view, than what Aereo is doing?
Can the internet connection that Aereo is using be considered as having "common carrier" status, and hence can't be discriminated against in terms of being a private communications channel?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

You can get them here if you know where to look:
http://www.mediasonic.ca/product.php?id 65123671
$40 for an ATSC HD personal video recorder at Amazon. Just add a USB stick or external HD. Just bought one for every TV in the house. Has four kinds of outputs (RF, HDMI, composite, component) to accommodate virtually any TV ever made.
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
Personally I think they haven't put TV's in phones because not many people are crazed enough about TV to want to suffer through looking at it on a 4" screen with a 1/2" speaker. There are some, obviously, but I suspect many more people find built in GPS navigation for more useful in a phone.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

If true, that supports my suggestion that one reason you may not see them here is that the cell phone carriers here don't want it.

What exactly are you talking about? We have DVR's here in the good old USA that are not cable boxes. I have one. Are you talking about Blu Ray recorders? You can buy those too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

likely already counted and just move (essentially) from one method of delivery to another. The TV people only break even. Now the Cable guys (initially anyway) had such an argument because they would often pick up the signal in an area that was either not well covered or where the signal was spotty (thus cable originally being Community ANTENNA Television or CATV).
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's not what I read. They are targeting people who *should* be in the signal area but because of the "urban canyon" effect can't receive a good signal where they live. I'm suburban and it's one reason I am keeping cable a little while longer. I am on the side of a hill and TV stations on the other side of the hill just don't come in well. That's why Aereo is big in cities like NYC that can have close to zero reception in areas blocked by very tall buildings.
What bothers me most about the case is that the Supremes showed little to no concern over the concept that local broadcast stations allowed to transmit their broadcasts over public airwaves on the condition that they keep these broadcasts free for viewing. The networks allege that Aereo's technology is designed simply to evade copyright law (and more importantly to the TV broadcasters) and the enormous retransmission fees that cable companies pay them. Even though OTA content has been free, all along, to most anyone with a TV.

Are you *sure* about that? There have been some pretty big numbers thrown around re: the retransmission fees that locals have been able to squeeze out of cable companies for retransmission. This case is about those fees and not really about much else. Why would cable companies still keep paying them if Aereo makes that content available for far less? If the broadcasters aren't making enough money it *could* be because they've upset their own episodic TV model for cheap, reality shows and ten different versions of "Dancing with American Idol's the Voice" or whatever.
You don't have to remember very far back to when the TV industry was apoplectic about the Beta-max and were proclaiming it was the end of broadcast TV, just as they're whining now about Aereo. Yet the tape and DVD aftermarket made them more money in the long run than retransmission fees and advertising revenue.

Which is exactly what Aereo is doing, without paying fees that the TV cabal had agreed to and that's why they are so hot. Technology has knocked them out of a very lucrative loop. What makes me laught are the threats by broadcasters that they'll stop public broadcasts. I'd like to see Aereo succeed just to make liars out of all those crying "we can't survive in a world with Aereo." Pull the plug on their license to use the public airwaves to make money? That will be the day.
The case that brought the matter to the Supreme Court is here:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/WNET_v_ Aereo_Inc_712_F3d_676_106_USPQ2d_1341_2013_ILRC_1603_35_IL
http://tinyurl.com/mjdwowk
<<herefore, the potential audience of each Aereo transmission was the single user who requested that the program, and under Cablevision, transmission of a copyrighted work to a single subscriber is not a "public performance" in violation of the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs' argument that this conclusion was inconsistent with the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act was incompatible with Cablevision. Furthermore, it ignored Congress' intent to distinguish between public and private transmissions. While technological advances since 1976 might have rendered that distinction harder to draw, Congress' express language could not be ignored. . . While plaintiffs argue that discrete transmissions of the same performance should be aggregated to determine whether a public performance has occurred, this argument is foreclosed by Cablevision, which made clear that the relevant inquiry under the Transmit Clause is the potential audience of a particular transmission, not the potential audience for the underlying work or the particular performance of that work being transmitted.>>
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, then it is serving as a CATV or cable system, just w/o the the cable. Sorta like charging for ethernet but not for wifi.

pretended that that extends to having people take the signal and retransmit and get paid for it w/o cutting in the others. The signal is free as originally and completely intended, OTA. The networks allege that Aereo's technology is designed simply to

shouldn't the TV people get a cut. Those who don't want to pay for it, can still get it for free OTA.

You were talking about how TV stations could get more money because of the increased eyeballs through Aereo. But this was just a movement of the same eyeballs from one form of delivery to another. It was the number of people (and thus advertising revenue) that would stay the same. That I am sure about.

stations, which is what we are talking about here, don't have any access to the aftermarket.

What makes me laught are the threats by

PR hyperbole by the networks? Shocking, I say, shocking!
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.